Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues

Christensen, Helen E.; Grant, Bligh

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12219

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another form of PB, now known as 'The Australian PB' [47] is characterised by randomly selected and stratified juries (or 'mini publics' [48]) meeting over 5-8 weeks to deliberate how 100% of a budget should be allocated. This is distinct from the usual PBs which allocate around 10% of a budget [49,50].…”

Section: The Disparity Between Participation Expectations and Experiementioning

confidence: 77%

Participation in planning and governance: closing the gap between satisfaction and expectation

Weymouth

Hartz-Karp

2019

Sustain Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Making and implementing decisions to improve long term sustainability, particularly in democratic countries, is a significant challenge. This is exacerbated when citizens' expectations of their relationship with government is significantly at odds with what they experience, since this is likely to further reduce their already low trust in government and its decision-making. Research in the USA has demonstrated a clear gap between citizens' expectations of their participation in government and their satisfaction with that participation. This finding inspired a research project in regional Western Australia to determine if a similar gap existed between citizens' expectations and experience of their relationship with government. Additionally, a public participation intervention was devised to determine whether the gap between citizens' expectations of, and experience with, governance could be reduced and whether the decisions made from such an intervention would be more implementable. To better reflect the partnership relationship citizens expected from government, 'deliberative democracy' initiatives were implemented to resolve the local government's budgeting challenges. Results: The results demonstrated that a similar gap to that in the USA was present in Western Australia community and the sample populations used in the partnership interventions. Further, the citizens' experience of deliberative democracy substantially reduced the gap between their expectations and experience of government participation. These case studies also revealed the existence and details of the nature of this partnership relationship between citizens and government as well as between the citizens themselves. Moreover, the tough budgetary decisions they made were implemented without public outcry. Conclusions: These case studies show a promising route to close the gap between citizen expectations and satisfaction with participation in government, as well as having the potential to increase the trust in government so necessary for advances in sustainability. Future research directions have been outlined to improve understanding of how these results could impact on sustainability efforts.

show abstract

Section: The Disparity Between Participation Expectations and Experiementioning

confidence: 77%

Participation in planning and governance: closing the gap between satisfaction and expectation

Weymouth

Hartz-Karp

2019

Sustain Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…E-Government is a process of implementing information technology that can help the government in managing government administration and improving government relations with other parties. E-Government is an effort to develop governance based on information technology in order to improve the quality of public services effectively and efficiently (Ivan Aldwin A, Cristobal et al, 2018) .. [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success factor of E-participation in E-government was also written by Juan, C from Spain in 2018.. [13], namely the transparency factor, but the factor still has weaknesses namely the need for an appropriate model to measure the needs of E-participation. The lack of up-to-date operational transparency measurement tools was also written by (Hollyer, Rosendorff & Vreeland, 2018; Piotrowski & Bertelli, 2010; Travares & Da Cruz, 2018).. [12] as a determinant of E-Participant success. The lack of a reliable, operational measure of transparency can be explained by there are different theoretical approaches (agency theory and legitimacy theory) to measure the level of transparency by public administration and to resolve and resolve conflicts of interest from public managers and citizens (ie, principal-agent problems).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Succsess Factors E-Participation for E-Government

Shofia*,

Meyliana*,

Hidayanto

et al. 2020

IJRTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E-participation is an interactive information technology service from citizens towards the government. The research problem in this paper is what critical factors the success of E-participation at this time. They are many literature review papers on the Critical success factor (CSF) E-participation on E-government. This paper provides an explanation of E-participation, e-government to the variable used to determine the success of E-participation in electronic governance. The purpose of this paper is to select and synthesize several papers relating to e-participation in E-government and to look for the critical success factor. This paper aims to synthesize a critical success factor of e-participation in e-government electronically in terms of data transparency and an interactive response from the government to support E-participation services. The methodology used in this paper is to select a systematic literature in terms of the approach of the paper published 2008-2019. 22 papers have been found that are relevant to E-participation in e-government. The results of this research paper are the critical success factors of E-participation in E-government.

show abstract

“…In the past half-century, public participation, also labelled community engagement in Australasia (see Bell and Hindmoor 2009), has emerged as a near-ubiquitous feature of public-state relations globally (Dean 2016, p. 213) and as a social, economic and political force, both inside and outside of governments (see, for example, Head 2011). Activities range from salient, legally-mandated processes, such as public hearings and submissions (Innes and Booher 2004;Fung 2015) through to participatory innovations such as collaborative governance (Aulich 2009;Bingham et al 2005) and participatory budgeting (Fung 2006;Pateman 2012;Christensen and Grant 2016). Although the spectrum of activities that can be considered community engagement is broad, the binding attribute is that they involve communities and stakeholders in decision-making, or at least in making contributions to decision-making processes, around policies, plans or programs (Quick and Bryson 2016, p. 158).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet doubts continue to haunt the principle of participation as evidenced by a number of trends: the ideological appeal of minimal or no participation to some individuals and political parties; technocratic public administration trends such as New Public Management (NPM) which provide limited budgets for public participation (Mulgan 2001;Martin 1998); and, a lack of clarity about where public participation fits within regulatory and statutory contexts that are primarily geared towards representative practices (Christensen and Grant 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Engagement and Professionalization: Emerging Tensions

Christensen¹

2018

Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increase in community engagement by governments across Australia's three-tiered federal polity conforms to international trends. It represents a multi-dimensional institutionalisation of participatory democracy designed to involve the public in decisionmaking. Increasingly, it is a practice which displays the markers of professionalisation, including (self-described) professionals, professional associations and a code of ethics. The individuals who design, communicate and facilitate community engagement are placed in a unique position. Whereas most professions claim to serve both their client or employer and a greater public good, community engagement practitioners play these roles while also claiming to serve as 'guardians' of democratic processes. Yet the claimed professionalisation of community engagement is raising some questions: Is community engagement really a professionand by what criteria ought this be assessed? What tensions do community engagement practitioners face by 'serving multiple masters', and how do they manage these? More pointedly, how can ethics inform our understanding of community engagement and its professionalisation? This paper examines the case for the practice of community engagement as a profession using Noordegraaf's (2007) pillars of pure professionalism as a guide. It then explores some practical examples of the tensions practitioners may experience. The paper concludes by reflecting on the future direction of community engagement given its positioning.

show abstract

Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues

Cited by 24 publications

References 45 publications

Participation in planning and governance: closing the gap between satisfaction and expectation

Participation in planning and governance: closing the gap between satisfaction and expectation

Critical Succsess Factors E-Participation for E-Government

Community Engagement and Professionalization: Emerging Tensions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About