molinari @ epart2010
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
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)
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
5/36
This presentation
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari5
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
6/36
Some available evidence
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
7/36
eParticipation SotA
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari7
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
8/36
The Tuscany Regions case
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari8
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)
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
9/36
The Tuscany Regions case (2)
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari9
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
10/36
10 Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari
Obligation to
document results
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
11/36
The Tuscany Regions case (3)
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari11
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
12/36
Literature overview
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
13/36
The evaluation stairway
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari13
Reporting
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
14/36
The evaluation stairway (foll.)
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari14
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
15/36
A classical definition
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari15
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
16/36
Descriptive attributes
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari16
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
17/36
Adoption
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari17
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
18/36
Problems with this definition
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari18
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
19/36
A possible way forward
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
20/36
Sustainability as an appraisal criterion
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari20
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
21/36
21
Evolved from Tambouris et al. 2007a, b
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
22/36
22 Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
23/36
An evolved definition of sustainability
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari2
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
24/36
Juridical compliance
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari24
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
25/36
Legitimacy
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari25
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
26/36
Social value
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari26
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).
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
27/36
Efficiency & Productivity
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari27
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
28/36
Efficiency
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari28
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
29/36
Productivity
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari29
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
30/36
OldNew Concept Mapping
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari30
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
31/36
Conclusions
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
32/36
Summary
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari32
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.
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
33/36
Further research questions
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari33
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?
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
34/36
Some pragmatic implications
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari34
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
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
-
8/8/2019 Molinari @ ePart2010
36/36
Selected references
Lausanne, 02-09-2010Francesco Molinari36
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