This paper surveys the major theoretical models of citizen participation in public administration, examining how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between citizens and public officials. Beginning with Arnstein's ladder of participation, the paper moves through Thomas's administrative decision-making framework, Box's free rider–to–activist continuum, and Timney's active, passive, and transitional models. It then explores the semantic debate surrounding Schachter's customer-owner metaphor, Frederickson's and Rosenbloom's critiques, the shareholder model proposed by Smith and Huntsman, and Vigoda's evolutionary continuum from responsiveness to collaboration. The paper concludes by noting that while these models overlap and have limitations, they collectively illuminate the diverse roles citizens and administrators play and the tensions inherent in democratic governance.
The paper demonstrates effective comparative theoretical synthesis: it introduces each model on its own terms, identifies structural parallels across models (notably the recurrent three-part spectrum from passive to active citizens), and then uses those parallels to build toward a broader argument about the complexity of citizen–government relationships. This technique allows the paper to move beyond mere description and toward analytical insight.
The paper is organized thematically and sequentially. It opens by identifying the shared structure across all models, then proceeds model by model—Arnstein, Thomas, Box, Timney, Schachter, Smith and Huntsman, and Vigoda—building complexity with each addition. A brief case study mid-paper illustrates Box's continuum. The paper closes by acknowledging role conflicts and the inherent limitations of the models, providing an appropriately measured conclusion. References follow standard APA format.
Within the study of citizen participation, there are several models that discuss and map out the relationship between citizens and public officials, all of which help us better understand the public participation process and how citizens and public officials interact. While all the models differ, each contains three elements: completely unengaged and passive citizens, passionate and engaged citizens, and a middle ground where most forms of participation occur. The genesis and characteristics of the extremes of each model—completely unengaged citizens and passionately engaged citizens—are clear to the scholars who developed them, but what happens in the area between the extremes is less certain; there is little empirical evidence or established theory here.
One of the earliest and best-known models of citizen participation is the "ladder" created by Sherry Arnstein (p. 175). The rungs of this citizen participation ladder are as follows: "citizen authority over decisions or delegated authority," "negotiated decisions," "shared partnership in decision making," "opportunity to offer advice," "opportunity to develop self-confidence," and "opportunity for citizen support of programs already planned" (p. 175).
Arnstein's ladder places passionate and engaged citizens at the top rungs, where they enjoy decision-making positions with certain amounts of authority. At this level, citizens are also in partnership with public managers to an extent that can result in "full citizen governance" (p. 175). The model places completely unengaged and passive citizens at the bottom rung, where they are "manipulated into thinking they have real influence in the decision-making process" and are notified of policy only after it has been implemented (p. 175). Between these two extremes, the model shows citizens who are invited to attend meetings and fill out surveys meticulously created by public administrators.
In sum, Arnstein's research is significant in that it indicates that "administrators rarely relinquish enough control to allow citizens to share in the decision-making process, let alone reach the top of the ladder" (p. 176).
In a related but administratively focused model, John Clayton Thomas identifies five ways public managers use citizen participation. At one extreme, Thomas describes public administrators making decisions without consulting the public at all. At the other extreme, public administrators make decisions only after extensive discourse and consultation with citizens. Between these extremes, public managers use citizen participation in a variety of ways—"from the input of a select group of advisors to a more open and inclusive process"—but in all five cases, the administrator retains the final say and determines how and when to involve the public (p. 176).
The five levels Thomas describes, from most to least citizen involvement, are as follows. The highest level is public decision, in which the administrator shares the issue with the public and together they reach an agreement or solution. The next level is unitary public consultation, in which the public official "shares the problem with the public as a single assembled group" (p. 176), gathers ideas and advice, and makes a decision that reflects them. At this level, universal participation is not required—what matters is that the public has the opportunity to participate, as in the case of a well-publicized public hearing. The following level is segmented public consultation, in which the administrator shares an issue with only segments of the public—such as advisory committees—takes their suggestions into account, and makes a decision reflecting that group's influence. Below this is the modified autonomous managerial decision, in which the administrator seeks opinions from select segments of the public privately and in a manner that may carry little influence over the final decision; the manager also takes into account only the suggestions of those he or she respects. The lowest level is the autonomous managerial decision, in which the administrator addresses the issue without any public participation whatsoever.
Thomas offers this guidance to public administrators: open decision-making to the public "when broad consensus is needed" and close it "when the decision has to be based on technical expertise that the public may not possess" (p. 176).
Richard Box places the public on a participation continuum. At one end are free riders, who "prefer the comfort of their easy chair" and trust that public managers will make decisions in their best interest (p. 176). At the other end are citizen activists, who are continuously involved because they feel a personal responsibility to stay informed, remain engaged, and hold elected officials accountable. In the middle sit watchdogs, who involve themselves only when they are personally affected by a given issue.
A case study helps illustrate Box's continuum. In it, public managers are concerned about implementing a fee for a highly successful, city-managed preschool initiative. Administrators hope to discuss this with citizens at a series of public meetings convened by the Board of Education and the city council. The free rider, having no investment in the program, does not attend any meetings and is content to let public administrators decide whether a fee will be charged and at what level. The free rider genuinely has no stake in the outcome and truly trusts the managers to make the right decisions. The watchdogs, representing the middle ground, attend because they feel the decision will directly affect them. They include parents and caregivers of children who benefit from the preschool initiative on one side, and taxpayer groups or individual taxpayers who wish to limit government spending on the other. The citizen activists, at the far end of the continuum, attend every public meeting associated with the initiative—not because the decision will personally affect them, but because "they want to ensure that the decision made is a fair and just one" (p. 177).
The next three participation models are all developed by Mary Timney and are characterized as active, passive, and transitional. Timney's central argument is that governmental agencies can only reach effective decisions by "giving up top-down control and turning power over to citizens" (p. 177). To illustrate this, she invokes Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as an example of "government by the people," in which active citizens control processes and decision-making and draw on their broad expertise (p. 177).
In Timney's active model, the public owns the issue—developing policy, implementing services, creating agendas, and controlling the process entirely. The model requires the full delegation of control to citizens, while public agencies serve only as consultants.
In Timney's passive model, the individual citizen is described as a "customer or client" and closely resembles Box's free rider (p. 178). Citizens in this model sit "back and waiting for services to be delivered and decisions to be made" (p. 178), viewing government outputs as what they have already paid for through taxes and user fees. They evaluate government on the basis of what each individual receives, rather than how the community as a whole fares. Any participation that occurs in this model is purely symbolic—a formality.
In Timney's transitional model, the citizen is a "coproducer" who actively takes part in a "broad, open process" that arrives at solutions through consensus-building and collaboration (p. 178). This model links "the knowledge of expertise and the knowledge of experience" (p. 178).
The customer-owner model, created by Hindy Schachter and discussed in her book Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves, uses a metaphor to describe the different roles and responsibilities citizens assume in their relationship with those who govern them. Schachter argues that a metaphor is useful here because it allows us to examine whether a different way of viewing citizen roles shifts emphasis toward the changes necessary for improving government effectiveness.
One of the central topics Schachter addresses is the semantic and methodological framing of reform efforts. She asks how effective reform would be if it focused on modifying the structure of government rather than the behavioral patterns of the public. She further wonders whether administrative reform should aim at changing people's self-perceptions, suggesting that if citizens were taught to see themselves as true "owners" of government, "efforts to improve government efficiency and responsiveness [might] be more successful" (p. 179).
H. George Frederickson, a leading scholar in public administration, was among the first to critique Schachter's model, arguing that using a customer metaphor was inappropriate. Frederickson held that citizens do not merely consume government services—they own the government and elect leaders to represent the public's interests. He further argued that Schachter's metaphor placed citizens in a reactive role, "where they are limited to liking or disliking services and hoping that the administrators will change delivery if enough customers object" (p. 179). Citizens as owners, by contrast, play an active role: they determine the government's agenda through voting and participation.
This semantic debate is significant because the language used to classify our interactions with public administrators and elected officials strongly influences our behavior and the general ways in which we engage with government. Language, it is argued, can shape whether a citizen's relationship with government is passive, engaged, confrontational, or cooperative.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.