7/31/2019 Public Participation and Organizational Performance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/public-participation-and-organizational-performance 1/2

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Extracts from:Neshkova, M and Guo, D. 2011, "Public Participation and 

Organizational Performance : Evidence from State Agencies" , Journal of PublicAdministration Theory and Practice, OUP.

Public engagement in administration has been widely advocated by theorists and

practitioners alike since 1950s to the present day.

• According to democratic theorists (e.g., Dahl 1989; Urbinati and Warren 2008), theimportance of public participation stems from the principle that those affected by

public policies should have a meaningful and equal opportunity to influence policyoutcomes.

• New governance scholars emphasize the collaborative nature of modern efforts to

meet human needs (Salamon 2002), and encourage public administrators to engage

citizens in a more active manner.

Nabatchi (2010) nicely summarizes the reasons why American public administration shouldstrive to better engage citizens in the work of government:

(a) to promote and maintain democracy,

(b) to compensate for its long-stranding embrace of bureaucratic ethos, and(c) to respond to the needs associated with the recent shift to network and collaborativegovernance.

Nonetheless, there are two theoretical perspectives about the effect of public participation

on organizational performance.

Traditional PerspectiveThe traditional perspective holds that there is a trade-off between democratic and

administrative decision making. As Gawthrop notes "The engines of bureaucracy anddemocracy run on different tracks, leaving from different stations and heading for different

destinations" (1997, 205). Indeed, whereas democracy emphasizes participation, equality,and a bottom-up approach to decision making, bureaucracy values efficiency, hierarchy, and

top-down decision making (Denhardt and Denhardt 2006).

Consequently public administration scholars have long acknowledged the inherent tensionbetween bureaucratic decision making and citizen participation (e.g., Gawthrop 1997).

Administration of public policies is considered a professional pursuit requiringtechnical expertise to be executed in an efficient and effective manner. In fact, bureaucracy

is thought to derive its legitimacy as a 'policymaker' from its expertise (Dahl 1989; Stivers

1990). In contrast, the public lacks specialized knowledge or policy expertise. Citizens areoften reluctant to devote time and effort to understand the intricacies of public issues, as

indicated by the chronic low attendance at public hearings, for instance. Further Kweit and

Kweit note, "in the ideal bureaucracy, describe by Max Weber...bureaucratic decisionmaking implies a centralization of authority.... In the ideal bureaucracy there is no place for

citizen participation. Citizens lack technical expertise, are unfamiliar with bureaucraticroutines, and are emotionally involved in issues rather being detached and rational. Citizens

are outside the hierarchy and therefore hard to control. As a consequence, participationmay increase the time needed to reach a decision as well as the level of conflict. The end

result hampers the efficiency and rationality sought in the ideal bureaucracy(1984).

However, in democratic societies since the public owns the government, the people are theultimate principals that delegate authority to policymakers both elected and appointed. As

7/31/2019 Public Participation and Organizational Performance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/public-participation-and-organizational-performance 2/2

Stivers notes, the question is whether citizens qualifications or intentions would constrain ordivert the agency mission (1990).

Competing Perspective

Scholars agree that engaging the public in administrative decision making is normativelydesirable and can bring about important educative and empowering benefits to citizens and

communities. However, administrators are more likely to be concerned with howparticipation impacts the performance of public programs. In response, a competing

perspective suggests that citizen input provides administrators with valuable site-specific

information and contributes to more efficient and effective public programs.

Within this second perspective, citizens are recognized as a resource for problem solving.

• First, because bureaucrats make decisions on the basis of their narrow specialized

knowledge,they might not be able to foresee all unintended consequences of publicpolicies Based on their practical knowledge and day-to-day experience, citizens can

provide public managers with context-specific information that might not otherwisebe available, or notify them of unforeseen factors and thus prevent costly errors.

Dahl asserts that decisions on public issues have both a moral and instrumentalcomponent. Citizen interface will allow bureaucrats to cover information gaps and

improve the instrumental component of the decisions (1989).

• Second, citizens can provide innovative solutions to public problems that would havenot emerged from traditional modes of decision making(Moynihan 2003). Innovative

solutions based on local knowledge would lead to better resource allocationdecisions and better effectiveness. (Beierle and Cayford 2002, Fung 2004; Moynihan

2003; Sirianni 2009; Stivers 1990).

• Citizen input also allows public offi?cials to better understand public priorities and

reduce wasteful projects, which in turn leads to better efficiency.

• Analysis of Beierle and Cayford (2002) shows that recommendations made bycitizens can lead to more cost-effective solutions than the alternative courses of 

action.

Supporting this perspective, Neshkova and Guo's study (2011) of US state transportation

agencies demonstrated that citizen input is positively and signifi?

cantly associatedwith better service in terms of both effi?ciency and effectiveness. Results show that

more public participation is associated with less expenditures per vehicle mile traveled,fewer poor quality roads, and lower highway fatality rates.

They further state that there is not necessarily a trade-off between the values of democracyand the values of bureaucracy. By incorporating citizen participation into the usual business

of government, public managers better serve the main objectives of their agencies.Thisfinding has important implications for the theory and practice of democratic government.

In conclusion we can identify the following impact of citizen participation (Nabatchi (2010):

(a) normative (or intrinsic) benefi?ts, that is, it has value in and of itself regardless of 

outcomes;(b) instrumental benefi?ts for citizens, that is, educative and empowerment effects through

increased knowledge of the policy process and the development of citizenship skills anddispositions;(c) instrumental benefits for communities, that is, capacity building within the community;

and(d) instrumental benefits for policy and governance.