Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards decision support for participatory democracy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Information Systems and e-Business Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In many parts of the world there is growing demand for participation in public policy decision making. This demand could be satisfied by the design and deployment of Web-based group decision support systems to aid large groups of, possibly unsophisticated, users in participating in such decisions. After describing several mechanisms for participatory democracy, we provide a framework for decision support in this area and describe decision support functions that could be implemented in such a framework. We illustrate the ideas with a specific system to support participatory budget elaboration through the Web. Several practical issues are discussed along the way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the last referendum in Catalonia, for example, the turnout was 49.4%, out of which 73.9% voted in favour––resulting in a decision being made by 36.5% of the census.

  2. An example of this is the three referenda held so far in Quebec to try to obtain the independence of the province.

  3. See http://www.madrimasd.org/queesmadrimasd/pricit/default.asp.

References

  • Aikens GS (1998) A personal history of minnesota electronic democracy, 1994. J Gov Inf 25(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baierle T, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the future. Washington

  • Barrat J (2006) A preliminary question: is e-voting actually useful for our democratic institutions? In: Krimmer R (ed) Electronic voting 2006. GI-Edition, Bonn

  • Brams S, Fishburn P (2002) Voting procedures. In: Arrow K, Sen A, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice and welfare, vol 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 173–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray J, McLaughlin D (2005) Getting to ground: democratic renewal in Canada. In: Crossing boundaries papers. The Crossing Boundaries National Council, Ottawa

  • Caddy J, Vergez C (2001) Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

  • Carver S (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 5:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver S, Evans A, Kingston R, Turton I (2001) Public participation, GIS, and Cyberdemocracy: evaluating online spatial decision support systems. Environ Plann B 28:907–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen R, Winkler R (1990) Unanimity and compromise among probability forecasters. Manage Sci 36(7):767–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick B (2002) Democracy: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • CST(2005) Policy through dialogue: informing policies based on science and technology. Council for Science and Technology, London

  • Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quart 11(3):355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Grönlund Å, Larsson A (2005) Public decision support—Using a DSS to increase democratic transparency. Int J Public Inform Syst 1:3–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies T, Noveck BS (2007) Online deliberation: design, research, and practice. CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • de Moor A, Aakhus M (2006) Argumentation support: from technologies to tools. Commun ACM 49(3):93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (2001) Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Polit Theory 29(5):651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn W (1994) Public policy analysis: an Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (1997) The market and the forum: three varieties of political theory. In: Elster J, Hylland A (eds) Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics. MIT, Cambridge, pp 103–132

  • Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1998/1999) An assessment of group support systems experiment research: methodology and results. J Manag Inform Syst 15(3):7–149

    Google Scholar 

  • French S (1985) Group consensus probability distributions: a critical survey. Bayesian State 2:183–202

    Google Scholar 

  • French S (1986) Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • French S (2003) Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity analysis. TOP 11(2):229–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Rios Insua D (2000) Statistical decision theory. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • French S, Rios Insua D, Rugeri F (2007) E-participation and decision analysis. Technical Reports on Statistics and Decision Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

  • Goodin RE (2000) Democratic deliberation within. Philos Public Aff 29(1):81–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon T, Karacapilidis N, Voss H, Zauke A (1997) Computer-mediated cooperative spatial planning. In: Timmermans H (ed) Decision support systems in urban planning. E & FN SPON, pp 299–309

  • Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, Melbourne, pp 10–18

  • Gregory RS, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis Anal 2(1):4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grima C, Rios Insua D (2007) Designing a general architecture to support E-government. Technical Reports on Statistics and Decision Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

  • Grönlund Å (2005) DSS in a local government context—How to support decisions nobody wants to make? In: Wimmer MA (ed) EGOV 2005 LNCS 3591. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–80

  • Habermas J (1994) Three normative models of democracy. constellations 1(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamalainen M, Hashim S, Holsapple CW, Suh Y, Whinston AB (1992) Structured discourse for scientific collaboration: a framework for scientific collaboration based on structured discourse analysis. J Organ Behav 2(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (2003) Decisionarium—aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions. J Multicrit Decis Anal 12:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Kettunen E, Marttunen M, Ehtamo H (2001) Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decis Negot 10(4):331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock D, McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) A framework for deliberation dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 4th biennial conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation, Windsor, Canada

  • Holtzman S (1989) Intelligent decision systems. Addison-Welsey, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 64(1):55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup LM, Valacich JS (eds) (1993) Group support systems: new perspectives. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karacapilidis NI, Pappis CP (1997) A framework for group decision making support systems: combining AI tools and OR techniques. Eur J Oper Res 103:373–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, von Winterfeldt D (1991) Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 38:191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly GG, Bostrom RP (1998) A facilatator’s general model for managing socio-emotional issues in GSS meeting environments. J Manag Inform Syst 14(3):23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston R, Carver S, Evans A, Turton I (2000) Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision making. Comput Environ Urban 24:109–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimmer R (2006) Electronic voting. In: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on electronic voting, Bonn

  • Lindblom CE (1959) Muddling through. Public Adm Rev 19(2):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço R, Costa JP (2005) Incorporating citizens’ views in local policy decision making. Decis Support Syst (in press)

  • Luce D, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh A, Malina A, Farrell S (2002) Digital democracy through electronic petitioning. In: McIver W, Elmagarmid AK (eds) Advances in digital government: technology, human factors, and policy. Kluwer, Boston, pp 137–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1978) Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J Econ 9(2):587–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBurney P, Parsons S (2000) Risk agoras: dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning. In: Boutilier C, Goldszmidt M (eds) Proceedings of the 16th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI-2000). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco pp 371–373

    Google Scholar 

  • McBurney P, Parsons S (2001) Intelligent systems to support deliberative democracy in environmental regulation. Inform Commun Tech Law 10(1):79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey RD (1976) Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. J Econ Theory 12(3):472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda S, Bostrom R (1999) Meeting facilitation: process versus content interventions. J Manag Inform Syst 15(4):89–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris PA (1977) Combining expert judgments: a Bayesian approach. Manage Sci 23(7):679–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Marttunen M (2004) Participatory multicriteria decision support with web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environ Modell Softw 19(6):537–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris P (2001) Digital divide. Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Noveck BS (2004) The electronic revolution in rulemaking. Emory Law J 53(2):433–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (1987) Comparing voting systems. D. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocker R, Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR, Johnson K (1998) Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirement determination. J Manag Inform Syst 15(1):99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD (1984) A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychol 56:29–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickles J (1995) Representations in an electronic age: geography, GIS, and democracy. In: Pickles J (ed) Ground truth: the social implications of geographical information systems. Guilford, New York, pp 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Radcliff B, Wingenbach E (2000) Preference aggregation, functional pathologies, and democracy: a social choice defense of participatory democracy. J Polit 62(4):977–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. The John Dewey essays in philosophy. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann A (eds) (1995) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht

  • Rios J, Rios Insua D, Fernandez E, Rivero JA (2005) Supporting participatory budget formation through the web. In: Bn M, Gamper J, Polasek W, Wimmer MA (eds) E-government: towards electronic democracy, LNAI 3416. Springer, Berlin, pp 268–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rios J, Rios Insua D (2006) PARBUD. A system for E-participatory budget elaboration. Technical Reports, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

  • Rios J, Rios Insua D (2007) A framework for participatory budget elaboration support. J Oper Res Soc. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602501

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio JA, Rios Insua D (2007) NegoML. An XML schema for negotiation analysis support. Technical Reports, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

  • Santos BS (1998) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Polit Soc 26(4):461–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori G (2002) ¿Qué es la Democracia? Taurus

  • Sillince JA, Saeedi MH (1999) Computer-mediated communication: problems and potentials of argumentation support systems. Decis Support Syst 26(4):287–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1986) Rationality in psychology and economics. J Bus 59(4):209–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza CU (2001) Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environ Urban 13(1):159–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffek J, Kissling C, Nanz P (2007) Civil society participation and global governance: a cure for the democratic deficit? Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Suh KS (1999) Impact of communication medium on task performance and satisfaction: an examination of media-richness theory. Inform Manage 35:292–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2001) Republic.com. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson W (1994) Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory, vol 2, Chapter 35. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1238–1277

  • Tung L, Turban E (1998) A proposed research framework for distributed group support systems. Decis Support Syst 23:175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M, Hiltz SR (1993) Distributed group support systems. MIS Quart 17(4):399–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uleri P, Gallagher M (eds) (1996) The referendum experience in Europe. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Mill D (1996) The possibility of rational outcomes from democratic discourse and procedures. J Polit 58(3):734–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westen T (1998) Can technology save democracy? Natl Civ Rev 82(2)

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by: the TED European Science Foundation, the MEC, the Decision Engineering Lab (URJC-DMR Consulting Foundation), Edemocracia-CM, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos and Royal Academy of Sciences, Madrid, Spain

    David Rios Insua

  2. John Molson School of Business and InterNeg Research Centre, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

    Gregory E. Kersten & Jesus Rios

  3. Decision Engineering Lab, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain

    Carlos Grima

Authors
  1. David Rios Insua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory E. Kersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesus Rios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlos Grima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Rios Insua.

Additional information

This article is part of the “Handbook on Decision Support Systems” edited by Frada Burstein and Clyde W. Holsapple (2008) Springer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rios Insua, D., Kersten, G.E., Rios, J. et al. Towards decision support for participatory democracy. ISeB 6, 161–191 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-007-0069-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-007-0069-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation