Post on 18-Jan-2023
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
Law in Large Metropolis, Jean-Bernard AUBY Citizen participation in the Governance of Large Metropolis
In an age of access, as immediacy of information has become the standard in all
spheres of our societies thanks to new information and communication technologies,
transparency is more than ever at the heart of the reflection on democracy. Obviously,
accountability is not a new requirement for governments. However it has gained
unprecedented importance, as those in charge of managing public affairs are increasingly
expected to be able to provide information on their action and to receive citizens’ feedback
at any stage of the policy continuum. In this context, lack of transparency generates
suspicion and potentially distrust in the political personnel which undermines the
democratic system as a whole. Citizen involvement in administrative decision-making and
management processes can remedy this loss of public trust and actually reinforce
governments’ legitimacy.
The traditional top-down approach to public policy hence seems no longer relevant
to understand and analyse the process of governing. The notion of governance is nowadays
preferred to that of government, but what exactly does this vocabulary shift illustrate?
Several schools of ideas proposed their own definition of governance. In many cases, these
definitions are highly normative and ideologically charged: neoclassical economists’ “good
governance” draws inspiration from public choice theory and aims at providing policy
prescriptions for efficient management of public affairs. Neo-Marxists oppose governance to
government as a critique of powerful elites’ domination and see in it a way of
counterbalancing private interests and reintroducing the expression of public interest in the
process of governing. Sociology of organizations assimilates governance to a negotiation
process, actors producing outputs according to their internal organization. But the most
comprehensive approach, which we will use in this essay, is probably the socio-political one.
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
Governance is considered in a macro-political sense, as the articulation between regulations
enabling stabilized relations between actors, and relying on a mode of coordination, a type
of relationship between actors, ways of allocating resources and of structuring conflicts. It
acknowledges a combination of regulations by the State, regional and local authorities, the
market, companies, communities, associations, etc. This articulation varies along given
spaces, societies, territories, cities, as regulations and networks are themselves extremely
diverse. This definition of governance, unlike the previous ones, is not a theory but rather a
way of setting a framework for thinking collective choices, through a comparative grid
allowing greater place for citizens. By citizen participation, we mean a rather large array of
activities, following Langton’s definition (1978): "initiated and controlled by government to
improve and/or to gain support for decisions, programs, or services", its includes four types:
citizen action (lobbying, protest,…), citizen involvement (public hearings, citizen surveys,…),
electoral participation (voting, campaigning for political candidates,…), and obligatory
participation (paying taxes, performing jury duty,…).
While most countries in the world follow a trend of decentralization and power
rescaling (principally at the metropolitan level), local governments are left with more
responsibilities and attributions – but also lesser resources and financial support from the
State – than ever. How does it affect the level of citizen participation in the very context of
large metropolises? We will in a first time provide an overview of the main issues at stake,
risks and major rationales for direct or indirect participation mechanisms. Then in a second
time, and since governance is about inclusiveness of all actors throughout the policy stream,
we will turn to an assessment of main citizen participation practices upstream, midstream
and downstream in the policy continuum. We will try to identify forms taken by this
participation, in their diversity of purposes, activities, objects (types of citizens participating),
subjects (levels and aspects of government involved), and most of all to observe how they
are structured and organized by legal and institutional frameworks.
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND POWER RESCALING
Citizens are mostly concerned with very practical issues affecting their daily lives; this
is why they are more susceptible to be interested in taking part in the management of urban
affairs than in any higher level of government. Besides, since urban policy aims at regulating
to the best the common share of the city by its inhabitants, they are the first concerned and
those who know the best the problems they are facing. The educative value of citizen
participation is two-ways: citizens can inform government and representatives, helping them
to identify issues and understand at best the very local context and characteristics,
constraints decision-makers should be aware of when implementing public policies in certain
neighbourhoods for instance. They bring up a form of expertise highly valuable to design
adequate urban policies. Conversely, citizens involved in the policy-making process get an
insight of the “black-box” of the legislative and institutional mechanisms behind the urban
fabric, so that they may discover of better understand the complexity of local governments’
action, restrained by a multiplicity of constraints. Taking part in negotiations for the budget
for instance allows them to see the trade-offs, the difficulty of balancing interests and
building consensus, and the political expert know-how needed to build successful coalitions.
Local authorities gain renewed legitimacy and therefore can – paradoxically – reinforce their
leadership thanks to this share of power with citizens. Trust in political personnel is
strengthened and political suasion more efficient. Indeed, the successful implementation of
a public policy often depends on its acceptance by citizens, and they are more likely to give
their consent to a measure they participated in designing. Actually, the dynamics of social
influence are well-known by authorities who sometimes even instrumentalize them; some
citizen-participation programmes are not a true collaboration with citizens but rather
indoctrination and a manipulation to gain support from a community before implementing a
policy. The enthusiasm of citizen participants, especially if they are influential individuals in
their community, may spread and diffuse opposition (Howell, Olsen & Olsen 1987).
Still, citizen participation remains powerful in breaking gridlocks, as citizens’ input, if
balanced, can allow factions to reach compromise and solve formerly intractable problems.
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
It enables government agencies to make decisions they would never have been able to make
unilaterally (Applegate 1998). It may also significantly lower possibilities of litigation, hence
saving financial costs and avoiding lengthy delays. Last but not least, it is a great tool for
community empowerment: it teaches citizens to interact with other groups and take part in
the political game, and such dispositions as citizen advisory boards open possibilities of non-
confrontational dialogue with governmental decision makers, turning popular anger into
pressure to reform, which is of course much healthier for the local democracy. One must be
aware that empowerment mostly happens locally; therefore the decentralization dynamic at
work in many large cities is a chance for people empowerment, especially for poor
populations in the urban South. Indeed, with fewer resources, local governments have more
incentives to try and avoid contention by involving their populations in the policy process. It
is a long-term investment though, as diffusing citizen goodwill takes time and, if not well-
managed, could produce very negative outcomes. First of all, the citizens the most willing to
volunteer for spending time and resources in deliberative committees are the most partisan
ones, those whose values or livelihood are the most affected by the decision to be taken.
This creates distortion in the representation of communities, where lower-income groups
are already under-represented since they have lesser time and financial margin to afford
taking part in debates or deliberations. Besides, if civic education is not strong enough,
participative procedures may favour the expression of personal selfishness and lead to
detrimental to the society because they allowed undue influence of local economic interests
on the decision. It is especially the case on the sensitive field of environmental matters or
when employment is at stake.
We saw here how citizen participation may support the success of an urban policy,
but it has to happen under certain conditions, of which the most important are citizen
goodwill and representation of the community by the participants. When the public is
reluctant to get involved, do not recognize the issues being discussed, or when
representation is too biased, participative procedures may also produce extremely negative
policies and undermine general interest. It is crucial for governments to analyse the very
local context and social dynamics at work before trying to involve citizens at any stage of the
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
policy stream. We now turn to an assessment of the various ways for local governments to
involve citizens in large metropolises governance.
2. UPSTREAM PARTICIPATION
Legislative, quasi-legislative and policy-making process
Citizens can be involved in the earliest stage of policy-making. They can
spontaneously mobilize or be mobilized by authorities to help identifying problems, raise
issues that were not on the political agenda and hence initiate a legislative process in which
they may of course take part in order to design the policy.
Policy-making is a complex process made of several steps, where dialogue and
deliberation can be introduced thanks to participation tools and instruments. These forms of
participative governance include a very wide array of mechanisms such as consensus
conferences, choice work dialogue, public conversations, focus groups, roundtables,
deliberative town meeting forums, citizen juries, etc. The degree of citizens’ involvement
varies greatly in terms of inclusiveness, deliberativeness and influence: from very minimal
processes of information and consultation, where the participation is rather superficial and
could be assimilated to a manipulation of the public (Arnstein 1969) to more inclusive
mechanisms of partnerships, effective collaboration empowering citizens. Of course, the
legal framework is not a sufficient guarantee of marginalized groups’ participation; however
the legal basis for participation (and for accountability, as we will see in part 4) does matter.
Laws can be promulgated in response to demand from below with citizen input; they
sometimes result from the institutionalization of pilot projects, while in other cases they
may result from an evolution of the existing legal framework, turned into progressive laws.
They can be implanted from above as in India, where 73rd and 74th constitutional
Amendments introduced local level participation and offer women and outcasts the
opportunity to get involved in local politics, or they can be introduced from outside as in the
Uganda case, where local participation (even though it is very weakly implemented and put
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
into practice) was laid down in the legal framework (Local Government Act, 1997) under
pressure from international donors. In any case, the legal provision for citizen participation
at the local level are obviously not limited to local regulations; they are embedded in a
bundle embracing laws and policies that operate interdependently and articulate every level
of power, from supra-national (the European Union for instance), national (Bolivia and its
Law of Participation) to very local. On the backdrop set by constitutions, decentralization
laws, etc., the local legislation balances the scope, content and potential to build
institutional and policy mechanisms for participation. They adapt to the “minimal standard”
set by higher-level regulations to introduce and shape the citizen involvement in urban
governance.
The very first step in policy-making is the identification of a policy problem.
Instruments such as petitions or the referendum and initiative process can be seized by local
populations to raise an issue and set it at the agenda. The rights of petition depend on the
countries, but in some places they are laid down in the constitution (Switzerland, Poland) or
laws (Czech Republic). Participatory planning for instance is another tool used in the
Philippines, India and Bolivia to influence priorities of local governments. Once the problem
is identified, policy-making is about choosing approaches to solve it, setting priorities among
approaches, selecting appropriate regulatory tools… In other words it is all about reaching
consensus in a more or less contentious context and a wide array of participation techniques
exist to involve citizens in that negotiation process. Local authorities have at their disposal a
real toolbox of participatory techniques. Public hearings enable any citizen willing to
participate. Citizen advisory committees can help in planning programme, identifying
community needs and interests and bring their knowledge of their own community as an
expertise for better meeting needs. Citizen juries or panels introduce a group of citizens in
the legislative process. Citizen surveys incorporate citizens’ preferences into the policy.
Focus groups are face-to-face, open-ended sessions of brainstorming in rather small
discussion groups of citizens. Deliberation (including consensus conferences, public
consultation etc.) are usually not so effective in bringing new perspectives because they are
too large, with too many inputs. Open meetings such as town meetings or district meeting
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
are a great opportunity for people to speak and give their point of view to decision-makers,
however unfortunately very few citizens attend. Coproduction, in spite of its conflictual
potential, builds trust on the basis of a mutual relationship, with sometimes a power transfer
(democratic decentralisation).
In terms of structures, a wide array of committees and institutional channels for
citizen participation exist: Ward Development Committees in Tanzania and Zimbabwe,
Overseeing committees in Colombia or Vigilance committees in Bolivia, etc. Their success in
empowering local populations are not always satisfying, as participatory skills, political will
and financial resources may be lacking and power relations still disadvantaging citizens. It is
barely possible to assess the potential of each tool per se inasmuch as the very local context,
unique balance of multiple factors and characteristics, will determine the dynamics of the
process.
3. MIDSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM PARTICIPATION
Policy implementation
Citizens may be involved all along the policy-making process, including in the
negotiation of the budget; the case of Porto Alegre, Brazil, is famous and one of the most
lauded internationally: in 1989, the City Hall created participatory structures with decision-
making power to allocate the infrastructure development budget; the Municipal Council of
Government Plan and Budget – constituted of elected citizens from each of the 16 districts,
and government representatives with no voting right – is then in charge of executing the
budget. The whole process also includes an open consultation of the population before the
negotiations start with the Executive power. In Menlo Park, California, cuts in the city’s
budget are chosen after deliberation, polls and surveys.
More common and obvious is the citizen participation in legislation enactment, be it
directly (referendum and initiative processes) or indirectly (representatives making policy
choices). But following the policy-making process, the implementation is a highly sensitive
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
step often triggering conflicts. The same participation processes can prove very useful; for
land use planning, governments may use community visioning, a series of meetings during
which a local residents’ committee takes part in a series of steps toward creating a
conceptual plan. Many policy problems cross administrative boundaries and involve the
public, private and non-profit sectors; therefore we should not minimize the increasing role
of private actors in public management. It can take the form of negotiated rulemaking for
collaborative implementation of a public law, or collaboration in natural resources
management, water network for instance. These forms of collaborative public management
highlight the new role of nongovernmental actors in governance, which should be
counterbalanced by third and fourth parties guaranteeing democratic practices, in an
institutional design promoting citizen self-organization and participation.
4. DOWNSTREAM PARTICIPATION
Policy enforcement, feedback, dispute resolution, evaluation
What may be the first and most important guarantee of a healthy democracy is the
existence of checks and feedback loops, the possibility for citizens to assess and provide
feedback on public action. This implies both an access to information and a possibility for
the populations to provide their feedback.
Access to information is an absolutely necessary guarantee of democracy. New
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) allow governments to release
information which will be instantly accessible to citizens, who can now carefully follow-up
the conduct of public policies. In the communication between citizens and government, the
form, support and channel of delivery do matter. Media are also important actors in
disseminating information and complete in a more informal and critical way the institutional
elements for information foreseen by law and Freedom of Information is also a matter for
legislation. More broadly, information mechanisms must address a double challenge
though: on the one hand, they need to balance the citizens’ right to information with the
individual right to privacy, and on the other hand confidentiality has to be preserved in
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
some policy domains such as security or private company data. Countries vary greatly in
their legislations on restrictions of access to information (Iceland exemptions include Cabinet
meeting minutes for instance, and Spain and Poland actually have an explicit list of classified
matters). Access might be instant if the information is displayed on an institution or agency
website, or citizens may have to request this information. Legislation usually sets all
modalities of access: how to request access, what maximum response time, how to state
and appeal a refusal, what to publish actively and in what languages, etc.
Not only should citizens participate to urban governance by getting information from
their officials; they should foster transparency by getting involved in the evaluation process.
Some countries have established legal frameworks to support evaluation. Legal dispositions
usually review if an automatic evaluation by independent evaluators should be required, if
public authorities should be obliged by law to conduct and publish evaluation reports, and of
course through which evaluation processes citizens can be directly involved. Participation in
review boards is a possibility of direct citizen involvement, surveys are an indirect one. ICT
and more specifically new social media offer unprecedented opportunities of exchange
between governments and populations, new possibilities for external advice and
outsourcing as well as internal awareness and open communication culture. These new tools
may help initiating more substantial citizen participation by changing the nature of the
relationship with governments. In fact ICT can enhance participation of citizens and
collaboration at all stages of governance, moving from a top-down approach to policy-
making to a more interactive process through online platforms for instance. Even though
those tools of course raise their own issues (timing, tailor, integration), they have to be fully
explored and seized by local authorities as an opportunity to reach more extensive citizen
participation, and involve populations more difficult to access through conventional ways.
Conclusion:
Local governance has dramatically evolved worldwide and this is particularly
conspicuous in large metropolises. The complexity of our social organization, reflected in
Raphaëlle ROFFO Master Governing the Large Metropolis
Spring Semester 2013
the physical forms and organizational structures that constitute our cities requires the
participation of an incredibly large number of actors in governing and managing the living
together. As State withdraws and local authorities have to take over a huge amount of
responsibilities, they may seek relief by delegating power through citizen participation, or a
new dynamic and impetus for public action thanks to smoother relations with civil society. It
is noticeable that citizens are usually involved in decision-making, street-level services,
management function, however functional areas that are managerial or technical step away
from these citizen involvement mechanisms. Local governments have to foster the logic of
citizen participation, and to always remain aware of the context in which they are working
and using communities’ knowledge on their own situation to produce fitted policies.
Participation cannot be taken as a gadget and research for its improvement should keep
being conducted, in particular to develop better assessment tools for evaluating impact of
public consultations and involvement into the actual management of urban affairs.