International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/lpad20

Citizen Participation: Models and Methods

Kathe Callahan

To cite this article: Kathe Callahan (2007) Citizen Participation: Models and
Methods, International Journal of Public Administration, 30:11, 1179-1196, DOI:
10.1080/01900690701225366

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701225366

Published online: 31 Aug 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11715

View related articles

Citing articles: 61 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
Intl Journal of Public Administration, 30: 1179–1196, 2007
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1080/01900690701225366

Citizen Participation: Models and Methods

1532-4265
0190-0692
LPAD
Intl Journal of Public Administration,
Administration Vol. 30, No. 11, Jul 2007: pp. 0–0

Kathe Callahan
Citizen Participation
Callahan

School of Public Affairs and Administration Rutgers, The State University

of New Jersey, Campus at Newark, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Abstract: The belief that individuals should be given a voice in their governance
appeals to our democratic ideals and in fact has long been identified internationally as
one of the unique aspects of the United States. While there appears to be universal
agreement that the involvement of citizens in the decision making process of govern-
ment is a good idea, there is little agreement as to the best way to achieve meaningful
involvement. There are many ways to consult with the public and get a sense of what
they see as problems and opportunities; it is quite another thing to actively engage citi-
zens in the decision-making process. This paper explores the challenges and dilemmas
associated with direct citizen participation, reflects on the various models of citizen-
government interactions and makes recommendations for moving beyond conventional
participation. While the benefits of including citizens in the deliberative process are
widely recognized, citizen participation is not routinely sought in the decision making
process.

Keywords: citizen participation, decision making, performance

DEMOCRATIC THEORY AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Citizen participation is a “contested concept”[1] and possibly one of the biggest

questions surrounding civic engagement and public participation in govern-
ment decision making is determining how much participation is enough. Some
theories argue in favor of indirect involvement, while others favor direct and
deliberative models of collaboration. Indirect involvement acknowledges that
in a representative democracy elected officials and professional administrators
should act on the behalf of citizens and in the best interest of the state. Direct
democracy, on the other hand, suggests that citizens are the “owners” of gov-
ernment[2] and should therefore be involved in the decisions of the state.

Address correspondence to Kathe Callahan, School of Public Affairs and Adminis-

tration, Rutgers, 360 Martin Luther King Blvd., Hill Hall 724, Newark, NJ 07102,
USA; E-mail: Kathe@andromeda.rutgers.edu
1180 Callahan

Some political science theorists[3] have argued that representative democ-

racy is more appropriate and effective than direct democracy because direct
participation is untenable in the modern bureaucratic state. Direct participa-
tion is idealistic. People are either too passionate and selfish or too passive
and apathetic.[4] Indirect participation has its benefits. Citizens cannot be
expected to be responsible for every public sector decision; they lack the time,
knowledge, and personal motivation to do so. Given the size and complexity
of the public sector, direct participation is not realistic. The technical, political
and administrative skills needed to manage effectively in a global environ-
ment require a certain level of expertise that many citizens do not possess and
a time commitment the average citizen is not willing to make.
Irving and Stansbury[5] assert that direct participation has social and eco-
nomic costs that make it undesirable in certain situations and certain place-
based characteristics, such as community size, wealth and homogeneity, may
predict the success or failure of participation. Their research shows that ideal
conditions for effective participation exist in some communities, but not in
others. And Olson[6] argues that public participation is doomed because the
broad and shallow interests of citizens will always be overruled by the narrow
and deep interests of organized groups.
Those who favor direct democracy[7] believe the more one participates,
and the more arenas one participates in, the more capable and involved one is
likely to become. Beyond its educative and empowering role, direct democ-
racy promotes a sense of community and common bonds that transcend indi-
vidual interest. An involved and engaged community makes direct democracy
and participatory decision-making possible.[8] Advocates of direct participa-
tion believe that citizens have the knowledge and expertise necessary to par-
ticipate in public sector decisions that affect them.
Participatory theorists argue that meaningful citizen participation not only
leads to better decision making, but also facilitates social stability by develop-
ing a sense of community, increasing collective decision making, and promot-
ing acceptance and respect of the governance process.[9] Direct democracy
depends, in part, on people being exposed to information and viewpoints they
would not have chosen themselves. Surowiecki[10] asserts “under the right cir-
cumstances groups are remarkably intelligent and often smarter than the
smartest people in them. The diversity of experience, opinion, and knowledge
can render the whole greater than the sum of its parts.”
The debate of direct versus indirect participation is an ongoing one that
requires public administrators to make decisions on how and when to include
citizens in the deliberative process. Some researchers assert that the current
debate has moved beyond the question of whether direct democracy is more
desirable than indirect democracy to the question of what type of participation
process works best.[11] It is no longer a matter of electing representatives to act
on the citizens’ behalf, but rather a question of what type of participation
works best?
Citizen Participation 1181

Or put more broadly, how should citizens and public administrators view
their roles within the citizen government relationship so that citizens feel
empowered and administrators do not feel threatened? Direct citizen partici-
pation is no longer a normative ideal; it is a reality and public administrators,
through their actions, are central to the success or failure of participatory
efforts. Public administrators can invite open and direct participation or they
can discourage, and even prevent it from happening.[12]
The purpose of this article is to explore the challenges and dilemmas
associated with direct citizen participation, reflect on the various models of
citizen-government interactions that have been proposed in the literature and
make recommendations for future research and future administrative action.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

For the purpose of this article citizen participation is defined as participation

in the planning and administrative processes of government. It is the interac-
tion between citizens and administrators that focuses on policy issues and ser-
vice delivery. As such, it differs from political participation, which
encompasses voting or contacting elected officials. It also differs from the
broader concept of civic engagement where individuals support their commu-
nity through volunteer efforts and civic activism. In this context, citizen par-
ticipation is considered to have a direct impact on policy formulation and
implementation. Citizens are viewed as an integral part of the governance pro-
cess and their active involvement is considered essential to the critical deci-
sions facing a community.[13]
The public administration literature clearly reflects a renewed interest in
civic engagement and the responsibilities that public administrators have to
their constituency to be responsive and results-oriented.[14] A public sector
centered on efficiency, economy, and effectiveness often overlooks the values
of a democratic society. The challenge for public administrators is to balance
the traditional values of equity, fairness, and participation with responsiveness
and efficiency. A government that balances efficient and rational service pro-
vision with open and democratic process is an ideal, and possibly one of the
most challenging, exciting and important tasks for public administrators.[15]
Recent reform efforts reflect the desire for a more democratic or collabo-
rative form of governance and a more active administration, where public
administrators actively seek input from various stakeholders prior to making
policy decisions or implementing new programs. The Denhardts[16] propose a
“new public service” that is built on the democratic values of fairness and
equity, but also promotes a sense of community and civil society. They
believe public administrators should “focus on their responsibility to serve
and empower citizens as they manage public organizations and implement
public policy.”[17] Accordingly, public servants should help citizens articulate
1182 Callahan

their needs; help build a collective and shared notion of public interest; help
build relationships of trust with and among citizens; and be attentive to com-
munity values and citizen interests. The public service they envision is based
on collaboration, communication and the public interest.
As Nalbandian[18] describes it, public administration is transitioning from
“professional elitism” to a “community paradigm” where public managers are
seen as community builders and enablers of democracy. Participation mecha-
nisms that promote this community paradigm are ones that foster dialogue—an
honest, open exchange of ideas where the intent is to listen to and understand
one another and deliberation—critical thinking and reasoned argument as a
way to make decisions.[19] Public administrators, many who were once
comfortable making decisions behind closed doors and away from public
pressure and scrutiny, are now expected to facilitate dialogue among stake-
holders, negotiate agreement among disparate interests, use participatory deci-
sion making strategies, communicate effectively, build teams, and foster
partnerships.
In exploring this renewed interest in direct participation Moynihan[20]
identifies three closely related theoretical arguments that support this growing
interest in citizen participation: postmodern discourse theory, disillusionment
with bureaucracy, and the search for a democratic ideal. He cites evidence of a
worldwide shift to “postmodern values” that include a lack of trust of formal
institutions, such as government and political parties, increased mobility, the
weakening of traditional family structures and the values associated with
those traditional structures, as well as the overall desire for more participatory
democracies. The disillusionment with bureaucracy has risen along side the
growing frustration with traditional governance models that promote hierar-
chy and insulate public servants from the public. As such, the values of
bureaucratic governance are in conflict with the values of democratic partici-
pation. The search for the democratic ideal reflects the democratic wish and
yearning for a direct, communal democracy combined with a fear of bureau-
cratic power that is perceived as a threat to liberty.

CHALLENGES AND DILEMMAS

Theorists are asking public administrators to make significant changes in their

relationship with citizens and the model of interaction they adopt. They are
also asking public administrators to accept the democratic ideals for including
citizens in the deliberative process as sufficient rationale for modifying their
behavior and the processes that are in place. Public managers are encouraged
to adopt a participatory style that actively involves citizens because it is the
right thing to do; because it builds on democratic ideals, builds trust and fos-
ters civil society.[21] Compared with the literature on political participation
and civic engagement,[22] few systematic empirical studies have examined
Citizen Participation 1183

citizen participation and administrative action. Advocates of direct participa-

tion have never been able to quiet their critics, who question the feasibility,
desirability, or legitimacy of direct participation.[23] Empirical evidence is
needed to demonstrate the tangible value of including citizens in the delibera-
tive process and to successfully make the argument to do so. Normative val-
ues are persuasive, but empirical evidence is compelling.
The lack of empirical evidence should come as no surprise given the com-
plexity and ambiguity of the topic. Although there is a great deal of specula-
tion about the advantages, and disadvantages, of direct participation few
definitive statements can be made about when and how to include the public
in the deliberative process. Those who advocate greater citizen participation
do so for a variety of reasons: to promote democracy, build trust, increase
transparency, enhance accountability, build social capital, reduce conflict,
ascertain priorities, promote legitimacy, cultivate mutual understanding, and
advance fairness and justice.[24]
Those who express caution and concern about direct citizen participation
raise the following concerns: it is inefficient, time-consuming, costly, politi-
cally naïve, unrealistic, and disruptive, and it lacks broad representation.[25] In
addition, critics argue that citizens lack expertise and knowledge; are moti-
vated by their personal interest, not the public good; and citizens can be pas-
sive, selfish, and apathetic, as well as cynical.[26] These differences reflect the
competing perspectives on democratic and administrative theory, as well as
some of the contradictions inherent in contemporary society.[27]

MODELS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

In an effort to sort out the different perspectives on citizen and government

interactions, several models of citizen participation have been put forth over
the years to explain the relationship and the dynamic of the exchange that takes
between the governed and those who do the governing. It is worthy to highlight
these models as they help us envision the participatory process and better
understand the interaction and dynamic between citizens and public adminis-
trators. While the paradigms differ, a pattern does evolve. What we consis-
tently see in these models are two extremes: completely uninvolved and
passive citizens at one end and active and engaged citizens at the other. It is the
middleground, in between these two extremes, where most forms of citizen
participation take place. We understand the extremes, yet there is little empiri-
cal evidence or theory about what takes place in between these two extremes.
One of the earliest and best known models of citizen participation is
Shelley Arnstein’s[28] ladder of participation where she equates the level of
citizen participation with the steps on a ladder. The bottom rung represents
no involvement on the part of citizens and the top rung reflects an active and
engaged role for citizens, where they enter into partnership with public
1184 Callahan

administrators. In between are various levels of participation that Arnstein

admits could number over 150, yet she defines as 8.
Thomas[29] developed a similar typology of participation from an admin-
istrative perspective. He describes five decision-making approaches that pub-
lic administrators can adopt that are parallel to Arnstein’s ladder of
participation. At one extreme the public administrator makes autonomous
decisions, without public involvement, and at the other extreme the public
administrator makes the decision after full and broad consultation with the
public. In between, the public administrator chooses to adopt different levels
of citizen participation, from the input of a select group of advisors to a more
inclusive process. In both models the public administrator is in control and
makes the determination of how and when to bring the public into the process.
Box[30] depicts citizens along a continuum with freeriders (clients) at one
end and activists (owners) at the other end. In the middle are watchdogs who
get involved only when the issues affect them personally. The freeriders prefer
the comfort of their easy chair and entrust public administrators to act in their
best interest.[31] The watchdogs get involved if, and only if, public issues
impact them directly. The activists are involved on a continuous basis as they
feel it is their responsibility to be informed, engaged and hold government
accountable. Timney[32] presents three models of citizen participation: active,
passive and transitional. Active participation requires that citizens be in con-
trol. In this paradigm, citizens own the process and articulate policy and pub-
lic agencies serve as consultants. Passive participation is at the other end of
the spectrum, where the agency is in control and participation is merely a for-
mality. With the transitional model, power and control are shared between cit-
izens and agencies and the citizens’ role, for the most part, is advisory.
Vigoda[33] envisions an evolutionary continuum of public administrator
and citizen interaction. At one end of the continuum citizens are portrayed as
subjects where government holds coercive power over them and citizens must
do as government dictates. At the other end of the continuum, citizens are
owners of the state and have coercive power over government and govern-
ment must do as citizens dictate. Along the way from total government control
to total citizen control are interactions with varying degrees of reciprocity,
responsiveness and collaboration.
A value-centered model that focuses on the worth of government to its
citizens is presented as an alternative to the customer and owner models which
have been widely discussed in the public administration literature.[34] In the
customer model, citizens are perceived as passive consumers of government
services. Their interaction with government is primarily through transactions
or complaints and it is very much a one way relationship, with citizens look-
ing to see what government has to offer them. The owner model views citi-
zens as the owners of government, and as such, they have a duty to assume an
active role in improving government services, making decisions, challenging
government actions and holding government accountable.[35]
Citizen Participation 1185

With the value-centered model, both citizens and government are active,
engaged and focused on creating value for citizens. Citizens are perceived as
investors and shareholders in the public trust and common wealth of the com-
munity. The shareholder metaphor implies a participative and communal form
of wealth creation that involves partnership, co-investment, common interest,
cooperation and sharing among citizens as co-owners of government.
The Table summarizes the various models presented in the public admin-
istration literature; specifically focusing on the roles for citizens and adminis-
trators, the managerial approach to citizens, the inherent dynamic in this
approach and the method of interaction that results because of the relationship
and dynamics. The roles are not mutually exclusive. A citizen can be a subject,
voter, customer, and co-producer simultaneously, yet his or her interaction
with a specific agency or administrator at any given point in time will be dom-
inated by one of the roles he or she plays and thus the dynamic of the interac-
tion and the method of interacting is a reflection of the role he or she plays.
For example, when a citizen pays taxes or the fine associated with a traffic
violation, he or she is essentially a subject of government. When that same
individual goes to the post office to purchase stamps he or she is obviously a
customer. The role of the administrator in these scenarios changes as well
from an authoritative figure to a professional provider of customer service.
Another dilemma with the simplification of the citizen-government inter-
action in this, and other models, is that their can be role conflict. A citizen
may perceive him or herself as a co-producer, but the administrator sees him
or herself as a client. Likewise an administrator can see him or herself as a
public servant, but the citizen sees him or her as a ruler.
As Roberts cautions, “Deeply ingrained beliefs and role expectations are
not transformed overnight nor do they move in parallel. Administrators can be
caught in a vortex of competing theories, each with a different claim about
administrative and citizen behavior.”[36]
It is also important to recognize that these models overlap, indicating that
the progress from one stage to another is gradual and that the coexistence of
characteristics reflects the natural progression of change. These models and
frameworks help us visualize the citizen-government interaction, yet ques-
tions still remain. The overall integration of the various models, depicted in
Table 1, has its limitations, yet it assists in conceptualizing the citizen-admin-
istrator interactions and dynamics.

CHANGING RELATIONSHIPS

The roles, relationships, and dynamics between citizens and administrators

have changed over the years and these changes typically reflect the values
embodied in reform movements and public opinion about the appropriate role
of government. Public sector reform efforts typically reflect public confidence
1186 Callahan

Table 1. Administrator—Citizen Interactions

Administrator Managerial Method of

Role Citizen Role Approach Dynamic Interaction

Ruler Subject Coercive Authority Government

Control
Implementer Voter Representative Trust Voting
Expert Client Neutral Competence Control Compliance
Professional Customer Responsive Passive Consultive
Public Servant Citizen Facilitative Engaged Deliberative
Co-producer Co-producer Collaborative Active Partnership
Broker Investor Communal Cooperative Co-investing
Employee Owner Compliance Conflict Citizen Control

in the private sector during times of economic growth and stability and confi-
dence in the public sector during times of social unrest and economic uncer-
tainty. In other words, citizens look to government for the answers when the
private sector falters and look to the private sector for solutions when trust in
the public sector is low. Kelly[37] refers to this as public-regarding and private-
regarding, and while she specifically discusses these reforms in relationship to
performance measurement, this inward-outward perspective applies to citizen
participation as well.
The alternative theories about the appropriate relationship between citi-
zens and public administrators reflect the changing external environment.
When citizens are satisfied with the public sector and the overall implementa-
tion of policy initiatives they seek less active involvement in the deliberative
process and are likely to be content as customers and clients of government.
When there is greater dissatisfaction, or frustration, with government’s ability
to effectively design and implement public programs there is greater interest
in active citizen participation.[38]
The roles that citizens and administrators play, as highlighted in Table 1,
are closely intertwined and reflect various reform movements and public opin-
ion about the appropriate role of government.
Citizen as subject/Administrator as ruler: reflects the authority system
where the administrator, acting on the behalf of an authority figure, gives the
command, and the citizen obeys. Government is in control and administrators
hold almost absolute power over the people. This form of governance is based
on rigid bureaucratic structures and a nondemocratic culture.[39]
Citizen as voter/ Administrator as implementer: reflects a representative
democracy where administrators are held accountable to elected officials and
citizens vote for the person they feel best represents their interests. The
administrators are the implementers of public policy. Citizens voice their
opinion through the ballot box and rely on the experience and civic responsi-
bility of elected officials and administrators to act on their behalf.
Citizen Participation 1187

Citizen as client/ Administrator as expert: reflects traditional public

administration where the administrator as the expert, makes rational, value-
free decisions. Citizens are clients who defer to the expertise of the profes-
sional bureaucrat. As clients, citizens are dependent on the bureaucracy. With
this model citizens are thought to lack the knowledge and expertise to be
involved in decision making so they provide input, when asked, but otherwise
quietly accept the actions and decisions of the administrative experts.[40]
Citizen as customer/ Administrator as professional/entrepreneur: reflects
the new public management where the administrator adopts a private sector,
customer-centered approach. The emphasis is on responsiveness and customer
service. The citizen, as the customer, adopts a passive, self-serving relation-
ship with government. The entrepreneurial emphasis encourages other modes
of service delivery, through partnerships and contracts, so government is no
longer the direct, sole provider of services and citizens have choices.[41]
Citizen as citizen/Administrator as public servant: reflects the new public
service where the administrators serve and empower citizens as they manage
public organizations and implement public policy. Public servants act as facil-
itators and partners rather than experts and entrepreneurs. Citizens look
beyond their own self-interest and act as engaged participants who enter into
meaningful, reciprocal relationships with government.[42]
Citizen as co-producer/Administrator co-producer: reflects the ideal of
co-production and collaboration where citizens and administrators collaborate
with one another to solve problems and get things done. The relationship
reflects an active partnership with shared responsibility for maintaining strong
and healthy communities. Co-production is seen as an attractive alternative as
governments confront the competing demands for increased services and
reductions in expenditures.[43]
Citizen as investor/Administrator as broker: reflects a value-centered
management where citizens are perceived as investors and shareholders in the
public trust and public administrators act as the broker, responsibly investing,
on behalf of the shareholders, to maximize the return for the community and
individual investors. The relationship is cooperative and communal wealth
creation promotes a common interest, cooperation, and sharing among
citizens.[44]
Citizen as owner/Administrator as employee: reflects the ownership
model where citizens are in control and public administrators comply and
abide by the owners’ decisions. As owners, citizens have the obligation to
assume an active role in delivering government services. The relationship can
be conflictual because citizens are in control and administrators are expected
to comply.[45]
As this continuum unfolds, from citizen as a subject to citizen as investor,
and from administrator as ruler to administrator as public servant and co-
producer, we see that the role of the public administrator is central in deter-
mining the level of citizen participation. It is only when the citizen becomes
1188 Callahan

the owner that they have control over the process and outcomes. This model
of citizen ownership is impractical as every citizen cannot be equally respon-
sible for the decisions of the state. While much has been written on the roles
and relationships between citizens and administrators, few studies have been
conducted that explore why and how citizens are included in the deliberative
process. Why do some public administrators embrace the idea of including
citizens? What prompts one community, or agency, to be open, inclusive, and
deliberative in their interactions with the public, while other communities, and
agencies, opt to exclude citizens as much as possible? What characteristics are
present in the open and deliberative environments that are not present in the
closed environments?

VALUE OF DIRECT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Direct citizen participation has been emphasized by more and more adminis-
trative theorists.[46] However, many observations are based upon normative
reasoning, personal experiences, interviews, or case studies. Compared with
the literature on political participation and civic engagement[47] few system-
atic studies have examined citizen participation in terms of decision making
and service delivery functions.
One potential reason is that advocates for direct participation have never
been able to quiet their critics, who question the feasibility, desirability, or
legitimacy of direct participation.[48] If direct participation is not always feasi-
ble or desirable, why should we be interested in promoting its utilization? It is
because of the theoretical controversy that systematic studies are necessary.
Future theory building should be based on an understanding of when and how
to involve citizens, and to what extent.
The following research, much of it qualitative, provides some examples
of recent studies conducted on citizen participation. A variety of methods
from comparative case studies to survey research have been utilized. These
researchers are contributing to our knowledge of direct citizen participation,
which, as we know, is complex and contested, and are attempting to build the-
ory by identifying the conditions under which direct participation flourishes,
or fails.
King, Felty, and Susel[49] conducted interviews with subject matter
experts, followed by focus group discussions with public administrators,
activists, and average citizens, as they sought to understand citizen participa-
tion from the perspective of both public administrators and citizens. Through
their research they identify the obstacles that prevent “authentic” participation
from taking place as well as the strategies necessary to engender effective and
satisfying participation. Their findings indicate that authentic participation
requires dialogue and deliberation, where citizens play an active and central
role in the process. They attribute the failure of many participation efforts to
Citizen Participation 1189

the conventional model of participation that is most commonly utilized. In this

model, citizens are alienated from the process and public administrators, in
their role as experts, dominate and control the ability of citizens to participate.
The researchers also identify the barriers to authentic participation as the
nature of contemporary life, administrative processes that are in place, and the
techniques utilized for participation. To overcome these barriers the authors
recommend education and re-education for citizens and administrators, as
well as the redesign of administrative processes and structures in an effort to
change the way citizens and administrators communicate and interact.
In an analysis of four large-scale trials of deliberative democracy, Weeks
concludes that it is possible to convene large, public deliberation processes
that enable local governments to take effective action on previously intracta-
ble issues. He defines deliberative democracy as “informed participation by
citizens in the deliberative process of community decision making”[50] and
identifies the major challenge to such deliberation as the design of a participa-
tory process that allows for broad, representative participation, informed pub-
lic participation, deliberative participation, and credible results.
Nalbandian[51] conducted interviews with city management professionals
over a ten year span of time to determine the changes in the context of the
manager’s roles, responsibilities, and values. The professionals in his sample
were first interviewed in 1989 and then again in 1999. The biggest changes
surrounded the managers’ relationship with the community. Administrators
stated that community building had become a large part of their responsibilities
and they were expected to facilitate community building and enable democ-
racy through open communication and direct participation with citizens.
Callahan and Yang, through survey research and in-depth interviews with
public administrators, explored the question of how much training and profes-
sional development is provided to public sector employees and citizens to pro-
mote citizen participation and deliberative democracy. The survey indicated
that only 7% of the 428 counties and cities responding provide “a lot” of train-
ing for their employees on ways to facilitate citizen participation, such as how
to convene public meetings, lead focus group discussions and communicate
effectively. Through interviews, the researchers found that the training pro-
vided for public sector employees is haphazard, especially when compared to
the training and education provided to citizens, which they found was much
more systematic. Citizens had the opportunity to take part in formalized train-
ing through citizen academies and leadership development seminars.
The researchers concluded:

Our concern is that the informal and haphazard approach to training

public managers on civic engagement techniques, both in the field and
in the classroom, puts meaningful engagement endeavors at risk . . . If
we expect administrators to be facilitators, partners, and collaborators
who encourage dialogue, build teams, foster partnerships and utilize
1190 Callahan

participatory decision making strategies then we need to provide the

appropriate training to equip these public administrators with the skills
they need to do their jobs effectively.[52]

Wang[53] surveyed local government administrators about citizen input in

various management and service functions in local communities with popula-
tions greater than 50,000. He also explored the participation mechanisms uti-
lized, such as public hearings, citizen advisory committees and the Internet.
He found that public hearings were the most frequently utilized (97%) fol-
lowed by citizen advisory committees (80%). Interestingly, Wang noted that
jurisdictions using surveys and focus group discussions were more optimistic
about their effectiveness and their ability to ensure citizen satisfaction. He
found that citizens are involved in a variety of functional areas, such as parks
and recreation or zoning and planning, but only to provide advice on programs
and policies. Citizens had limited involvement in terms of priority setting and
decision making. Wang indicated that citizen participation in decision making
was “very limited.” In addition, only 23% of the chief administrative officers
indicated they involve citizens in the monitoring of performance and 25% in
the evaluation of program objectives.
These findings are similar to the findings of Poister and Streib’s[54] survey
on the utilization of performance measurement in local governments. In their
study they sought to examine the extent to which performance measurement
had been integrated into contemporary local government management in US
cities with populations greater than 25,000. Interestingly, when the city man-
agers were asked why they were adopting performance measurement strate-
gies 42% indicated they measured performance to increase accountability to
citizens, yet only 3% of the respondents indicated they involved citizens in the
development of performance measures.
Experimental research in social psychology has found that face to face
communication is the single greatest factor in increasing the likelihood of coop-
eration.[55] Talking, face to face, allows group members to demonstrate their
willingness to cooperate and they can assess the willingness of other group
members. It also helps them see the connection between their self-interest and
that of the group. The consensus that emerges from group dialogue leads to
actual cooperative behavior, with more talking leading to more cooperation.[56]

CONCLUSION

Although limited, this body of research indicates that while many people see
the value of direct citizen participation, it is still not widely adopted by public
administrators who control the process and the opportunities to participate.
There is evidence that when done right, direct participation, and deliberative
democracy produce positive outcomes. Public administrators recognize their
Citizen Participation 1191

roles are changing, they acknowledge that they are expected to be more open
and facilitative, yet little training is being provided, on a systematic basis, to
equip them with the skills they need to effectively perform in their new role.
The gap between the ideal of citizen participation in the deliberative process
and the practice is quite significant according to the results cited here. For those
who favor direct and authentic citizen participation this should not be a source of
discouragement. Significant strides are being made to introduce and sustain more
open and collaborative forms of governance that are not reflected in these findings.
However, it is evident that what is discussed in the public administration
literature pertaining to collaboration and direct citizen participation has yet to
take hold in practice. It is understandable. There is inherent tension in the
expectations that pull public administrators in different directions. The under-
taking of finding the right balance between rational, responsive, and efficient
administration with open, deliberate, and collaborative decision making is
complex and challenging. More guidance is needed for public administrators
who are conflicted by this essentially contested concept.
And, as Moynihan states,

Even as participation advocates decry bureaucracy in general and cur-

rent bureaucratic modes of participation in particular, public managers
remain a necessary part of the governing framework and ultimately bear
responsibility for structuring public participation and for channeling
public input into public decisions.[57]

The realization of direct citizen participation rests, for now, in the hands
of the public administrator. In addition to the normative ideals that support the
inclusion of citizens in the deliberative process, tangible evidence is needed to
compel public administrators to open the deliberative process to a variety of
stakeholders if we are to make the inclusion of citizens part of the natural
order of the way the governing govern.
Future research should more closely examine the practices of deliberative
democracy and identify the ones that are particularly successful so that lessons
may be learned from these practices and replicated in other communities.
Future research should also more carefully explore the different citizen-
administrator models to determine if certain participatory mechanisms work
best in certain models. If a public administrator wants to achieve an environ-
ment where the method of interaction with citizens is deliberative, the
dynamic engaged and the managerial approach facilitative, is there evidence
that certain mechanisms of engagement work best under these conditions?
Previous research has consistently shown that conventional forms of par-
ticipation, such as public hearings, do little more than inform the public. Public
hearings, while they have a purpose, do nothing to facilitate communication
and build trust. Future studies should be conducted to assess the level and
quality of citizen participation from the perspective of citizens and elected
1192 Callahan

officials. The level of participation would explore questions of how frequently

citizens are included in the decision making process. Are citizens invited to
participate early in the process or are they brought into the process after pre-
liminary decisions have been made?
The question of quality can be explored by assessing the outcomes of partici-
patory processes to determine if the decisions made reflect the input of all the
stakeholders or if they reflect the priorities of the administration. Qualitative
inquiry could assess whether citizens, elected officials, and administrators feel the
process is worthwhile. Does the time, energy and resources invested in a delibera-
tive process result in outcomes everyone feels comfortable with and sees the value
in? Does the decision reflect the investment made by all of the stakeholders?
In addition, the reflections of citizens and elected officials on what can be
done to enhance the participatory process and minimize the obstacles that pre-
vent meaningful citizen participation from taking place would be valuable. If
administrative structures and processes are to be changed to encourage
broader and more satisfying participation then the variables that promote and
inhibit participation need to be identified. In particular, researchers should
explore the institutional characteristics that promote, or discourage, citizen
participation in the deliberative process of government to overcome the limi-
tations of conventional participation.
Those who favor indirect participation may express doubt over the viabil-
ity of collaborative participation. It is an ideal, but incremental steps can be
taken to make government more open, accessible and responsive to the public
it serves. As Fox and Miller state, the critics should have little concern about
the future of the public sector as “government will continue to govern. . .but
the more authentic the encounters with citizens will be, the less will govern-
ment be ‘they’ and the more it will be ‘we’.”[58] If we can move beyond the
conventional participation toward direct citizen participation and deliberative
democracy we can build trust, respect for different viewpoints and institu-
tional capacity in our neighborhoods and communities. As this capital grows
and spreads through communication, collaboration, and networks, the civic
capacity of society grows, participation becomes more knowledgeable, and
government more responsive.

REFERENCES

1. Day, D. (1997). Citizen participation in the planning process: An essen-

tially contested concept? Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 412–434.
2. Schacter, Hindy L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing our-
selves: The role of citizen owners in making a better government. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press; Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collabora-
tion: Governance, citizens and the next generation of public administra-
tion. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 527–540.
Citizen Participation 1193

3. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. 1989
4. Stivers, C. (1990). The public agency as the polis: Active citizenship in
the administrative state. Administration and Society, 21(1), 86–105.
5. Irving, R. and Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision mak-
ing: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
6. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the
theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new
age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; Mansbridge, J. (1990).
Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Pateman, C.
(1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press; Sandel, M. (1996). Democracy’s discontent.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
8. Barber, 1984; Pateman, 1970.
9. Pateman, 1970.
10. Surowiecki, J. (2004). Wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than
the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies
and nations. London: Little Brown.
11. Konisky, D., and Beierle, T. (2001). Innovations in public participation
and environmental decision making: Examples from the Great Lakes
Region. Society and Natural Resources, 14(9), 815–826.
12. Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct participation.
American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
13. Ibid.
14. Denhardt, R. B., and Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service:
Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–
557; Vigoda, 2002.
15. Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities
into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16. Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000.
17. Ibid, 549.
18. Nalbandian, J. Facilitating community, Enabling democracy: New roles
for local government managers, Public Administration Review, May/
June, 187–197, see p. 186.
19. McCoy, M., and Scully, P. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic
engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic
Review, 9(2), 117–135.
20. Moynihan, D. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on
public participation. American Review of Public Administration, 33(2),
164–188.
21. See, for example, Barber, 1984; Box, 1998; Etzioni, A. (1994). The Spirit
of Community. New York: Touchstone. 1994; King, C. S., Feltey, K. M.,
and Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic
1194 Callahan

public participation in public administration. Public Administration

Review, 58 (4), 317–326; Putman, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: Amer-
ica’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 20 (1), 65–78.
22. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in mod-
ern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Verba, S. and Nie,
N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social
equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Verba, S., Lehman
Schlozman, K., and Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic volun-
teerism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Dahl, 1989. Kweit, M. G., and Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen
participation in a bureaucratic society. New York: Praeger; Sanders, L. M.
(1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3) 347–376.
24. See Barber, 1984; Box, 1998; Callahan, K. (2002). The utilization and
effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of
local governments. Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Man-
agement, 14 (3), 295–319; Etzioni, 1994; Fischer, F. (2002). Citizens,
experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press; Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social vir-
tues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press; Innes, J., and
Booher, D. (2004) Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st
century. A paper presented at the 65th Annual American Society for Pub-
lic Administration Conference, Portland, Oregon, March 27–30, 2004;
King, C. S., and Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us: Public administra-
tion in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications;
Schacter, H. L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves:
The role of citizen owners in making a better government. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press; Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public deci-
sions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25. Callahan, 2002; King, & Stivers, 1998; Roberts, N. (2004). Public delib-
eration in an age of direct participation. American Review of Public
Administration, 34(4), 315–353; Stivers, 1990.
26. Berman, E. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration
Review 57(2), 105–123; Fischer, F. Citizen participation and the democ-
ratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases.
Policy Sciences 26 (3), 165–187; Stivers, 1990; Thomas, 1995; Vigoda,
2002.
27. Roberts, 2004.
28. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the
American Institute of Planners. 35, 1969: 216–224.
29. Thomas, 1995.
30. Box, 1998.
31. Vigoda, 2002.
32. Timney, M. M. (1998). Overcoming administrative barriers to citizen partici-
pation: Citizens as partners, not adversaries. In King, C. S., and Stivers, C.,
Citizen Participation 1195

(eds.), Government is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government

Era. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
33. Vigoda, 2002.
34. Smith, G., and Huntsman, C. (1997). Reframing the metaphor of the
citizen-government relationship. public Administration Review, 57,
309–318.
35. Schacter, 1997.
36. See Roberts, 2004, in particular p. 327.
37. Kelly, 2002.
38. Roberts, 2004. Vigoda, 2002.
39. Vigoda, 2002.
40. Roberts, 2004.
41. Callahan, K., and Yang, K. (2005). Training and Professional Develop-
ment for Civically Engaged Communities. The Innovation Journal, 10(1),
1–16.
42. Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000.
43. Roberts, Vigoda, 2002.
44. Smith & Huntsman, 1997.
45. Schacter, 1997.
46. See, for example, Box, 1998; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000; Frederickson,
H. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public
Administration Review, 42 (6) 501–507; King et al., 1998; Nalbandian,
1999; Ventriss, C. (1989). Toward a public philosophy of public adminis-
tration: A civic perspective of the public. Public Administration Review,
49(2) 224–231.
47. Putnam, 1993; Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. Participation in America: Politi-
cal democracy and social equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
1972; Verba et al., 1995.
48. Dahl, 1989; Kweit, M. G. and Kweit, R. W. (1981). Implementing citizen
participation in a bureaucratic society. New York: Praeger; Sanders,
L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25(3), 347–376.
49. King et al., 1998.
50. Weeks, E. C. (2000). The practice of deliberative democracy: Results
from four large scale trials. Public Administration Review, 63(3)
360–372.
51. Nalbandian, May/June, 1999.
52. Callahan, & Yang, 2005.
53. Wang, X. Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. (2001). Public
Performance and Management Review, 24(4) 322–336.
54. Poister, T. H., and Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in munic-
ipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administra-
tion Review, July/August, 325–335.
55. Bornstein, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and
democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral
1196 Callahan

approach to rational choice theory of collective action. American Political

Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.
56. Bouas, K. S., and Komorita, S. S. (1996). Group discussion and coop-
eration in social dilemmas. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
1144–1150.
57. Moynihan, 2003.
58. Fox, & Miller, 1995.