So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement

John Gaventa, Gregory Barrett
{"title":"So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement","authors":"John Gaventa,&nbsp;Gregory Barrett","doi":"10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00347_2.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Over the last two decades, the idea that citizen engagement and participation can contribute to improved governance and development outcomes has been mainstreamed in development policy and discourse. Yet despite the normative beliefs that underpin this approach, the impact of participation on improved democratic and developmental outcomes has proved difficult to assess. Where previous research studies have attempted to demonstrate impact, they tend to be limited to single interventions, a small number of country contexts or by various conceptual and methodological constraints.</p>\n <p>In this paper, we report on a meta-case study analysis of a ten-year research programme on citizenship, participation and accountability which analysed a non-randomised sample of 100 research studies of four types of citizen engagement in 20 countries. By mapping the observable effects of citizen participation through a close reading of these studies, we created a typology of four democratic and developmental outcomes, including (a) the construction of citizenship, (b) the strengthening of practices of participation, (c) the strengthening of responsive and accountable states, and (d) the development of inclusive and cohesive societies.</p>\n <p>We find that citizen participation produces positive effects across these outcome types, though in each category there are also examples of negative outcomes of citizen participation. We also find that these outcomes vary according to the type of citizen engagement and to political context. These findings have important implications for the design of and support for participatory programmes meant to improve state responsiveness and effectiveness.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100618,"journal":{"name":"IDS Working Papers","volume":"2010 347","pages":"01-72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00347_2.x","citationCount":"292","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IDS Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2010.00347_2.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 292

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the idea that citizen engagement and participation can contribute to improved governance and development outcomes has been mainstreamed in development policy and discourse. Yet despite the normative beliefs that underpin this approach, the impact of participation on improved democratic and developmental outcomes has proved difficult to assess. Where previous research studies have attempted to demonstrate impact, they tend to be limited to single interventions, a small number of country contexts or by various conceptual and methodological constraints.

In this paper, we report on a meta-case study analysis of a ten-year research programme on citizenship, participation and accountability which analysed a non-randomised sample of 100 research studies of four types of citizen engagement in 20 countries. By mapping the observable effects of citizen participation through a close reading of these studies, we created a typology of four democratic and developmental outcomes, including (a) the construction of citizenship, (b) the strengthening of practices of participation, (c) the strengthening of responsive and accountable states, and (d) the development of inclusive and cohesive societies.

We find that citizen participation produces positive effects across these outcome types, though in each category there are also examples of negative outcomes of citizen participation. We also find that these outcomes vary according to the type of citizen engagement and to political context. These findings have important implications for the design of and support for participatory programmes meant to improve state responsiveness and effectiveness.

那么这又有什么区别呢?绘制公民参与的结果
在过去二十年中,公民参与和参与有助于改善治理和发展成果的理念已成为发展政策和话语的主流。然而,尽管规范信念支撑着这种方法,但事实证明,参与对改善民主和发展结果的影响难以评估。虽然以前的研究试图证明其影响,但它们往往限于单一干预措施、少数国家情况或受到各种概念和方法上的限制。在本文中,我们报告了一项关于公民身份、参与和问责制的十年研究计划的元案例研究分析,该研究分析了20个国家的四种公民参与类型的100项研究的非随机样本。通过仔细阅读这些研究,绘制出公民参与的可观察效应,我们创建了四种民主和发展成果的类型学,包括(a)公民身份的构建,(b)参与实践的加强,(c)响应和负责任的国家的加强,以及(d)包容性和凝聚力社会的发展。我们发现公民参与在这些结果类型中产生积极影响,尽管在每个类别中也有公民参与的负面结果的例子。我们还发现,这些结果因公民参与的类型和政治背景而异。这些发现对于设计和支持旨在提高国家响应能力和效率的参与性方案具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信