Effects of the internet on participation: Study of a public policy referendum in Brazil

Abstract

e Cidadã." 4 There are many definitions of what constitutes a participatory budgeting process. At an abstract level participatory budgeting is a democratic innovation that allows citizens to affect the formulation of a budget. Most participatory budgeting processes occur at the city level. They are based on repeated negotiations between the city government and the participants, combining elements of deliberative, participatory, and representative democracy. In order to give a more precise operational definition of this democratic innovation Sintomer et al. (Sintomer et al. 2013) include five additional criteria that distinguish participatory budgeting from other similar programs: (1) the financial and/or budgetary dimension must be discussed; (2) the city level must be involved, or a (decentralized) district with an elected body and some power over administration; (3) it has to be a repeated process (one meeting or one referendum on financial issues are not examples of participatory budgeting); (4) the program must include some form of public deliberation within the framework of specific meetings/forums (the opening of administrative meetings or classical representative instances to ''normal'' citizens are not participatory budgeting); (5) some accountability on the output is required. 5 See appendix 3 for full list of survey questions.

Success Factors Influencing Citizens’ Adoption of IoT Service Orchestration for Public Value Creation in Smart Government

“…In the quest for reliable data, we needed our sample group to understand the concepts of e-gov and IoT. Younger citizens are the target sample population for this study as many e-gov research highlights that the young population not only shows a high rate of internet use [166] and is more likely to actively use technology and social media [184]. Pakistan, which has about 60% of its 200 million population in the 15 to 33 age group, represents an enormous human and knowledge capital [185].…”

Rethinking the digital democratic affordance and its impact on political representation: Toward a new framework

“…These may include, for example, paid staffers who can respond to citizens’ queries and forum moderators who can encourage a diversity of viewpoints in online deliberative forums (Borge-Bravo et al, 2019). Because DDIs that do not support inclusion and diversity lend themselves to criticism for empowering those who are already better educated and of higher income than the average population (see Spada et al, 2016), the quality of participation is also an internal component of the DDA and not only an effect of it . Simply put, a DDI is not very democratic if it amplifies existing inequalities.…”

Does IoT service orchestration in public services enrich the citizens’ perceived value of digital society?

“…In the quest for reliable data, we needed our sample group to understand the concepts of e-government and IoT services. Younger citizens are the target sample population for this study as many e-government research highlights that the young population not only shows a high rate of internet use (Warkentin et al, 2018) and is more likely to actively use technology and social media (Spada et al, 2016). The non-probabilistic purposive sampling method was used to gather data.…”