Molinari @ ePart2010

8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010

1/36

ON SUSTAINABLEEPARTICIPATION

Francesco Molinari

IFIP ePart 2010 Conferencewww.demonet.org/epart/

Lausanne, CH 30th Aug / 2nd Sep 2010


2/36

Background

Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari2

eParticipation in practice can still be characterized as experimentalor pilot. Sustainable eParticipation is rarely achieved Aichholzer, G., Allhutter, D., Freschi, A.C., Lippa, B., Macintosh, A., Moss, G., and

Westholm, H. (2008)

We need to move to an environment and culture where there is clearcommitment and willingness of political and administrative

representatives to engage with eParticipation

Coleman, S., Macintosh, A., and Schneeberger, A. (2007)


3/36

Motivation

3

The broad research questions underlying this paper are threefold: How can we make eParticipation sustainable, i.e. a permanent add-on to the

current setup of public decision-making process(es)?

How can we ensure that the existing (heterogeneous and not-all-successful)eParticipation trials teach us lessons that can be reused to make soundimprovement next time?

How can we evaluate the comparative performance of the availableeParticipation methods and tools using the above principles?

As a contribution to these issues, I will introduce a pragmatic andprocess oriented definition of sustainable eParticipation, based

on five key attributes, ultimately calling for more attention toinstitutional factors by theorists and practitioners alike.

Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari


4/36

Foundational bricks

4

State of the art analysis ofeParticipation projects

Literature review onevaluation

Literature review on thesustainability of

eParticipation

Literature review on thedefinition of sustainability

in generalLausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari

The Tuscany Regions Lawon Participation case


5/36

This presentation


Some available evidence SotA of eParticipation The Tuscany Regions case

Literature overview & discussion Dimensions of sustainability as an appraisal criterion

Juridical compliance Legitimacy Social Value Efficiency Productivity

Conclusions and next steps


6/36

Some available evidence


7/36

eParticipation SotA


Multiple sources of information The MOMENTUM evaluation documents (20 projects) More recently: the Reinhard Mohn Prize 2011 (http://

www.vitalizing-democracy.org/)

Other national sources (e.g. e-participation.net, e-participation.it)

Issues One-shot trials, ending up with the project (and funding) Poor reported impact on public decision-making processes

Content-wise Technology-wise


8/36

The Tuscany Regions case


Law No. 69 of 2007 on Participation Acknowledges a constitutional right (according to the Regional

Statute) to participate in public sectors decision-making for everycitizen (including foreigners)

Establishes a bottom-up process of Participation that can be activatedon major investment projects, development programmes andinitiatives of regional and/or local relevance by any any citizen,association or institution located in Tuscany

Introduces permanent and radical elements of change into regionalplanning and programming on a variety of topics (from urban

planning to welfare health and social care and from wastemanagement to the development of an Information Society)


9/36

The Tuscany Regions case (2)


Law No. 69 of 2007 on Participation (foll.) Regional plans and programmes must specify the share of available

resources dedicated to the organisation of participatory processes and to

be determined on a sufficient basis to guarantee their effectivefulfilment; participation in the regional plans and programmes is

promoted exclusively by the Regional Government


10/36

10 Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari

Obligation to

document results


11/36

The Tuscany Regions case (3)


Lessons learnt Institutions shape Participation

What we mean by this term is the structure and profile of the laws,regulations, traditions, cultural and social norms, which are relativelyinvariant in the short-to-medium run, yet determine or at least frame,

and ultimately shape the reciprocal links and ways of interaction among

social actors (individuals, such as citizens or policy makers, and collective

bodies, like political parties, business associations, trade unions, voluntary

organisations and other stakeholders)

There is a mismatch between availability and usage of processtechnology in public administration


12/36

Literature overview


13/36

The evaluation stairway


Reporting


14/36

The evaluation stairway (foll.)



15/36

A classical definition



16/36

Descriptive attributes


Stakeholders Ownership: the actual level of sharing of the objectives and achievementsof the trial by the stakeholders involved;

Institutional Compliance: the extent to which the trial is embedded in theorganisational/regulatory structures of the community;

Financial Autonomy: whether the trial is likely to continue after the end of funding;whether enough funds are available to cover all costs; whether the costs are likely to

be borne after the funding ends; Socio-cultural Integration: whether the trial takes into account the local perception of

needs and respects participants and beneficiaries cultures and beliefs; whether andhow the changes induced by the trial can be accepted by the stakeholders involved;

Technical Feasibility: the extent to which the technology and knowledge provided fitinto the existing skills and infrastructure available to participants; whetherbeneficiaries are likely to operate and maintain the technology acquired without

further external assistance; Continuity Over Time: the concrete possibility of extending or replicating successfully

the trial at hand or other similar interventions.


17/36

Adoption



18/36

Problems with this definition


Sustainability of eParticipation is mostly associated withstakeholders ownership, as well as with continuity over time

of the eParticipation trials

However, there is no demonstrated link between these twodimensions, or at least not a stronger one than with any

possible alternative displayed

Furthermore, such a descriptive approach leaves partlyunattended what the proper means should be to ensure thatthe ultimate goal of replication is actually achieved


19/36

A possible way forward


20/36

Sustainability as an appraisal criterion


Tambouris et al. (2007) proposed a framework for assessing andscoping eParticipation projects focusing on the technologies used,the methods and tools adopted, and the C2G interaction areassupported

According to its proposers, this framework lends itself to a twinassessment of eParticipation, reflecting on the one hand thesuitability or appropriateness of ICT introduction into thedemocratic process, and on the other hand the actual degree ofcitizens involvement in public decision-making

Our suggestion is to use this framework to assess, in a structuredway, the case for proceeding any further with a proposed method,channel or tool for electronic Participation


21/36

21

Evolved from Tambouris et al. 2007a, b

Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari


22/36

22 Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari


23/36

An evolved definition of sustainability


3

Kaufmann et al. (1994) The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological process and functions,

biodiversity, and productivity over time

Panopoulou et al. (2008) The detection of operational and policy barriers in order to ensure the

continuity of a case without creating any disharmony and imbalance in a

system IDEAL-EU Project (2009)

The ability of a participatory decision-making process (workflow) tomaintain over time Juridical compliance Legitimacy

Social value Efficiency and Productivity


24/36

Juridical compliance


A legislative or policy-making process is said to be juridicallycompliant whenever it can be fairly acknowledged by a neutral thirdparty (in particular, by Administrative Justice) to lay beneath thescope and provisions of existing laws and regulations in its domain

A variant of the above statement particularly apt to Common Lawcountries can make reference to compliance with the legal and/orstatutory aims of a public sector organization and/or with previousrulings of administrative Courts.

From this set of references, a first attribute of sustainableparticipation can be derived: It is said to be sustainable a participatory

decision-making process that is able to maintain its previous degree ofjuridical compliance unaltered.


25/36

Legitimacy


A legislative or policy-making process is said to be legitimatewhenever it is approved by a majority of adult population (orvoters in either national or local elections)

This is different with respect to juridical compliance. For instance,the opposing parties to a governing majority may point at some orall of their decisions as lacking legitimacy, yet it is harder todemonstrate that they break-up some existing norm orConstitutional principle

From this definition, a second attribute of sustainable participationcan be derived: It is said to be sustainable a participatory decision-making process that is able to increase the level of its political legitimacy

over time.


26/36

Social value


Social value creation is often associated with collaboration andcivic engagement of citizens and stakeholders.

From this definition, a third attribute of sustainable participationcan be derived: It is said to be sustainable a participatory decision-

making process that is able to create more, or at least no less, social valuethan its previous (non participatory) instances.

For example, the UK based project PatientOpinion (http://www.patientopinion.org.uk) invites patients to comment, reviewand rate the services they have received at healthcare facilities and

allow them comparing the reviews of other patients (like in severalhotel booking portals).


27/36

Efficiency & Productivity


Formally speaking, productivity is the reverse of efficiency, bothbeing a ratio between outputs and inputs.

Moreover, neither the outputs, nor the inputs, of a given trial areall measurable quantitatively and/or by one common

measurement unit. However, including these two dimensions into projects appraisal

underlies the fact that without a clear advantage in terms of costsavings or productivity gains for the organization involved thesuccess of eParticipation will continue to be mostly dependent on

the sporadic prevalence of passionate idealists and/or ICTenthusiasts.


28/36

Efficiency


Following on this thread, a fourth attribute of sustainableparticipation can be derived: It is said to be sustainable a participatory

decision-making process that is able to reduce operational costs or at least

keep them invariant with respect to its previous (non participatory)

instances.

This can be done in many different ways: for instance, the USproject entitled Peer-to-Patent (http://www.peertopatent.org)

has opened up to the general publics participation the patent

examination process, thus reducing the delays in examining some

applications.


29/36

Productivity


Following on this same thread, a fifth attribute of sustainableparticipation can be derived: It is said to be sustainable a participatory

decision-making process that is able to increase public officials

productivity over time.

Again, there are many possible ways to increase this: today, the so-called Web 2.0 applications are growingly used in the public

sector, not only for crowdsourcing new ideas and contributions

from the Internet population, but also as to support the capacity of

civil servants to handle, assess, give response to citizens inquiries.


30/36

OldNew Concept Mapping



31/36

Conclusions


32/36

Summary


The big challenge of future research and practice on eParticipation, is toassess the conditions under which civic engagement and citizensempowerment can become embedded components of new and moreadvanced (digital) governance systems.

In this paper, we have introduced a new and possibly more advanceddefinition of sustainable eParticipation, based on five fundamentaldimensions, which can be used to assess the level of potential integrationof a participatory practice or trial within the legal, political, social andorganisational contexts of the public sector institutions involved.

We expect that the proposed taxonomy should be beneficial to futureexperiments (and evaluation thereof), being able to define andencompass all the different aspects of more direct relevance and impactfor eParticipation designers and policy makers alike.


33/36

Further research questions


Is our taxonomy complete? For instance, value creation and legitimacy may vary a lot, according

to the different stakeholders interviewed

Recent research points to the highest differentiation of deliverychannels (off-online alternance, mobile & web applications, etc.) to

achieve the maximum audience

Does it make sense to rank/prioritise the above elements with aview to improving affordability of participatory processes?

Can sustainability progress at different speeds according to thelegislation / thematic domain / or which other elements?


34/36

Some pragmatic implications


Empirical investigation is recommended to assess thepotential of our model by testing the five propositionsdelineated above.

What should external (public) funding be targeted at? Improved design in which respects? Better evaluation to do what? More impact where and how?

Are we simply missing the point? The future is with bottom-up, not with top-down, participation


35/36

Thanks for listening!

Francesco Molinari, [email protected]

http://www.ideal-eu.net/

http://www.demo-part.org/

Lausanne, 02-09-201035 Francesco Molinari


36/36

Selected references


Aichholzer, G. and Westholm, H. (2009): Evaluating eParticipation Projects: Practical Examples and Outline of an Evaluation

Framework. European Journal of ePractice - www.epracticejournal.eu No. 7 (March). ISSN: 1988-625X

Aichholzer, G., Allhutter, D., Freschi, A.C., Lippa, B., Macintosh, A., Moss, G., and Westholm, H. (2008): eParticipation

Evaluation and Impact. DEMO-Net Project Deliverable No. 13.3

Coleman, S., Macintosh, A., and Schneeberger, A. (2007): eParticipation Research Direction based on Barriers, Challenges and

Needs. DEMO-Net Project Deliverable No. 12.3

European Commission (2001): Evaluation in the European Commission: A Guide to the Evaluation Procedures and Structurescurrently operational in the Commissions External Cooperation Programmes. Belgium: Brussels. EuropeAid Evaluation

Office.

Henderson, M., Henderson, P. and Associates (2005): E-democracy Evaluation Framework. Unpublished manuscript.

Kaufmann, M.R., R.T. Graham, D.A. Boyce, Jr., W.H. Moir, L. Perry, R.T. Reynolds, R.L. Bassett, P. Mehlhop, C.B. Edminster,

W.M. Block, and P.S. Corn (1994). An ecological basis for ecosystem management. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S.Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station and Southwestern

Region. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-246.

Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., and Tarabanis, K. (2008): Framework for eParticipation Good Practice. European

eParticipation Study Deliverable D4.1b (2nd version, November)

Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., and Tarabanis, K. (2007a): A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools. In:Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Kaliviotis, D., and Tarabanis, K. (2007b): A Framework for Scoping eParticipation. In: Proceedingsof the 8th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference

Molinari @ ePart2010

Documents

Transcript of Molinari @ ePart2010