The heated controversy over “citizen participation,” “citizen control”, and “maximum feasible involvement of the poor,” has been waged largely in terms of exacerbated rhetoric and misleading euphemisms. To encourage a more enlightened dialogue, a typology of citizen participation is offered using examples from three federal social programs: urban renewal, anti-poverty, and Model Cities. The typology, which is designed to be provocative, is arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens' power in determining the plan and/or program.
A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries Choguill, Marisa B.Guaraldo 1996-09-01 00:00:00 Much past analysis of community participation, in programmes designed to produce either housing or infrastructure, is incomplete as a guide to governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in terms of the approach required to achieve success in this area. There are two main problems to consider when analysing this issue: one is whether community participation is practised at all, the other is how. This paper focuses on the former, aiming at providing some basis of understanding on the latter. Here, community participation is not seen as being just a means to enable the people to get, through mutual-help initiatives and possibly with outside help, the basic needs which, otherwise, would not be available to them, but also as a means to influence decisions in the political arena about issues that affect them. Existing models of community participation, such as Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation, although adequate for analysis in developed countries, provide misleading results within a development context.
A tentative classification for the evaluation of participation within underdeveloped countries is suggested, based on the degree of the external institutional involvement in terms of facilitating/carrying out community mutual-help projects. These levels of involvement are arranged in the form of a ladder composed of the following rungs: empowerment, partnership, conciliation, dissimulation, diplomacy, informing, conspiracy and self-management. Examples are used to illustrate these concepts. Cases of empowerment and self-management, at the opposite extremes of the ladder, demonstrate that basic needs can be achieved with or without governmental support. Habitat International Elsevier http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/a-ladder-of-community-participation-for-underdeveloped-countries-vDY9L0IDSp.
Ladder of citizen participation, Sherry Arnstein. She discusses eight types of participation in A Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969). Often termed as ' Arnstein's ladder', these are broadly categorized as: 1. Citizen Power: Citizen Control, Delegated Power, Partnership. 2.: Placation, Consultation, Informing. 3.: Therapy, Manipulation.
She defines citizen participation as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. Arnstein, S.R. (1969), Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4): 216–224,:, retrieved 2010-06-12. Retrieved 2016-05-13. Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-05-13.
National Civic Review
Arnstein, S.R. 'A ladder of citizen participation'.
Journal of the American Institute of planners. 35 (4): 216–224. Arnstein, S.R. 'Maximum feasible manipulation'. Public Administration Review. 32: 377–390. Arnstein, S.R.
'A working model for public participation'. Public administration review.
35 (1): 70–73. This article about a United States political writer is a. You can help Wikipedia.
Michel Fanoli - Politics in an Oyster House Dedicated To HB Latrobe Esq - Walters 93145 Participation in refers to different mechanisms for the – and ideally exert influence – regarding political, economic, management or other social decisions. Participatory decision-making can take place along any realm of human social activity, including (i.e. For well-informed participation to occur, it is argued that some version of, e.g., is necessary but not sufficient. It has also been argued that those most affected by a decision should have the most say while those that are least affected should have the least say in a topic. Contents.
Objectives of participation Participation activities may be motivated from an administrative perspective or a citizen perspective on a governmental, corporate or social level. From the administrative viewpoint, participation can build for activities. It can educate the public about an agency's activities. It can also facilitate useful information exchange regarding local conditions. Furthermore, participation is often legally mandated. From the citizen viewpoint, participation enables individuals and groups to influence agency decisions in a manner.
The different types of political participation depends on the motivation. When a group is determined to work to solve a community problem, there can be led marches to work for candidates. Most immigrant racial groups have higher motivation since there is an increase in geographical dispersion and are faster growing racial groups. How well participation can influence the relation between citizen and their local government, how it increases trust and boosts peoples willingness to participate Giovanni Allegretti explains in an interview using the example of. Classifying participation.
How to compare 2 files in edit plus tutorial. Subtitle Edit 3. Download for Windows / File. Subtitle Edit is an editor for movie subtitles. With Subtitle Edit you can easily adjust the start time. Compare Two Excel Files using SpreadSheet Compare. Click on Compare Files at the top left and then choose the two Excel files you want to compare. EditPlus Text Editor 4.2 Evaluation Version Download. The resource history should now show 2 commits for this class. Click the Compare Mode toggle button in the History View. Double click src/Hello. Resource list of the History View to open your last committed change in the Compare View. Congratulations, you just have mastered your first project using Git! Hub Tutorial. Create Local Repository.
Ladder of citizen participation, Sherry Arnstein discusses eight types of participation in A Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969). Often termed as ' Arnstein's ladder', these are broadly categorized as:. Citizen Power: Citizen Control, Delegated Power, Partnership.: Placation, Consultation, Informing.: Therapy, Manipulation. She defines citizen participation as the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. Robert Silverman expanded on ladder of citizen participation with the introduction of his 'citizen participation continuum.' In this extension to Arstein's work he takes the groups that drive participation into consideration and the forms of participation they pursue.
Consequently, Silverman's continuum distinguishes between grassroots participation and instrumental participation. Presents another classification of participation based on three key questions: Who is allowed to participate, and are they representative of the population? What is the method of communication or decision-making? And how much influence or authority is granted to the participation?
Desmond M Connor
Other ' ladders' of participation have been presented by D.M. Connor, Wiedemann and Femers, A. Dorcey et al., Jules N. Pretty and E.M. Specific participation activities. A public consultation event about urban planning in Helsinki.
Civic opportunity gap Youth participation in civic activities has been found to be linked to a student's race, academic track, and their school's. The American Political Science Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy has found that those with higher socioeconomic status participate at higher rates than those with lower status. A collection of surveys on student participation in 2008 found that 'Students who are more academically successful or white and those with parents of higher socioeconomic status receive more classroom-based civic learning opportunities.' Youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to report participation in school-based service or than other students. Students with more highly educated parents and higher household incomes are more likely to have the opportunity to participate in student government, give a speech, or develop debating skills in school. Corporate participation Participation in the corporate sector has been studied as a way to improve business related processes starting from productivity to employee satisfaction.
Cross cultural objective participation A cultural variation of participation can be seen through the actions of. Participation draws from two aspects: respect and commitment to their community and family. The respect is seen through their participation in non-obligated participation in various aspects of their lives, ranging from housework to fieldwork. Often the participation in these communities is a social interaction occurring as a progression for the community, rather than that of the individual. Participation in these communities can serve as a '.
This learning ranges from everyday activities, in which community members gain a new skill to complete a task or participate through social events to keep their cultural practices alive. These social participation events allow newer generations to see the events and learn from this ongoing participation to continue these practices. Although there are different domains and objectives of participation in these communities, the bottom line to this participation is that it is non obligated and often community orientated. A social interaction that continues to thrive because of this high level of non-obligation is the everyday action of. See also.
The Theory of Citizen Involvement Planning Analysis: The Theory of Citizen Participation Introduction Citizen participation is a process which provides private individuals an opportunity to influence public decisions and has long been a component of the democratic decision-making process. The roots of citizen participation can be traced to ancient Greece and Colonial New England.
Before the 1960s, governmental processes and procedures were designed to facilitate 'external' participation. Citizen participation was institutionalized in the mid-1960s with President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs (Cogan & Sharpe, 1986 p. Public involvement is means to ensure that citizens have a direct voice in public decisions. The terms 'citizen' and 'public,' and 'involvement' and 'participation' are often used interchangeably. While both are generally used to indicate a process through which citizens have a voice in public policy decisions, both have distinctively different meanings and convey little insight into the process they seek to describe. Mize reveals that the term 'citizen participation' and it's relationship to public decision-making has evolved without a general consensus regarding either it's meaning nor it's consequences (Mize, 1972). Many agencies or individuals choose to exclude or minimize public participation in planning efforts claiming citizen participation is too expensive and time consuming.
Yet, many citizen participation programs are initiated in response to public reaction to a proposed project or action. However, there are tangible benefits that can be derived from an effective citizen involvement program. Cogan and Sharpe (1986, p.
284) identify five benefits of citizen participation to the planning process:. Information and ideas on public issues;. Public Support for planning decisions;. Avoidance of protracted conflicts and costly delays;. Reservoir of good will which can carry over to future decisions; and. Spirit of cooperation and trust between the agency and the public.
All of these benefits are important to the Forest Service in its planning efforts, particularly the last three. Recent forest management decisions have led to prolonged court cases and a general lack of trust among many people with respect to the Forest Service.
Decision-making Structures In discussing the theory of public participation, it is useful to review broad theories of decision-making structures. DeSario and Langton, in their book Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making explore the role of technology in public policy decisions (DeSario and Langton, 1987).
They conclude that public decisions are increasingly being influenced by technology. Two broad decision-making structures are defined and analyzed: the technocratic approach; and the democratic approach.
Technocracy (or the technocratic approach) is defined as the application of technical knowledge, expertise, techniques, and methods to problem solving. Democracy, as defined by DeSario and Langton, refers to citizen involvement activities in relation to government planning and policy making (DeSario and Langton, 1987 p. These approaches are described in more detail below. Technocratic Decision Making The technocratic approach to decision-making has historically been applied in most Forest Service decisions. Strong arguments can be made in favor of a technocratic decision approach. A key argument is that trained staff 'experts' are best suited to make complex technical decisions.
Experts are increasingly becoming a part of our decision-making structures in both the public and private sectors (DeSario and Langton, 1987. However, Nelkin concluded that scientific and technocratic approaches 'not only failed to solve social problems but often contributed to them' (Nelkin, 1981.
The notion that the 'cure is often worse than the disease' becomes increasingly important as the technology provides alternative solutions to public policy issues. Techniques and methods applied by experts are most effective when considering technical decisions as opposed to value or mixed, decisions. Kantrowitz (1975) identified three separate types of policy decisions: (1) technical decisions that are based solely on the application and extrapolation of scientific issues; (2) value decisions are concerned with the resolution of important normative or societal issues; and (3) mixed decisions that have both technical and value components. Technical decisions rely on scientific techniques and extrapolations to determine the potential of 'what is'.
Value issues involve normative determinations of 'what should be'. Although scientific information can provide guidance with respect to value decisions, it is rarely the sole determinant (DeSario and Langton, 1987. Natural resource management decisions frequently affect social values. The technocratic approach to decision making is difficult to apply successfully to social problems because social goals are often complex, conflicting and unclear (DeSario and Langton, 1987 p. According to Kantrowitz: 'the problem for experts is that the issues they most frequently confront when addressing social problems are `mixed decisions'decisions involving both technical and value judgements' (Kantrowitz, 1975 p. A growing number of Americans are becoming more skeptical of technology and its experts. One result of this skepticism is a heightened demand for greater citizen participation with respect to technological decisions (DeSario and Langton, 1987 p.
As a result, technological progress will face increased public scrutiny as the deficiencies of technology and experts become more apparent. The integration of the technocratic and democratic approaches, particularly in natural resource management, has led to an increasing sense of frustration and futility for both the public and the government agencies involved (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). These and a variety of related factors indicate there is a growing need for decision-making processes at all levels of government that allow agencies to successfully integrate the public's demand for greater input while incorporating the agency's expertise and desire for efficiency. Democratic Decision Making Democratic decision-making, in contrast to bureaucratic or technocratic decision making, is based on the assumption that all who are affected by a given decision have the right to participate in the making of that decision. Participation can be direct in the classical democratic sense, or can be through representatives for their point of view in a pluralist-republican model (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. Kweit and Kweit go on to point out that criteria for evaluating policies in a democratic process are the accessibility of the process and/or the responsiveness of the policy to those who are affected by it, rather than the efficiency or rationality of the decision. Public Participation In Rational Policy Making Many 'rational' policy decisions are made using the policy analysis process.
According to Lang, a decision is rational to the extent that it is shown empirically to match the best available means of achieving a given end (Lang, 1986). Traditional rational planning and policy analysis processes typically have five or six steps. Patton and Sawicki outline six steps in the policy analysis process: (1) problem definition; (2) identification of goals and objectives; (3) development of alternatives; (4) development of evaluation criteria; (5) identification of the 'best' alternative; and (6) monitoring and evaluation of the outcome (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, p.26) Figure A-1 shows a diagram of the policy analysis process. Kweit and Kweit suggest that policy analysis tends concentrate power in the hands of a few experts and that policy analysis is most compatible with bureaucratic decision-making which is 'antithetical to citizen participation' (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. Because the policy analysis process relies on specialized techniques, expertise is an inherent component of policy analysis. As such, the role of citizen participation in the traditional policy analysis process is minimized. Citizens often lack technical expertise and can be emotionally involved in issues of concern rather that being detached and rational (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p.
For a number of reasons, a purely rational decision-making process is difficult. One major limitation inherent in the process is the lack of comprehensive information. However, input from citizen groups outside organizational boundaries can help provide more comprehensive information on all aspects of the policy analysis process.
Kweit and Kweit state: In a democracy, it is the public that determines where it wants to go, and the role of its representatives and bureaucratic staff is to get them there. In other works, ends should be chosen democratically even though the means are chosen technocratically (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p.
The Policy Analysis Process This statement has important implications with respect to Forest Service decisions. The existing policy structure within the agency mandates that targets (or the ends), which are tied directly to funding, are set by Congress. This would imply that the ends are chosen democratically. The targets are implemented on the Forest and District level. Thus, traditionally the means are developed and chosen technocratically. Congress, as elected representatives, theoretically represents the public interest in setting targets.
Recent issues with respect to forest management (i.e., spotted owl lawsuits) suggest that this approach is no longer effective in managing the National Forest system. On its face, this may seem to imply that the Forest Service should apply a purely technocratic decision-making process. However, it is unlikely that a purely technocratic (top-down) approach will continue to be appropriate given the number and diversity of public interests who have a stake in forest management decisions. Lang, suggests that traditional comprehensive and strategic planning processes are insufficient for current resource management planning and advocates a more interactive approach to planning. Lang suggests: An integrated approach to resource planning must provide for interaction with the stakeholders in the search for relevant information, shared values, consensus, and ultimately, proposed action that is both feasible and acceptable (Lang, 1986 p 35). Lang suggests that conventional planning tends to be dominated by a technical/analytic style where the planner is a detached value-neutral expert advising decision makers about the best way to accomplish their goals and serve the public interest.
The emphasis is on data collection and analysis as the means for finding the best solutions to problems and developing a technically sound plan. The implicit assumption is that better information leads to better decisions. Success in conventional planning is measured by the extent to which the objectives of the plan are achieved (Lang, 1986 p 39). According to Lang, interactive planning is based on the assumption that open, participative processes lead to better decisions.
The planner engages directly with stakeholders to gain support, build consensus, identify acceptable solutions, and secure implementation. Success in interactive planning is measured by the extent to which balance can be achieved among competing interests and consensus is reached on appropriate actions (Lang, 1986 p 39). Table 2-1 provides a comparison of interactive versus conventional planning. Table 2-1.Interactive Planning v. Conventional Planning.