DOCSLIB.ORG

Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance Author(S): Archon Fung Reviewed Work(S): Source: Public Administration Review, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance Author(S): Archon Fung Reviewed Work(S): Source: Public Administration Review, Vol Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance Author(s): Archon Fung Reviewed work(s): Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management (Dec., 2006), pp. 66-75 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096571 . Accessed: 09/02/2012 18:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review. http://www.jstor.org Archon Fung HarvardUniversity Articleson Varietiesof Participationin Complex Governance Collaborative Public Management ArchonFung is anassociate professor 7Themultifaceted challengesof contemporarygovernance In this article, I develop a framework for understand- of atthe John F. publicpolicy Kennedy demand a complexaccount of the ways in which those ing a range of institutional possibilities. Such a frame- Schoolof Government,Harvard University. who are to laws and should work is a of the answer E-mail:[email protected]. subject policies participate necessary-if incomplete-part in making them. ?his article developsa frameworkfor to a larger question regarding the amounts and kinds understandingthe range of institutional possibilitiesfor of appropriate participation in governance. Though I public participation. Mechanisms ofparticipation vary do not develop this framework into a general "theory along three important dimensions: who participates, how of the public" (Frederickson 1991), this approach participants communicate with one another and make suggests that such a general theory may remain elu- decisions together,and how discussionsare linked with sive. Whether public institutions and decision-making policy or public action. Thesethree dimensions constitute processes should treat members of the public as a space in which any particular mechanism of consumers, clients, or citizens depends partly on the participation can be located. Different regionsof this context and problem in question. institutional design spaceare more and lesssuited to addressingimportant problems of democraticgovernance There are three important dimensions along which such as legitimacy,justice, and effectiveadministration. forms of direct participation vary. The first concerns who participates. Some participatory processes are How much and what kind of directpublic open to all who wish to engage, whereas others invite participation should there be in contempo- only elite stakeholders such as interest group represen- rary democracy? The multiplex conditions of tatives. The second dimension specifies how partici- modern governance demand a theory and institutions pants exchange information and make decisions. In of public participation that are appropriately complex many public meetings, participants simply receive in at least three ways. First, unlike the small New information from officials who announce and explain England town or even the Athenian city-state, there is policies. A much smaller set of venues are deliberative no canonical form of direct participation in modern in the sense that citizens take positions, exchange democratic governance; modes of contemporary par- reasons, and sometimes change their minds in the ticipation are, and should be, legion. Second, public course of discussions. The third dimension describes participation advances multiple purposes and values the link between discussions and policy or public in contemporary governance. Master principles such action. These three dimensions-scope of participa- as equal influence over collective decisions and respect tion, mode of communication and decision, and for individual autonomy are too abstract to offer extent of authority-constitute a space in which any useful guidance regarding the aims and character of particular mechanism of public decision can be lo- citizen participation. It is more fruitful to examine the cated. Here, I will show how regions of this institu- range of proximate values that mechanisms of partici- tional design space are suited to addressing three pation might advance and the problems that they seek important problems of democratic governance: legiti- to address. I will consider the illegitimacy, injustice, macy, justice, and effective governance. and ineffectiveness of particular clusters of governance arrangements here. Third, mechanisms of direct par- Participatory Designs: The Democracy Cube ticipation are not (as commonly imagined) a strict If there is no canonical form or institution of direct alternative to political representation or expertise but public participation in contemporary democratic instead complement them. As we shall see, public contexts, then one important task is to understand the participation at its best operates in synergy with repre- feasible and useful varieties of participation. In what sentation and administration to yield more desirable remains perhaps the most cited work in the literature practices and outcomes of collective decision making on participatory democracy, Sherry Arnstein develops and action. an influential typology in her essay "A Ladder of 66 Public Administration Review * December 2006 * Special Issue CitizenParticipation" (1969).2 She arguesthat partici- appropriate that the tool include the alternative- pation is valuableto the extentthat it "isthe redistri- often the norm-of no citizen participation to enable bution of powerthat enablesthe have-notcitizens ... comparisons and juxtapositions. to be deliberatelyincluded in the future."She positsa "ladder"of empowermentwith eight rungs:manipula- ParticipantSelection tion, therapy,informing, consultation, placation, part- In what follows, I suppose that the principal reason nership,delegated power, and finally,citizen control. for enhancing citizen participation in any area of contemporary governance is that the authorized set of Arnstein'sclassification still providesa usefulcorrec- decision makers-typically elected representatives or tive to naiveand untemperedenthusiasm for public administrative officials-is somehow deficient.3 They participation.As an analytictool, however,it is obso- may lack the knowledge, competence, public purpose, lete and defectivein two main ways. First,it improp- resources, or respect necessary to command compli- erly fusesan empiricalscale that describesthe level of ance and cooperation. Whether the direct participa- influenceindividuals have oversome collectivedeci- tion of citizens in governance can remedy one or other sion with normativeapproval. There may indeed be of these deficiencies depends in large measure on who contextsin which public empowermentis highly participates: Are they appropriately representative of desirable,but thereare certainlyothers in which a the relevant population or the general public? Are consultativerole is more appropriatefor membersof important interests or perspectives excluded? Do they the public than full "citizencontrol." Second, there possess the information and competence to make have been many advancesin the theoryand practice good judgments and decisions? Are participants re- of participationsince Arnstein'sessay was published. sponsive and accountable to those who do not partici- A largebody of work in politicaltheory has distin- pate? Therefore, one primary feature of any public guishedbetween aggregative and deliberativedecision decision-making device is the character of its making(Cohen 1989; Gutmannand Thompson franchise: Who is eligible to participate, and how 1996). Practitionershave developedmany techniques do individuals become participants? In the universe of to recruitparticipants such as randomselection direct participation, there are five common selection (Fishkin1995), to facilitatemeetings, and to design mechanisms. entireparticipation processes suited to civil disputes, regulatorychallenges, and even law making(Connor The vast majority of public participation mechanisms 1988; Creighton2005). use the least restrictive method of selecting partici- pants: They are open to all who wish to attend. Actual Out of these manyways in which people come participants are a self-selectedsubset of the general togetherto discusspublic matters,three questions population. Though complete openness has an obvi- of institutionaldesign are particularly important for ous appeal, those who choose to participate are fre- understandingthe potentialand limits of participa- quently quite unrepresentative of any larger public. tory forms:Who participates?How do they commu- Individuals who are wealthier and better educated nicate and make decisions?What is the connection tend to participate more than those who lack these betweentheir conclusionsand opinions on one hand advantages, as do those who have special interests or and public policy and action on the other? stronger views (Fiorina 1999). This section describesan institutionaldesign space Two alternative participant selection methods address that maps arenasof decisionmaking along
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deepening Democracy the Real Utopias Project
    Deepening Democracy The Real Utopias Project Series editor: Erik Olin Wright The Real Utopias Project embraces a tension between dreams and practice. It is founded on the belief that what is pragmatically possible is not fixed independently of our imaginations, but is itself shaped by our visions. The fulfillment of such a belief involves ‘real utopias’: utopian ideals that are grounded in the real potentials for redesigning social institutions. In its attempt at sustaining and deepening serious discussion of radical alternatives to existing social practices, the Real Utopias Project examines various basic institutions – property rights and the market, secondary associations, the family, the welfare state, among others – and focusses on specific proposals for their fundamental redesign. The books in the series are the result of workshop conferences, at which groups of scholars are invited to respond to provocative manuscripts. Volume I ASSOCIATIONS AND DEMOCRACY Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers Volume II EQUAL SHARES: MAKING MARKET SOCIALISM WORK John E. Roemer Volume III RECASTING EGALITARIANISM: NEW RULES FOR COMMUNITIES, STATES AND MARKETS Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis Volume IV DEEPENING DEMOCRACY: INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS IN EMPOWERED PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright Deepening Democracy Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance The Real Utopias Project IV ———————N——————— ARCHON FUNG and ERIK OLIN WRIGHT with contributions by Rebecca Neaera Abers, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Joshua Cohen, Patrick
    [Show full text]
  • Deliberation and Development
    DELIBERATION AND DEVELOPMENT DELIBERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies Patrick Heller and Vijayendra Rao, Editors Washington, DC © 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 18 17 16 15 This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily refl ect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifi cally reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo. Under the Creative Commons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, including for commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Please cite the work as follows Heller, Patrick and Vijayendra Rao, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Empowered Deliberation in Chicago Schools and Policing
    POLITICSARCHON FUNG& SOCIETY Accountable Autonomy: Toward Empowered Deliberation in Chicago Schools and Policing ARCHON FUNG 1. THE EMERGENCE OF ACCOUNTABLE AUTONOMY The city of Chicago hardly seems fertile ground for deliberative democratic institutions to take root and bear fruit. Although its history and environs have many contradictory strands—a tradition of machine politics, insular administra- tive bureaucracies installed in reaction to political manipulations, a vibrant tradi- tion of neighborhood activism, extreme socioeconomic inequality typical of urban areas in the United States—none is particularly friendly to a politics of fair- ness and reason.1 It is altogether surprising, then, that two recent institutional reforms have remade Chicago’s public school and police systems into the most formally partic- ipatory and deliberative departments of their kind in the United States. Consider the basic features of these organizations. The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) con- sists of some 540 elementary schools and high schools. Since 1988, each of these schools has been governed by its own elected “local school council” (LSC). LSCs are elected every two years and each consists of six parents, two community repre- sentatives, two teachers, the school’s principal, and an additional nonvoting stu- dent for high schools. They enjoy substantial powers and responsibilities such as A previous version of this article was presented at the Real Utopias V: Experiments in Empowered Deliberative Democracy conference (Madison, Wisconsin, 15-16 January 2000) and at the American Politics workshop at Harvard University. I would like to thank participants of those meetings and other commentators, especially Alan Altshuler, Joshua Cohen, David Hart, Charles Sabel, Lynn Sanders, Deborah Satz, Theda Skocpol, Craig Thomas, and Erik Olin Wright for their generous and invaluable feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2000 Ratcheting Labor Standards: Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace Charles F. Sabel Columbia Law School, [email protected] Dara O'Rourke [email protected] Archon Fung [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, International Law Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Charles F. Sabel, Dara O'Rourke & Archon Fung, Ratcheting Labor Standards: Regulation for Continuous Improvement in the Global Workplace, HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT FACULTY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER NO. RWP00-010; COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY RESEARCH PAPER NO. 21; COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, THE CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC STUDIES WORKING PAPER NO. 185 (2000). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1234 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series KSG Working Paper No. 00-010 Columbia Law School The Center for Law and Economic Studies Working Paper No. 185 Columbia
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Public Management
    Effective Public Management WORKING PAPER: DECEMBER 2016 The impact of open government: Assessing the evidence By: Vanessa Williamson and Norman Eisen EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vanessa Wiliamson is a Fellow in in his report reviews the empirical and theoretical literature examining the international the Governance impact of open government, and offers recommendations for policymakers and an Studies program. She studies the politics T agenda for further research on the subject. of redistribution, with a focus on attitudes In Section I, we define the scope of our analysis, explaining what we mean by the question, about taxation. “does open government work?” Here, and throughout the report, we employ a broad definition of open government, focusing on three governance processes that allow the perspectives, Norman Eisen is a Visiting Fellow in the needs, and rights of citizens—including the most marginalized—to be addressed. They are Governance Studies program. He served (1) initiatives to increase transparency; (2) interventions intended to expand public engage- as President Obama’s ment and participation; and (3) efforts to improve responsiveness and accountability. By ethics czar from 2009 to 2011, and as the whether open government “works” or is “effective,” we mean interventions that the evidence U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic shows cause critical improvement in people’s lives (e.g. by improving health care, reducing from 2011 to 2014. corruption, increasing voting rates, and so on). From an analysis of hundreds of reports, articles, and peer-reviewed academic studies discussing the effectiveness of particular programs, we derive in Section II six features of open government programs that give these reforms the highest likelihood of success.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratizing the Policy Process
    Moran / The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy 33-Moran-chap33 Page Proof page 667 8.11.2005 12:16pm chapter 33 ................................................................................................................................................... DEMOCRATIZING THE POLICY PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................... archon fung The danger of modern liberty is that, absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence, and in pursuit of our particular interests, we should surrender our right to share in political power too easily. The holders of authority are only too anxious to encourage us to do so. They are so ready to spare us all sort of troubles, except those of obeying and paying! They will say to us: what, in the end, is the aim of your eVorts, the motive of your labours, the object of all your hopes? Is it not happiness? Well, leave this happiness to us and we shall give it to you. No, Sirs, we must not leave it to them. (Benjamin Constant, 1816) What is the role of citizen participation and deliberation in modern governance and policy making? The tension between expertise and popular voice in contemporary polities remains unresolved by students of politics, policy, and administration. Direct democracy strikes many as both undesirable and unfeasible. It is not desirable because the public virtues of political engagement have no special place in modern values and conceptions of the good life.1 Even if it were desirable, it is not feasible This chapter emerged from discussions held in a workshop on novel forms of representation organized by Nancy Rosenblum at the RadcliVe Institute for Advanced Study, 21 May 2004. I thank Joshua Cohen, Jane Mansbridge, Martha Minow, Nancy Rosenblum, Richard Tuck, Sidney Verba, and the other participants for their insights during and after that discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Deepening Democracy
    Deepening Democracy Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance Volume IV in the Real Utopias Project Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (editors) Manuscript – April 18, 2001 Contents Introduction Chapter 1. Thinking About Empowered Participatory Governance Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright Case Studies Chapter 2. Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory Gianpaolo Baiocchi Chapter 3. Decentralisation, Democracy and Development: People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerela T. M. Thomas Issac and Patrick Heller Chapter 4. Deliberative Democracy, Chicago Style: Grassroots Participation and Municipal Reform in Policing and Public Education Archon Fung Chapter 5. Habitat Conservation Plans: Certainly empowered, Somewhat Deliberative, Questionably Democratic Craig W. Thomas Commentaries (in preparation) Introduction Thinking About Empowered Participatory Governance1 ARCHON FUNG AND ERIK OLIN WRIGHT As the tasks of the state have become more complex and the size of polities larger and more heterogeneous, the institutional forms of liberal democracy developed in the nineteenth century — representative democracy plus techno-bureaucratic administration — seem increasingly ill-suited to the novel problems we face in the twenty-first century. “Democracy” as a way of organizing the state has come to be narrowly identified with territorially-based competitive elections of political leadership for legislative and executive offices. Yet, increasingly, this mechanism of political representation seems ineffective in accomplishing the central ideals of democratic politics: facilitating active political involvement of the citizenry, forging political consensus through dialogue, devising and implementing public policies that ground a productive economy and healthy society, and, in more radical egalitarian versions of the democratic ideal, assuring that all citizens benefit from the nation’s wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Deliberative Publics: Governance After Devolution and Democratic Centralism
    Archon Fung Assistant Professor of Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Email: [email protected]; tel: 617.495.9846 Draft 1.0: 2 December 1999 Leonardo Avritzer, Special Issue of Metropolitica DRAFT ONLY: Please do not cite without permission! Creating Deliberative Publics: Governance After Devolution and Democratic Centralism1 1. The Persistent Problem of the Public In the Public and Its Problems, John Dewey lamented the stagnancy of democratic political forms in the face of rapidly changing economy and society.2 Citizens in pre-industrial America may have been able to keep abreast of public affairs and express their will through the machinery of parties and elections, but these institutions had proved woefully inadequate to the challenges of modern governance with its large scale, diversity, and technical complexity. The problem of the modern public—and the cause of its incoherence—was that citizens, alone and together, were for the most part 1 This ideas offered here draw heavily upon an ongoing, and expanding, series of collaborations to explore participatory democratic renewal. Some previous and related products of that collaboration are Charles Sabel, Archon Fung, and Bradley Karkkainen, “Beyond Backyard Environmentalism,” Boston Review, Vol. 24, No. 5 (October/November 1999): 4-11; Charles Sabel, Dara O’Rourke, and Archon Fung, “Open Labor Standards” (Prepared for the Annual Meetings of the World Bank 1999, on file with author); Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright, “Experiments in Empowered Deliberative Democracy: Introduction,” (June 1999, manuscript on file with author). Fung/Empowered Deliberation/DRAFT ONLY!! Page 2 bewildered when they contemplate affairs of state and their relationship to it.
    [Show full text]