The Great Recession had a major effect on the provision of local public services. This article examines civic engagement before, during, and after the Great Recession using data from State of the Profession surveys sponsored by the International City/County Management Association. This study finds that cities increased their use of technology to inform citizens during the recession, but there were declines in the use of citizen surveys and strategic plans. The cities that were most impacted by the downturn had greater support for civic engagement activities in the aftermath of the Great Recession. The results indicate that fiscal stress impacts civic engagement in complex ways.
AmmonsDavid N.SmithKarl W.StenbergCarl W.. 2012. The future of local government: Will current stresses bring major, permanent changes?State and Local Government Review44:64S–75S.
2.
ArnsteinSherry R.1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35:216–24.
3.
BaiocchiGianpaoloGanuzaErnesto. 2014. Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics and Society4:29–50.
4.
BarnesWilliamMannBonnie. 2010. Making local democracy work: Municipal officials’ views about public engagement. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
5.
BerryJeffry M.PortneyKent E.ThomsonKen. 1993. The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
BryerThomas A.2009. Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: Administrator and citizen role perceptions. Public Administration Review69:271–83.
7.
BrysonJohn M.QuickKathryn S.SlotterbackCarissa SchivelyCrosbyBarbara C.. 2013. Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review73:23–34.
8.
CallahanKathe. 2007. Elements of effective governance: Measurement, accountability, and participation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
9.
Center for State and Local Government Excellence. 2010. Survey findings: The Great Recession and the state and local government workforce. Washington, DC: Center for State and Local Government Excellence.
10.
Center for State and Local Government Excellence. 2012. Survey findings: State and local government workforce: 2012 trends. Washington, DC: Center for State and Local Government Excellence.
11.
DavisJon. 2014. Giving residents a say in city spending. Planning80:10.
12.
DenhardtJanet V.DenhardtRobert B.. 2007. The new public service: Serving, not steering, expanded edition. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
13.
GodwinMarcia L.2014. Complexity theory and the collapse of policy subsystems: Insights from the rise and fall of redevelopment in California. In COMPACT II: Administrative strategies for complex governance systems, edited by MeekJack W.MarshallKevin S., 239–66. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.
14.
HallerChrisFaulknerGeneva. 2012. Participatory budgeting in Denver, Colorado. National Civic Review101:23–25.
15.
HoeneChristopherKingsleyChristopherLeighningerMatthew. 2013. Bright spots in community engagement: Case studies of U.S. communities creating greater civic participation from the bottom up. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
16.
Hoene ChristopherW.PaganoMichael A.. 2009. Research brief on America’s cities: City fiscal conditions in 2009. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
17.
IngramHelenSmithSteven Rathgeb, eds. 1993. Public policy for democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E.. 2004. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice5:419–36.
19.
IrvinRenee A.StansburyJohn. 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review64:55–65.
20.
JoycePhilip G.PattisonScott. 2010. Public budgeting in 2020: Return to equilibrium, or continued mismatch between demands and resources?Public Administration Review70:s24–s32.
21.
LeighningerMattMannBonnie C.. 2011. Planning for stronger local democracy: A field guide for local officials. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
22.
LernerJosh. 2011. Participatory budgeting: Building community agreement around tough budget decisions. National Civic Review100:30–35.
23.
LevineCharles H.1978. Organizational decline and cutback management. Public Administration Review38:316–25.
24.
LevineCharles H.1979. More on cutback management: Hard questions for hard times. Public Administration Review39:179–83.
25.
MartinLawrence L.LeveyRichardCawleyJenna2012. The “new normal” for local government. State and Local Government Review44:17S–28S.
26.
McGalliardTad. 2014. Advancing sustainable communities through civic engagement and performance measurement. In The Municipal Year Book 2014, edited by ICMA, 67–76. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
27.
MichelsAnkGraafLaurens De. 2010. Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies36:477–91.
28.
MillerGerald J.SvaraJames H.. 2009. Navigating the fiscal crisis: Tested strategies for local leaders. Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation for the International City/County Management Association.
29.
MoulderEvelina R.2010. Citizen engagement: An evolving process. In The Municipal Year Book 2010, edited by ICMA, 28–32. Washington, DC: ICMA Press.
30.
NabatchiTina. 2010. Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. American Review of Public Administration40:376.
31.
NabatchiTina. 2012. Putting the ‘public’ back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review72:699–708.
32.
NabatchiTinaAmslerLisa Blomgren. 2014. Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration44:63S–88S.
33.
PaganoMichael A.HoeneChristopher W.McFarlandChristiana. 2012. Research brief on America’s cities: City fiscal conditions in 2012. Washington, DC: National League of Cities.
34.
PandeySanjay K.2010. Cutback management and the paradox of publicness. Public Administration Review70:564–71.
35.
PerlmanBruce J.Edwin BentonJ.. 2012. Going it alone: New survey data on economic recovery strategies in local government. State and Local Government Review44:5S–16S.
36.
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2013. America’s big cities in volatile times: Meeting fiscal challenges and preparing for the future. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
37.
SchugurenskyDaniel. 2012. The fourth dimension of civic engagement: Participatory budgeting from Brazil to the USA. PA Times, 35: January Supplement, 5–6.
38.
ScorsoneEric A.PlerhoplesChristina. 2010. Fiscal stress and cutback management amongst state and local governments: What have we learned and what remains to be learned?State & Local Government Review42:176–87.
39.
SecondoDonataLernerJosh. 2011. Participatory budgeting takes root in New York City. Social Policy41:22–25.
40.
StenbergCarl W.2011. Coping with crisis: How are local governments reinventing themselves in the wake of the great recession?Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
41.
ThomasJohn Clayton. 2012. Citizen, customer, partner: Engaging the public in public management. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
42.
VogelRobertMoulderEvelinaHugginsMike. 2014. The extent of public participation. Public Management96:6–10.
43.
Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation. 2013. Making public participation legal. Washington, DC: National Civic League.
44.
YangKaifeng. 2005. Public administrators' trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review65:273–85.
45.
YangKaifengCallahanKathe. 2007. Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review67:249–64.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
