1. Citizen participation and democracy
Prof. Dr. Bram Verschuere

2. Problem statement

3. Declining trust in democracy?
“The democratic fatigue syndrome” (Van Reybrouck):
Voting and voting behavior
Political party membership
Chronic election fever
Distrust in government and politics …
→ Very pessimistic view on current state of democracy

4. More optimistic view: changing democracy?
“Democracy is always changing” (Keane):
Society is changing
Hence also way democracy is organized changes
New democracy emerges, on the sediments of the old organization
Which eventually leads to tension: new demands vs old organization
“Democracy never rests and is always changing in nature”
Thus dichotomy between RD and PD is false. Today they influence each other, do not replace each other
→ A new kind of democracy emerges, most often in the local laboratory

5. PD affects, not replaces RD
Rise of PD changes concepts of “elections” and “political parties” – we should not change democracy, it is already changing (De Rynck)
Parties: in crisis (Wauters), but formal power remains large. Quest for adaptation: new people, new ideas, ‘platforms’, polticians moving into broadening space between party and society (Macron, Trump, …)
Elections: no valuable alternatives yet. Mobilisation, debate and selection of legitimate leadership remains necessary. But not ‘nec plus ultra’ any longer. Important for selection of political leadership that can coordinate and direct the participatory networks. The future politician is able to gain authority not from their party, but from how they position in society (and link participation with representation)
→ Broader conceptualisation of politics: many dèmoi with participation is changing politics and policy

6. The concept of citizen participation

7. Many meanings, conceptually
Participation-ladder Edelenbos & Monnikhof
Co-decision
Govt let citizens decide on policy and commits to outcome
Binding referendum, citizen juries, participatory budgeting
Co-production
Govt and citizens co-decide on problems and solutions. Govt commits to eventual outcome
Group decision rooms
Advise
Govt let citizens formulate problems and solutions, as essential part in policy-formulation
Advisory committees, citizen juries
Consult
Govt decides on policy (-direction)
Citizen is consulted (not binding)
Citizen panels, e-consultation, focus groups, …
Inform
Govt informs citizens about decisions
No citizen input
Hearings, meetings, exhibitions, …

8. Many questions, theoretically & empirically, about effect on ‘Democracy’
Inclusion - Who participates? Are all citizens equally involved?
Do administrative traditions and cultures influence participation (- levels)?
Is participation leading to increased trust and satisfaction in ‘government’ and ‘politics’?
Empowerment – Is participation leading to ‘better’ citizenship?

9. SELECTION OF Recent research

10. Effect of direct democracy on democratic satisfaction and political trust
Mariën & Kern (2016)

11. Problem statement
Effect of direct citizen involvement in decision-making (referendum) on democratic satisfaction and political trust?
Democratic satisfaction: is political system functioning democratically?
Political trust: is political system living up to citizens’ normative expectations?
Causal mechanism?
Referendum increases satisfaction and trust (fair procedure argument)
Voters in referendum are more satisfied and trustful (perceived influence argument)
Voting for winning outcome increases satisfaction and trust, compared to voting for losing outcome (favorability and instrumental argument)
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

12. methodology Referendum in a Belgian city: Research design:
On mobility (traffic circulation)
Highly salient issue (thus likely to affect citizen’s opinions on the governing process)
Policy makers promise to respect the outcome
Research design:
Treatment (N=483) and comparison group (N=566) (in same city)
Both are similar + under same democratic process (same city)
Testing changes over time
Testing impact ‘referendum’ on these changes
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

13. Results 1 Changes in treatment group over time?
Trust increased significantly among citizens that were eligible to participate
Satisfaction decreased slightly (insignificantly)
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

14. Results 2 Changes due to the fact there was a referendum?
Referendum mitigated decrease in satisfaction: decline in control group but not in treatment group
Referendum led to increased trust in treatment group but not in control group
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

15. Results 3
Is participation in referendum needed to increase trust and satisfaction? Increase in trust (.55) and satisfaction (.55) with voters Different from non-voters and comparison group (not entitled to vote)

16. Results 4
Why is there an increase in trust and satisfaction with voters? Confirming the hypothesis that changes are due to favorable outcomes (H3: the winners of the referendum): satisfaction gap between winners and losers/non-voters

17. Results 5
Comparing to comparison group? No difference between non-voters, losers, not-eligible: very strong increase in satisfaction and trust with winners

18. Results 6
Why such big effect with winners? “Analysis shows that winning proves to be critical for citizen’s perceptions towards the decision making process, and impacts their evaluation of the functioning of the democratic process and its institutions”

19. Conclusions
Increase in satisfaction and trust is result not from the fact that there is a participation process (due to perception of fair procedure or influence), but from the favorable outcome of the participation-process.
Caution: this is about direct democracy (only one form of participation)
Perhaps more deliberative form may be a better way to increase satisfaction and trust with all participants? Argument of less polarizing participation-form.

20. Incentives of coproducers: why do people coproduce?
Van Eijk & Steen (2014)

21. SET of motivations to participate
Source: Steen, T. & van Eijk, C. (2013), Bestuurskunde

22. Case client councils health care in the netherlands
Form of client-participation in (mostly) publicly funded service providers
More deliberative nature of participation
Example of involving citizens/clients in the process of public service delivery usually provided by professionals
Surveys with members of client councils: 4 ‘motivational profiles’.
Bron: van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2014), Public Management Review

23. Profile 1: ‘the semi-professional’: competent contribution to organization,focussing on structures and policies
Wants ‘impact’
‘Knows’ the sector
Participation as a
deliberate choice
Bron: Van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2013), Public Management Review

24. Profile 2: ‘the socializer’: Rather passive, values trust and
open relations
Trust
Interest representation
Having impact less important
No professional knowledge
Bron: van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2013), Public Management Review

25. Profile 3: ‘the network professional’: aims at improvement for
the benefit of all clients
Wants impact
Interest representation
Participation as a deliberate
choice
‘Public Service Motivation’
Bron: van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2013), Public Management Review

26. Profile 4: ‘the aware coproducer’: advocates ‘real’ coproduction,
care cannot be delivered without client-involvement
Hardly any self-interest
Intrest representation
Values client-input!
Participation is ‘more than a
hobby’
Bron: van Eijk, C. & Steen, T. (2013), Public Management Review

27. Conclusions Community-centredness more important than self-centredness
Competences seem less important
This kind of participation can thus not only be understood by only referring to active citizenship or customer behavior only
→ Point for discussion: very salient products, services, issues are characterized by participation-opportunities for all kind of people. Possible to overcome ‘participation – gaps’ (inequality in participation opportunities and behavior)?
→ Lesson for practice: different motivational profiles – different incentive strategies?
→ Possibilities for deliberation: different participatory input by different profiles brings more broadened view on the organisation (and what people want from it). Hence importance of open communication in such participation-projects.

28. Is citizen participation good for democracy? “The participation gap”.
Dalton (forthcoming 2017)

29. General observation
(International Social Survey Program trend )
The expansion of citizen participation:
Decline in voting turnout
Increase in citizen innovation and democratic institutional reforms
Increase in number and variety of access points people can use to influence political outcomes, like direct contact with leaders, new forms of action and activism: more engaged citizenry
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

30. But rising political inequality?
Skills and resources to use new entryways to participation are unevenly spread over the population: “the SES Participation Gap” Hypothesis: the expanding repertoire of participation in politics widens this gap! Because in non-electoral forms of participation, skills and resources are even more important. Which leaves us with a democratic dilemma: expansion of new participatory forms vs risk on widening gap between politically ‘rich’ and politically ‘poor’.
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

31. Participation – inequality - government
Is active citizenry improving or harming functioning of democratic governance? Positive correlation!
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

32. Participation – inequality - government
And does inequality (as measured via social status traits) in participation detract from democratic governance (as many voices are unheard)?
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

33. Conclusion
Best democratic governance occurs when participation is high and the participation gap is small (surprise surprise)
Expanding public’s voice is important for democracy and quality of governance, but government should be attentive for equality in participation opportunities
Commodificatie = vb. canadese non-profit die interpersoonlijke ondersteuning aanbied
Marktorientatie = relatie met performantie, inconsistent beeld.

34. Is coproduction of local community development ‘democratic’ in nature?
Vanleene et al (2017)

35. Problem statement
Deprived neighbourhoods and participation opportunities – community development
Practice in which ‘co-production’ is inherent: residents + professionals take action to make neighbourhood ‘a better place to live’
BUT
Are residents really participating?
What role do professionals (social workers) play?
And what are the effects (in terms of inclusion, empowerment and equity)?

36. Inclusion – empowerment - equity
Has every citizen access to the project?
Important issue, especially re. community development in derelict neighbourhoods.
EQUITY:
Does every participant benefits from his/her coproductive efforts?
Are benefits for the community, the individual, or both?
EMPOWERMENT
Do participants really have a say in the project and its outcomes?
Not to be taken for granted, especially in government initiated participation projects

37. The role of the professional
In community development, professionals are the link between residents and local government. As such, it is assumed they have an important role to play in order to make project successful: helping citizens via supplying resources and skills needed by the residents. Three roles (de Graaf et al. 2015): ask (inform/invite) – enable (competences) – respond (continuously checking salience of the project)

38. CASE study and method CASE
Deprived area/neighbourhood in Ghent: transit neighbourhood, low SES, disproportionate share of non-Belgian residents.
In the early 2000s the city government and an NGO activated a project in which citizens were invited to co-produce their neighbourhood via concrete projects: community gardening, social grocery, social restaurant, cleaning the public domain, carving out green spaces, …
City and NGO provide subsidies and personnel, residents provide their time and effort
We studied 2 of these concrete projects (see next slide) – via document analysis, interviews with professionals and focus groups with residents

39. CASE study and method
CASE

40. RESULTS 1

41. RESULTS 2

42. Some conclusions
Unusual suspects (e.g. low SES citizens) can be included in participative projects if enough professional support.
This means investing in participation by government.
The extent to which people are included, feel empowered and experience equal benefits very much depend on the roles the professionals take up.
But: delicate balance between being a ‘friend’ (inviting people - inclusion) and a ‘leader’ (directing the project – in terms of equity) that affects sense of empowerment by people

43. Some Concluding reflections based on this and other literature

44. Issues to think about
Is increased democratic quality of participation influenced by the fact that people need to perceive the outcome of the participation project as being ‘favorable’?
Is this observation a plea for more deliberative forms of coproduction?
Is there a participation-gap?
Can government/professionals efforts overcome this gap?
And how? By acknowledging different incentives? By stressing salience? …

45. Thanks for your attention. E. bram. verschuere@ugent. be
Thanks for your attention! E @VerschuereBram be.linkedin.com/in/bramverschuere