Citizen participation in the Governance of Large Metropolis

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.



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.

Citizen participation in the Governance of Large Metropolis

Documents

Transcript of Citizen participation in the Governance of Large Metropolis