Degrees of Engagement: Using Cultural Worldviews to Explain Variations in Public Preferences for Engagement in the Policy Process

Abstract

Scholars have been studying the concept of public engagement and its role in the policy process for some time. Scholars have argued that understanding the interests and motivations of the public and engaging them in the decision‐making process can lead to better policy designs and, ultimately, better policy outcomes. However, studies of public engagement often assume that people have a desire to get involved in the policy process. This paper tests this key assumption using the case of nuclear facility siting in the United States to ask: what factors influence an individual's stated willingness to want to engage in the policy process? Using data from a national web survey fielded in 2013, we ask the public if and to what extent they would likely engage in the siting process if given the opportunity. Findings indicate that the likelihood of engagement varies rather substantially across individuals. We find that an individual's cultural belief system and existing level of political activity account for some of this variation. These findings suggest that public engagement programs may vary across groups and communities. In other words, the prospects of engagement are likely to appeal to some members of the population and not others.

A Cultural Theory of Partisanship and Policy Attitudes

“…The cultural types that these worldviews represent have been shown to be consistent among those who have both high and low levels of political knowledge (Ripberger et al., ). In addition, cultural types are associated with preferences for expressed willingness to engage in the policy process (Trousset et al., ) as well as support for compromise when making policy decisions (Zanocco and Jones, ). Finally, cultural theory has also been predictive of attitudes for those who are not politically knowledgeable or are nonideological (Gastil et al., ; Jackson, ).…”

Introduction to the Symposium

“…1 Scholars of public administration, public management, and organizational studies have used this institutional theory to explain puzzles in areas as diverse as urban transport and traffic management (Hendriks 1999), citizen participative processes in policy-making (Hoppe 2002b(Hoppe , 2010Ney and Verweij 2014;Trousset et al 2015;Gastil et al 2016), central-local relations (Stoker 2002;Entwistle et al 2016), disagreement over public management reform (Smullen 2010a(Smullen , 2010b, styles of crisis decision-making (Grint 2010), user involvement in public services (Simmons et al 2011;Loyens and Maesschalck 2014;Simmons 2016), styles of policing (Frosdick and Odell 1996;Loyens 2009;Loyens and Maesschalck 2014;Hendriks and Van Hulst 2016), ethics management (Maesschalck 2004;Loyens and Maesschalck 2010), crime control and punishment (Vaughan 2002(Vaughan , 2004Loyens 2013a), administrative justice (Halliday and Scott 2009), hospital clinical management (Rayner 1986), health and social care (Peck et al 2004;Peck and 6 2006), social housing management (Jensen 1998;Manzi 2007), land use planning (Coyle 1993;Harrison and Burgess 1994;Wolsink 2004;Swedlow 2011bSwedlow , 2012Davy 2012;Hartmann 2012), regulation (Coyle 1994;Lodge et al 2010;…”

“…Scholars of public administration, public management, and organizational studies have used this institutional theory to explain puzzles in areas as diverse as urban transport and traffic management (Hendriks ), citizen participative processes in policy‐making (Hoppe , ; Ney and Verweij ; Trousset et al ; Gastil et al ), central–local relations (Stoker ; Entwistle et al ), disagreement over public management reform (Smullen , ), styles of crisis decision‐making (Grint ), user involvement in public services (Simmons et al ; Loyens and Maesschalck ; Simmons ), styles of policing (Frosdick and Odell ; Loyens ; Loyens and Maesschalck ; Hendriks and Van Hulst ), ethics management (Maesschalck ; Loyens and Maesschalck ), crime control and punishment (Vaughan , ; Loyens ), administrative justice (Halliday and Scott ), hospital clinical management (Rayner ), health and social care (Peck et al ; Peck and 6 ), social housing management (Jensen ; Manzi ), land use planning (Coyle ; Harrison and Burgess ; Wolsink ; Swedlow , ; Davy ; Hartmann ), regulation (Coyle ; Lodge et al ; Lodge and Wegrich ; Loyens , , ; Heims ; Linsley et al ), pension reform (Ney ), science and technology assessment (Rayner ; Hoppe and Grin ; Swedlow ), use of voluntary organizations to provide public services (Kendall ), issues in development (e.g. Hoekstra ; Murphy ), decision‐making in government, including core executives (6 , 2016a, 2016b; 6 and Bellamy ), and settlements in various areas of administration (Verweij and Thompson …”

Compensatory Control Theory and Public Opinion on Nuclear Policy: Developing an Experimental Measure in an Applied Environmental Context

“…The issue of nuclear power-and the attending topic of nuclear waste storage-is both a technical domain that is typically low on the public agenda but also an environmental domain that has seen occasional public scrutiny and generated deep opposition among committed stakeholders (Taylor et al, 2007;Jenkins-Smith et al, 2011). As the US continues to grapple with the problem of longterm storage of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, as well as how to involve citizens in solving this problem (Blue Ribbon Commission, 2012;Trousset et al, 2015), questions remain about the factors that affect public views of nuclear power and waste storage. In this article, we set out to learn how perceptions of individual control apply in the public policy context of nuclear power and waste storage using a national survey on energy and environmental issues in the US.…”