英文原文
Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future
Abstract
The past two decades have seen a proliferation of large‐ and small‐scale experiments in participatory governance. This article takes stock of claims about the potential of citizen participation to advance three values of democratic governance: effectiveness, legitimacy, and social justice. Increasing constraints on the public sector in many societies, combined with increasing demand for individual engagement and the affordances of digital technology, have paved the way for participatory innovations aimed at effective governance. Deepening legitimation deficits of representative government create opportunities for legitimacy‐enhancing forms of citizen participation, but so far, the effect of participation on legitimacy is unclear. Efforts to increase social justice through citizen participation face the greatest obstacles. The article concludes by highlighting three challenges to creating successful participatory governance: the absence of systematic leadership, the lack of popular or elite consensus on the place of direct citizen participation, and the limited scope and powers of participatory innovations.
A Speculative Retrospective of Participatory Governance
By way of orientation, consider some broad trends in the use of participatory mechanisms that have unfolded over the last decade or two. I offer these trends for the most part as speculations—because the forms of participatory innovation are often local, sometimes temporary, and highly varied, I know of no general census of participatory innovation and few efforts to quantify the instances of participatory governance at geographic scale.
Lack of quantification not withstanding, the first pattern is that there seems to have been substantial growth in participatory innovation in recent years. One dimension of that innovation is its expansion. Participatory budgeting, for example, was invented only in 1989, but it has spread very widely. Tiago Peixoto (2014) counts some 1,500 instances of participatory budgeting, spreading from Latin America to Europe, North America, and many other corners of the world. In their 2012 volume, Mansuri and Rao write that the “World Bank alone has invested about $85 billion over the last decade on development assistance for participation” . They contend that this attention to participatory development marks a sharp shift from the prior conventional wisdom regarding development that emphasized top‐down expertise and, heavily influenced by thinkers such as Mansur Olson and Garrett Hardin, the need for centralized coercion to overcome collective action problems .
Another dimension of expansion is scope: the injection of participation into new kinds of issues and governance questions. One of the first instances in which ordinary citizens participated in a constitutional question was initiated in 2004 with the British Columbia Citizensrsquo; Assembly . Since then, the idea of incorporating the direct input of ordinary citizens into questions about voting rules, districting arrangements, and other constitutional‐level questions has spread to Ontario with its own citizensrsquo; assembly (Grant 2013), to California (Sonenshein 2013), and to Iceland with its crowdsourced and participatory constitutional drafting process (Landemore 2014). At the national, regional, and local levels, the number and variety of citizen forums seem to have grown in policy areas including health care, fiscal choices, urban and regional planning, accommodating racial and ethnic diversity, and addressing the challenges of scientific and technological development.
Legitimacy
In political theory, many of the justifications for greater participation, especially its deliberative variants, stem from the desire to enhance legitimacy in democratic governance (Cohen 1989; Fung 2007). A fundamental premise of representative democracy is that laws and policies are rendered legitimate because citizens have had opportunities to influence the politicians and parties that make those policies and because subsequent elections will confer opportunities to judge the effects of those policies and hold politicians accountable (Przeworski, Stokes, and Manin 1999). That is, processes of political competition through elections give citizens a good reason to endorse and obey the policies that result from that process: they have had opportunities to choose the policy makers. It may be, however, that the legitimation capacity of these conventional mechanisms of electoral representation has declined. According to many indicia, the bond between citizens and political institutions has weakened in the United States and other industrialized democracies. Public trust in legislative and administrative organizations, membership in and identification with political parties, and rates of voting and conventional political participation have declined in many mature democracies (
A Speculative Retrospective of Participatory Governance 3
Multisectoral Problem Solving 7
Challenges to Participatory Innovation 8
英文原文
Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future（节选）
Abstract
The past two decades have seen a proliferation of large‐ and small‐scale experiments in participatory governance. This article takes stock of claims about the potential of citizen participation to advance three values of democratic governance: effectiveness, legitimacy, and social justice. Increasing constraints on the public sector in many societies, combined with increasing demand for individual engagement and the affordances of digital technology, have paved the way for participatory innovations aimed at effective governance. Deepening legitimation deficits of representative government create opportunities for legitimacy‐enhancing forms of citizen participation, but so far, the effect of participation on legitimacy is unclear. Efforts to increase social justice through citizen participation face the greatest obstacles. The article concludes by highlighting three challenges to creating successful participatory governance: the absence of systematic leadership, the lack of popular or elite consensus on the place of direct citizen participation, and the limited scope and powers of participatory innovations.
A Speculative Retrospective of Participatory Governance
By way of orientation, consider some broad trends in the use of participatory mechanisms that have unfolded over the last decade or two. I offer these trends for the most part as speculations—because the forms of participatory innovation are often local, sometimes temporary, and highly varied, I know of no general census of participatory innovation and few efforts to quantify the instances of participatory governance at geographic scale.
Lack of quantification not withstanding, the first pattern is that there seems to have been substantial growth in participatory innovation in recent years. One dimension of that innovation is its expansion. Participatory budgeting, for example, was invented only in 1989, but it has spread very widely. Tiago Peixoto (2014) counts some 1,500 instances of participatory budgeting, spreading from Latin America to Europe, North America, and many other corners of the world. In their 2012 volume, Mansuri and Rao write that the “World Bank alone has invested about $85 billion over the last decade on development assistance for participation” . They contend that this attention to participatory development marks a sharp shift from the prior conventional wisdom regarding development that emphasized top‐down expertise and, heavily influenced by thinkers such as Mansur Olson and Garrett Hardin, the need for centralized coercion to overcome collective action problems .
Another dimension of expansion is scope: the injection of participation into new kinds of issues and governance questions. One of the first instances in which ordinary citizens participated in a constitutional question was initiated in 2004 with the British Columbia Citizensrsquo; Assembly . Since then, the idea of incorporating the direct input of ordinary citizens into questions about voting rules, districting arrangements, and other constitutional‐level questions has spread to Ontario with its own citizensrsquo; assembly (Grant 2013), to California (Sonenshein 2013), and to Iceland with its crowdsourced and participatory constitutional drafting process (Landemore 2014). At the national, regional, and local levels, the number and variety of citizen forums seem to have grown in policy areas including health care, fiscal choices, urban and regional planning, accommodating racial and ethnic diversity, and addressing the challenges of scientific and technological development.
Legitimacy
In political theory, many of the justifications for greater participation, especially its deliberative variants, stem from the desire to enhance legitimacy in democratic governance (Cohen 资料编号：[263644]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
