Review of five academic articles

¶ … Ladder of Citizen Participation" by Sherry R. Arnstein offers a typology of citizen participation for the purpose of dispelling rhetoric and disingenuous euphemisms often used in the controversy over citizen participation. Arnstein first defines 'citizen participation:' "the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens...to be deliberately included in the future" (p. 216). However, much 'citizen participation' is merely political rhetoric. Addressing this situation, Arnstein creates a 'ladder' that explains the degrees of citizen participation, of which there are eight rungs.

Manipulation, the first rung of the ladder, is the situation that often arises where Citizen Advisory Committees -- or groups similar -- are formed in response to a political request. These committees are told they're gathering for input on an important community issue. In reality, the group exists with no input at all, simply for positive political public relations -- so rhetoric like "grassroots participation" can be used for political benefit.

The second rung of the ladder, Therapy, refers to the occurrence of "experts subject[ing]...citizens to clinical group therapy" under the guise of involving them in planning (p. 218). Arnstein claims the purpose of this therapy is to "cure" citizens of their "pathology," so, for example, they don't complain about arbitrary evictions or "a three-month time lapse to get a broken window replaced in the winter" (p. 219).

The third rung, Informing (citizens of their rights), is an important first step to legitimate citizen participation, but it's often not enough. Often, citizens are informed too late in the process to affect change, or information is given in a solely one-way manner, leaving no room for feedback or negotiation. If feedback is in fact allowed, Arnstein purports, it's often met with superficial information, discouraging questions, or irrelevant answers -- further stifling citizen participation.

Consultation, the fourth rung in Arnstein's citizen participation ladder, refers to power holders inviting citizens' opinions. This also can often be a "sham," Arnstein writes, because citizens have no assurance that their opinions will be actually used in planning, while power holders gain evidence that they have involved their constituents (p. 219).

Placation is the fifth rung in the citizen participation ladder. In this scheme, groups such as City Demonstration Agencies (CDAs) create citizen-led boards that, in theory, will engage in planning. CDAs, and other power holders, often retain veto power. In situations where citizen-led boards have the capability to affect change, they're often ill-equipped, having not enough time, and technical advice only from those promoting power holders' agendas. Thus, citizens are placated with the idea that they're participating, when in actuality, final planning decisions always occur among the power holders.

Partnership is the sixth rung, but the first where power is actually redistributed. This is achieved by negotiation between citizens and power holders, as well as by mechanisms for resolving conflict, joint policy boards and planning committees. Citizens, at this rung -- in the form of citizen boards -- often have veto power, retaining the right to review all plans before they're executed.

The seventh rung of Arnstein's ladder is Delegated Power, which occurs when citizens have the most decision-making authority over a particular program. Citizens have enough power, in these situations, to ensure that the program is implemented according to their (negotiated) desires.

Citizen control, the eighth and final rung of Arnstein's ladder, is the simple situation of the residents of a particular community fully governing a program or institution, having complete control over its managerial aspects, and the ability to negotiate the extent to which the program is influenced by the outside.

"Bridging the Gap: Citizenship, Participation and Accountability" by Andrea Cornwall and John Gaventa explores the issues associated with ensuring that citizens be heard by the institutions that have a significant affect on their lives. Further, Cornwall & Gaventa analyze a number of strategies that "bridge the gap between citizens and the state" (p. 32).

The most recent challenges to effective citizen participation have been met with decentralization and devolution measures. On the one hand, this decentralization has afforded a greater capacity for citizen involvement (integrating the state, the market and civil society). On the other hand, some worry that the state is simply releasing its largest responsibilities to private organizations.

Historically, 'bridging the gap' between citizens and the state has been approached by one of two ways. The first has been through strengthening participation, or increasing the ability of the poor to have their voice heard by larger institutions and policies. The second way has been to bolster the accountability and responsiveness of the state to their constituencies. Recently, however, it has become apparent that both methods should be used, creating a "participatory democracy and responsive government as 'mutually reinforcing and supportive" (p. 32).

There have been a number of distinct methods for strengthening social and political participation, respectively. Strengthening political participation has generally taken the form of voter education, informing citizens of their rights and responsibilities, lobbying, and advocacy. Strengthening social participation has traditionally taken the form of wider participatory mechanisms for planning, watchdog groups, training, and awareness building. Both these political and social mechanisms have helped to bridge the gap between citizens and the state, having helped to create a citizen base that is in a better position to demand accountability because it is more informed.

Bridging the gap further, in recent years, participation has begun to be rethought of as a right, rather than something permitted. Cornwall & Gaventa say that this "recognises the agency of citizens as 'makers and shapers' rather than as 'users and choosers'" (p. 33). In sum, this new method of thought has caused a greater focus on involving those with the least power. Moreover, it's created new methods of citizen participation: town hall meetings, committees, and legislative theater performances; national policy or government backing of citizen consultation; the opening of budget expenditure to citizens as the result of a switch in thinking about 'lay' citizens to citizens with expertise through experience; organizations, such as NGOs, facilitating governmental accountability and transparency; citizens' juries; and exercises where the focus has been on mutual learning and innovative new courses of action.

While these advances in citizen participation have occurred, citizen participation still exists, Cornwall & Gaventa claim, on a spectrum, with much 'invalid' participation still occurring. One of the most important methods to overcome this situation is to build confidence in institutions regarding consulting citizens, and holding them accountable to what they claim they'll do. This happens most effectively when high-level officials within institutions champion citizen participation, creating momentum within the organization. Further progress can be made when the rewards of participation are recognized -- a ripple effect can be created, motivating institutions to continue consulting citizens. Underlying all of this, however, is the need for citizens to, themselves, be compelled to express their voices. The challenge of compelling citizens and encouraging them to be more active will be that for the next generation of advocates to take on.

"Exploring Citizenship, Participation and Accountability" by John Gaventa offers a general, exploratory overview of citizenship within the framework of a "growing crisis of legitimacy" in regards to "citizens and the institutions that affect their lives" (p. 1).

Historically, this crisis has been addressed in one of two ways: strengthening participation, or the ways in which poor people's voices are heard, via "deliberation, consultation and/or mobilisation;" and strengthening the accountability and responsiveness of institutions by modifying institutional structure (p. 1). These two methods have generally been viewed as mutually exclusive; however, current thought is headed in the direction of strengthening both participation and accountability. Further, Gaventa claims that for arguments for participation and institutional accountability to be meaningful, they must have a foundation in a conception of rights that promotes the idea of citizens as "legitimate claimants" of development, rather than beneficiaries (p. 2).

In the recent past, a number of shifts in different areas of development have caused the concept of 'citizenship' to come under debate. Participatory development began to focus on political participation and 'good governance.' Increasing institutional responsiveness became much more important. Participation in development came to be thought of as a right. These changes have "opened spaces for the participation and good governance agendas to meet under concepts of 'citizenship participation,' 'participatory governance' or 'participatory citizenship'" (p. 3).

That withstanding, the debate on citizenship is still muddled with varying definitions of the concept. In academic literature, three theories regarding citizenship have been distinguished: liberal, communitarian, and civic republican. Liberal theories purport that citizenship is a status that gives individuals "a specific set of universal rights granted by the state" (p. 4). Communitarian theories hold that identity, in individuals, is only possible through relations with others in their community (thus focusing on community belonging and the individual as socially-embedded). Civic republican theories focus more on individuals' political identities, rather than their identities in communities.

Recently, attempts have been made at joining these three theories within a concept of citizenship, which has, Gaventa proffers, "broadened the concepts of rights and citizenship" to include "rights which enable the realization of other rights, including the right to claim rights" (p. 4). Moreover, citizenship should include, as a fundamental right -- in this concept of citizenship -- the right to participation itself. The right to participation affords social rights, as individuals cannot realize social rights without first exercising rights to participation.

Gaventa then goes on to discuss the different meanings and expressions of rights and citizenship. Sometimes, he writes, where citizenship is "universally assured," it's often not realized by the poorest of the poor (p. 6). More generally, ethnic, religious, geographic, and gender identities often frame the meanings and expressions of citizenship. Citizenship is also mediated by a "culture of privilege and patronage," as well as gender and social status. New theories in citizenship must be explored to overcome these problems (p. 6).

Apart from the different forms that citizenship takes across the globe, traditional boundaries between the state, civil society and the private sector are becoming increasingly ambiguous, necessitating a reframing of the roles of governments, the corporate sector, and citizens.

Gaventa finishes his peice by stating that one of the most important goals for understanding citizenship is to understand how rights and citizenship "are shaped by differing social, political, and cultural contexts" (p. 9). Further, it is important to keep in mind that newer, rights-based approaches, as those discussed in this article, are not inherently pro-poor. What's necessary is to understand the perceptions of poor people themselves, and to create spaces for citizen participation that are relevant to the citizens in question.

"Improving Performance and Accountability in Local Government with Citizen Participation" by Gibson, Lacy, & Dougherty examines the role of the citizen in a democratic society and calls for a shift in the public participation paradigm. Specifically, Gibson et al. call for a shift from the "expert/professional" political model to one in which the citizen is a part of every aspect of governance (p. 1).

Traditionally, two trends have dominated "the political participation landscape" since the early 19th century (p. 1). One has been the expansion of the field of participation to groups previously excluded. The other has been the evolution of institutions to a focus on minimizing costs associated with direct involvement, thus leaving the citizen in a secondary role regarding setting agendas, developing budgets, implementing programs, or evaluating outcomes.

Gibson et al. offer an alternative paradigm, where citizens have significant voices at the strategic vision level, residents are heavily encouraged to participate and are fully informed with the knowledge to make their participation meaningful, and public officials are engaged more frequently and effectively. In their paradigm, the meaning of 'accountability' is rethought as well; it's broadened to include not only financial accountability, but accountability for fairness, accountability for performance, and accountability for personal probity.

The authors then explain four, current broad models of citizen engagement. The managerial model -- the most common -- is top down, follows a rigid sequence, is linear in its application, and fails to provide for meaningful stakeholder participation. The legislative model -- the second most common -- is used to create an action agenda to direct organizational decisions, and usually results in three actions: development of an agenda, the "buy in" (by the community) of the agenda, and "the legitimization of decisions made by the community's governing body" (p. 6) The third model, the limited community participation model, is characterized by a Blue Ribbon Commission, which meets for a specified time period, writes a report, and dissolves. Community input is limited. The final model is the community empowerment model, which takes its foundation in "extensive community participation" and functions as an "empowerment process to develop a community agenda and engage the residents of the community over a long period of time" (p. 7).

By examining a number of case studies -- where citizen participation is being practiced -- Gibson et al. come up with a number of factors that contribute to success of the participation process. Flexibility must exist in engagement processes; a community should be able to modify its process in response to internal and external changes. Community planning processes must have "widely accepted measures of success or progress;" residents must see the results so they can know their participation is meaningful (p. 9). Renewal mechanisms must be a part of planning processes for long-term functioning. There must exist a "progress review board or independent oversight committee" to monitor progress and present it to residents (p. 9). Good leadership must also exist, and the hiring of good leadership must be treated as personnel decisions "with the same interest and concerns used to hire fulltime staff" (p. 9). In sum, or generally, Gibson et al. has found that community planning combined with benchmarking and performance monitoring builds trust among residents and keeps residents interested and motivated in further participation.

The authors are optimistic about the potential of electronic media to strengthen the engagement process. Moreover, there have been a growing number of community groups, neighborhood associations and civic associations during the past two decades. "The engaged community...is only in its infancy" (p. 10). However, it continues to grow, and is starting to become more a part of "the more formalized infrastructure of civic engagement" (p. 10).

"Innovations in Accountability and Transparency through Citizen Engagement" by John Gaventa is an overview of a workshop regarding accountability and transparency held at the Bellagio Study and Conference Center in summer, 2008. The workshop met to discuss the future direction of accountability and transparency and it continues to grow in many different parts of the world. These agendas can be seen growing at civil society organizations, which have recently launched a host of initiatives to foster better accountability and transparency; at large-scale bilateral and multilateral aid organizations, and at private foundations and philanthropists, whose donations are "growing in importance" (p. 2).