Public participation in rulemaking has long been regarded as an integral part of a functioning democracy. It is however unclear how governments and administrations influence the throughput of public participa- tion, and on a micro-level the decisions of bureaucrats tasked with acting upon such input. In representative democracies the policy positions of elected politicians can divert from public opinion. In addition, public participation initiatives do not commonly attract a fully representative set of society. Thereby demands from the participating public and political principals can diverge. Bureaucrats are then faced with conflicting input. Given bureaucrats’ discretion to manage public participation processes and their outputs, how can we expect them to act? Will they act accord- ing to the wishes of their political principal, will they side with the public or choose to divert. I use a survey experiment with senior bureaucrats in the US and the UK to test this. Further, I assess whether information frames alter such behaviour and whether this varies with the presence of citizen-politician conflict. I find that conflict leads bureaucrats to adopt more of an adviser role, but that information frames have no significant effect.
Participatory mechanisms are now widely used by national and local governments in developed and developing countries. While their purpose and form varies greatly, they all rely on the discretion of a professionalised bureaucracy to manage these processes and prepare their outcomes in a manner that they can feed into policy-making. Bureaucrats thus have a gate-keeping role. They can substantially influence whether and how information from participatory processes feeds into policy-making. Bureaucrats can thereby impact to what extent participatory mechanisms can deliver on their promise of giving citizens greater direct control over the policy-making process. Formal political control over the bureaucracy is limited in this case. Could informal controls make bureaucrats comply more with the demands of participatory mechanisms? This study employs a large field experiment (N=7,532) to test (1) whether citizen input filters through to bureaucrats tasked with policy design and implementation and (2) whether bureaucrats’ engagement with citizen input can be in- creased by using non-monetary rewards and value-based communication. The experiment accounts for heterogeneity by bureaucrat seniority, central versus street-level roles and involvement in the collection of citizen input. It finds no meaningful engagement at the baseline (C=0%) but that motivational interventions can significantly increase engagement (T1= 14%, T2=15%). The findings suggest that currently little input from citizens filters through to bureaucrats, but small tweaks substantially increase the democratic potential of participatory initiatives.
Non-electoral public participation initiatives are regarded as the gold standard for good governance - encouraging and sustaining democratic engagement. Most countries use these mechanisms, to inform their policy-making between elections. Yet, participation rates are low and often unrepresentative of the diversity of their stakeholders. A large body of evidence suggests that communication campaigns can increase turnout in elections. However, the evidence base for non-electoral participation is scarce and in many aspects completely lacking. This paper tests the causal relationship between government communication efforts and a non-electoral public participation initiative. I use a large-scale, randomised experiment with 29,008 households in a large city in the UK to test the effect of different direct mail messages on participation. I find that all changes to communication materials have similar effect sizes to those of the literature. But they all backfire - all interventions significantly reduce participation rates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.