Bureaucrats are important agents in participatory governance processes, especially in local government where bureaucrats are awarded greater discretion to enact small changes to local policy. This study employs a large field experiment to test (1) whether bureaucrats tasked with policy design and implementation engage with citizen input and (2) whether bureaucrats’ engagement with citizen input can be increased by using non-monetary rewards and value-based communication. It finds low baseline engagement but that motivational interventions increase engagement with citizen input significantly and substantially. The study contributes to theories of public service motivation and the role of bureaucrats in serving the public. Empirically, its contribution centres on testing the potential for interventions to heighten the attention bureaucrats award to information that citizens legitimately relay to the bureaucracy via participatory initiatives.
AndrewsR.EsteveM.. 2015. “Still Like Ships that Pass in the Night? The Relationship Between Public Administration And Management Studies.” International Public Management Journal: Symposium on the State of Public Management18, 1: 31‐60.
2.
AshrafN.BandieraO.JackB. K.. 2014. “No Margin, No Mission? A Field Experiment on Incentives for Public Service Delivery.” Journal of Public Economics120: 1‐17.
3.
AsseburgJ.HombergF.VogelR.. 2018. “Recruitment Messaging, Environ- Mental Fit and Public Service Motivation: Experimental Evidence on Intentions to Apply for Public Sector Jobs.” International Journal of Public Sector Management31: 689‐709.
4.
BakkerA. B.2015. “A Job Demands–Resources Approach to Public Service Motivation.” Public Administration Review75, 5: 723‐732.
5.
BelleN.2015. “Performance-Related Pay and The Crowding out Of Motivation in the Public Sector: A Randomized Field Experiment.” Public Administration Review75, 2: 230‐241.
6.
Ben-NerA.PuttermanL. E.. 1998. Economics, Values, and Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BertelliA.FeldmannS. E.. 2007. “Strategic appointments.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17, 1: 19‐38.
8.
BertelliA. M.2012. The Political Economy of Public Sector Governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BertelliA. M.RiccucciN. M.. 2020. “What is Behavioral Public Administration Good For?” Public Administration Review82: 179‐183.
10.
BouldingC.WamplerB.. 2010. “Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being.” World Development38, 1: 125‐135.
11.
BovairdT.L¨offlerE.. 2009. “More Quality through Competitive Quality Awards? An Impact Assessment Framework.” International Review of Administrative Sciences75, 3: 383‐401.
12.
BozemanB.SuX.. 2015. “Public Service Motivation Concepts and Theory: A Critique.” Public Administration Review75, 5: 700‐710.
13.
BradlerC.NeckermannS.. 2016. The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts. Amsterdam: Tinbergen Insti- tute.
14.
CohenN.BenishA.Shamriz-IlouzA.. 2016. “When the Clients Can Choose: Dilemmas of Street-Level Workers in Choice-Based Social Services.” Social Service Review90, 4: 620‐646.
15.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M.. 1999. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin125, 6: 627‐668.
16.
EbdonC.FranklinA. L.. 2006. “Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory.” Public Administration Review66, 3: 437‐447.
17.
EsteveM.SchusterC.. 2019. Motivating public employees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FischerF.2012. “Participatory Governance: From Theory to Practice.” In The Oxford handbook of governance, edited by Levi-FaurDavid. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
19.
FontJ.SmithG.GalaisC.AlarconP.. 2018. “Cherry-Picking Participation: Explaining The Fate of Proposals from Participatory Processes.” European Journal of Political Research57, 3: 615‐636.
20.
FreyB. S.GallusJ.. 2017. “Towards an Economics of Awards.” Journal of Economic Surveys31, 1: 190‐200.
21.
FungA.2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review66, SUPPL. 1: 66‐75.
22.
GainsF.JohnP.. 2010. “What Do Bureaucrats Like Doing? Bureaucratic Preferences in Response to Institutional Reform.” Public Administration Review70, 3: 455‐463.
23.
GallusJ.2015. “Fostering Public Good Contributions with Symbolic Awards: A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment at Wikipedia.” Management Science63, 12: 3999‐4015.
24.
GeisselB.2009. “Participatory Governance: Hope or Danger for Democracy?” A Case Study of Local Agenda2135, 4: 401‐414.
25.
GrantA. M.CampbellE. M.ChenG.CottoneK.LapedisD.LeeK.. 2007. “Impact and the Art of Motivation Maintenance: The Effects of Contact with Beneficiaries on Persistence Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes103, 1: 53‐67.
26.
GuoH. D.NeshkovaM. I.. 2012. “Citizen Input in the Budget Process.” The American Review of Public Administration43, 3: 331‐346.
27.
HerianM. N.HammJ. A.TomkinsA. J.Pytlik ZilligL. M.. 2012. “Public Participation, Procedural Fairness, and Evaluations of Local Governance: The Moderating Role of Uncertainty.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22, 4: 815‐840.
28.
IrvinR. A.StansburyJ.. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review64, 1: 55‐65.
29.
JohnP.2009. “Can Citizen Governance Redress the Representative Bias of Political Participation?” Public Administration Review69, 3: 494‐503.
30.
KrollA.NeshkovaM. I.PandeyS. K.. 2019. “Spillover Effects from Customer to Citizen Orientation: How Performance Management Reforms can Foster Public Participation.” Administration Society51, 8: 1227‐1253.
31.
LeeD. S.2009. “Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects.” The Review of Economic Studies76, 3: 1071‐1102.
32.
LinosE.2018. “More than Public Service: A Field Experiment on Job Advertisements and Diversity in the Police.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28, 1: 67‐85.
33.
LipskyM.1983. Street-Level Bureaucracy The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Publications of Russell Sage Foundation Street-level bureau- cracyRussell Sage Foundation.
34.
LowndesV.PratchettL.StokerG.. 2001. “Trends in Public Participation: Part 2 - Citizens’ Perspectives.” Public Administration79, 2: 445‐455.
35.
MaricutoiuL. P.SavaF. A.ButtaO.. 2016. “The Effectiveness of Controlled Interventions on Employees’ Burnout: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology89, 1: 1‐27.
36.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.. 2006. “Political Control Versus Bureaucratic Values: Reframing the Debate.” Public Administration Review66, 2: 177‐192.
37.
MichelsA.2011. “Innovations in Democratic Governance: How Does Citizen Participation Contribute to a Better Democracy?” International Review of Administrative Sciences77, 2: 275‐293.
38.
MigchelbrinkK.Van De WalleS.. 2020. “When Will Public Officials Listen? A Vignette Experiment on the Effects of Input Legitimacy on Public Officials’ Willingness to use Public Participation.” Public Administration Review80, 2: 271‐280.
39.
MorenoR.ParkB.. 2010. Cognitive Load Theory: Historical Development and Relation to other Theories. In Cognitive load theory, edited by PlassJ. L.MorenoR.BrünkenR., 9‐28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
OECD. 2009. Focus on Citizens – Public engagement for Better Policy and Services.
41.
PageE. C.2012. Policy Without Politicians: Bureaucratic Influence in Com- parative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
PanagopoulosC.2011. “Thank You for Voting: Gratitude Expression and Voter Mobilization.” Journal of Politics73, 3: 707‐717.
43.
PandeyS. K.PandeyS.BreslinR.BroadusE.2017. “Public Service Motivation Research Program: Key Challenges and Future Prospects”. In Foundations of Public Administration, edited by RaadscheldersJosStillmanRichard, Chapter 19, 314–332. Irvine, CA: Melvin and Leigh.
44.
PerryJ. L. 2000. “Bringing Society in: Toward a Theory of Public-Service Motivation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10, 2: 471‐488.
45.
PerryJ. LVandenabeeleW.. 2015. “Public Service Motivation Research: Achievements, Chal- lenges, and Future Directions.” Public Administration Review75, 5: 692‐699.
46.
PrendergastC.2007. “The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats.” American Economic Review97, 1: 180‐196.
47.
RitzA.2015. “Public Service Motivation and Politics: Behavioural Consequences among Local Councillors in Switzerland.” Public Administration93, 4: 1121‐1137.
48.
SchneiderH.1999. “Participatory Governance for Poverty Reduction.” Journal of International Development11, 4: 521‐534.
49.
SpeerJ.2012. “Participatory Governance Reform: A Good Strategy for In- creasing Government Responsiveness and Improving Public Services?” World Development40, 12: 2379‐2398.
50.
TingM. M.2001. “The ”Power of the Purse” and Its Implications for Bureaucratic Policy-Making.” Public Choice106, 3–4: 243‐274.
51.
TummersL.BekkersV.. 2014. “Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureau- cracy, and the Importance of Discretion.” Public Management Review16, 4: 527‐547.
52.
YangK.CallahanK.. 2007. “Citizen Involvement Efforts and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Participatory Values, Stakeholder Pressures, and Administrative Practicality.” Public Administration Review67, 2: 249‐264.
53.
YangK.PandeyS. K.. 2011. “Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?” Public Administration71, 6: 880‐892.
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.
