Testing the input‐process‐output model of public participation

Abstract

The characteristics of participatory institutions can be articulated in three main dimensions: input, process and output. The common assumption is that a dependency relationship exists, with process serving as a mediator between input and output. This paper puts the model to a rare empirical test drawing on a unique dataset of 70 Spanish advisory councils. Through a combination of exploratory factor and path analyses, we analyse the dimensionality of input, process and output and investigate the direct and indirect impact of inputs on process and outputs. Our analysis provides evidence that input factors have a direct impact on the output factor transparency, but their impact on effects on policy and participant satisfaction is mediated by the process factor deliberation. Further, the capacity of the public administration to steer the advisory council (wardship) mediates negatively the impact of input variables on transparency. The analysis provides a nuanced account of how different input and process design characteristics of participatory institutions have profound direct and indirect effects on their outputs.

Does stakeholder participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies

“…The results furthermore highlight the importance of agency-related factors (see Galais et al, 2021 for a similar attempt). Both the conservation-related aspirations of the responsible government agency, and the environmental rationale for choosing a particular process design, are strong predictors for conservation outcomes.…”

Research on Motivational Mechanisms and Pathways for Promoting Public Participation in Environmental Protection Behavior

“…As the leading organization responsible for creating policy and preserving the environment, public participation in national policy choices has proven effective [ 18 ]. In addition to how institutions influence the development and implementation of policy, the relationship between participatory path dependency and internal dynamics and interactions among public participants is expanding [ 5 , 19 ]. Given the growing normalization and diversification of many kinds of participation, including the Internet, it is critical to strengthen the analysis of public involvement pathways from the standpoint of the governance system [ 20 ].…”

Assessing the New Municipalism Reform of Advisory Councils: The Cases of Madrid and Barcelona (2015–2019)

“…Part of the empirical research literature has gone one step further when analyzing policy-making capacity because even though ACs have limited final decision-making powers, they can, nonetheless, develop their own activities such as promote awareness-raising campaigns, training sessions and service evaluations (Bherer et al 2016, p. 351) as well as submitting high quality proposals which are valued by political and social agents (Galais et al 2021, p. 15). The presence of intermediate outcomes (Ansell and Gash 2008) materialized in specific collaborative actions (Emerson et al 2012) such as monitoring implementation, drafting internal rules, etc.…”