Amizan Omar
ABSTRACT
Infused by the concepts of co-creation, participatory budgeting (PB) allows citizens to participate in the local government's budgetary decision-making process concerning the community-focused programs. Nonetheless, the attainment of PB success has always been challenged by various factors, including ineffectiveness and inefficiency of PB practice, and scant citizens' participation. This research examines the potential of multi-channel digitally-enabled PB platform adoption in overcoming those challenges. To do so, we review the existing literature on citizens' participation and participatory budgeting in several research domains. We found that the adoption of multi-channel digitally-enabled PB platform could overcome such challenges and improve civic engagement. Evidence of the past studies also indicate that the adoption and use of such platforms could have positive political and socio-economic implications on the local community. This signposts that engaging citizen in the government decision-making through such platform yield better impact on governance and public good.
- Alvarez, R.M. and Nagler, J. 2000. Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation, The. Loy. LAL Rev. 34, (2000), 1115.Google Scholar
- Alzahrani, L. et al. 2017. Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens' perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review. 26, 1 (2017), 164--175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Avritzer, L. 2010. Living under a democracy: participation and its impact on the living conditions of the poor. Latin American research review. 45, (2010), 166--185.Google Scholar
- Baiocchi, G. and Ganuza, E. 2014. Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society. 42, 1 (2014), 29--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bandara, W. et al. 2011. A Systematic, Tool-Supported Method for Conducting Literature Reviews in IS. Information Systems Journal. (2011), 1 -- 14.Google Scholar
- Bardhan, P. and Mookherjee, D. 2000. Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review. 90, 2 (2000), 135--139.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bélanger, F. and Carter, L. 2011. The Impacts of the Digital Divide on Citizens' Intentions to Use Internet Voting. International Journal On Advances in Internet Technology. 3, 3 and 4 (2011), 203--211.Google Scholar
- Besley, T. et al. 2005. Participatory Democracy in Action: Survey Evidence from South India. Journal of the European Economic Association. 3, 2 (2005), 648--657.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boulding, C. and Wampler, B. 2010. Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being. World Development. 38, 1 (2010), 125--135.Google Scholar
- Boulding, C. and Wampler, B. 2010. Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being. World Development. 38, 1 (2010), 125--135.Google Scholar
- Brandtzaeg, P.B. et al. 2011. Understanding the new digital divide---A typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 69, 3 (Mar. 2011), 123--138. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cabinet Office 2012. Government Digital Strategy 01 Executive summary. November (2012), 1--52.Google Scholar
- Davis, R. 1998. The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press, Inc. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Denver, D. et al. 1995. Fishkin and the deliberative opinion poll: Lessons from a study of the granada 500 television program. Political Communication. 12, 2 (1995), 147--156.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Department for Communities and Local Government 2011. Communities in the driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. Final report.Google Scholar
- Francis, P. and James, R. 2003. Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda's decentralization program. World Development. 31, 2 (2003), 325--337.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gonçalves, S. 2014. The Effects of Participatory Budgeting on Municipal Expenditures and Infant Mortality in Brazil. World Development. 53, (2014), 94--110.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennings, W. et al. 2016. The dimensions and impact of political discontent in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs. 69, 4 (2016), 876--900.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kamal, M.M. et al. 2016. Enabling Multichannel Participation through ICT Adaptations for Participatory Budgeting. Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems (San Diego, 2016), 1--9.Google Scholar
- Kapoor, K.K. et al. 2017. Enabling Multichannel Participation Through ICT Adaptation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research. 13, 2 (2017), 66--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kvartiuk, V. 2016. Does Participatory Budgeting have an Effect on the Quality of Public Services? The Case of Peru's Water and Sanitation Sector. Government Information Quarterly. 8, 3 (2016), 57--78.Google Scholar
- Kvartiuk, V. 2016. Participation and Local Governance Outcomes: Evidence from Ukraine. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 27, 3 (2016), 1123--1151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kvasny, L. and Lee, R. 2011. e-Government services for faith-based organizations: Bridging the organizational divide. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 1 (Jan. 2011), 66--73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lerner, J. and Secondo, D. 2012. By the People, For the People: Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in North America. Journal of Public Deliberation. 8, 2 (2012), 1--9.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, D.J. 2005. The Impact of Government Spending on Economic Growth.Google Scholar
- Moisés, J.Á. 2011. Political discontent in new democracies: the case of Brazil and Latin America. International Review of Sociology. 21, 2 (2011), 339--366.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nitzsche, P. et al. 2012. Development of an Evaluation Tool for Participative E-Government Services: A Case Study of Electronic Participatory Budgeting Projects in Germany. Administratie si Management Public. 18 (2012), 6--25.Google Scholar
- Norris, E. et al. 2012. Doing them Justice Lessons from four cases of policy implementation. (2012), 25.Google Scholar
- Norris, E. 2018. Election 2017 : What has happened to major bills and policies. May 2017 (2018).Google Scholar
- Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Olson, M.E. 1969. Two Categories of Political Alienation. Social Forces. 47, 3 (1969), 288--299.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Omar, A. et al. 2017. Developing criteria for evaluating a multi-channel digitally enabled participatory budgeting platform.Google Scholar
- Omar, A. and Osmani, M. 2015. Digitally Enabled Service Transformations in Public Sector: A Review of Institutionalisation and Structuration Theories. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR). 11, 3 (2015), 76--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Osmani, M. 2015. Examining the antecedents of public value in e-government services. Brunel University London.Google Scholar
- Paldam, M. and Svendsen, G.T. 2003. Social capital and economics. Creation and Returns of Social Capital: A New Research Program. 178--194.Google Scholar
- Pammett, J.H. and Goodman, N. 2013. CONSULTATION AND EVALUATION PRACTICES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNET VOTING IN CANADA AND EUROPE. (2013).Google Scholar
- Putnam, R.D. et al. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Google Scholar
- Reef, M.J. and Knoke, D. 1993. Political Alienation and Efficacy. Measures of Political Attitudes. 801.Google Scholar
- Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies. 28, 8 (2007), 1243--1264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roberson, Q.M. 2006. Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations. Group & Organization Managemen. 31, 2 (2006), 212--236.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rooduijn, M. et al. 2016. Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies. 43, (2016), 32--40.Google Scholar
- Sanders, L.M. 2010. Making Deliberation Cooler. Good Society Journal. 19, 1 (2010), 41--47.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sandoval-Almazan, R. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. 2012. Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly. 29, SUPPL. 1 (Jan. 2012), S72--S81.Google Scholar
- Schlozman, K.L. et al. 2010. Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics. 8, 02 (2010), 487--509.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Seddon, J. and O'Donovan, B. 2013. The Achilles' heel of scale service design in social security administration: The case of the United Kingdom's Universal Credit. International Social Security Review. 66, 1 (2013), 1--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shah, D. V. et al. 2005. Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research.Google Scholar
- Shatkin, G. 2000. Obstacles to empowerment: Local politics and civil society in Metropolitan Manila, the Philippines. Urban Studies. 37, 12 (2000), 2357--2375.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sissenich, B. 2010. Weak states, weak societies: Europe's east-west gap. Acta Politica. 45, 1-2 (2010), 11--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Spada, P. et al. 2015. Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Policy Referendum in Brazil.Google Scholar
- Su, C. 2017. Beyond Inclusion: Critical Race Theory and Participatory Budgeting. New Political Science. 39, 1 (2017), 126--142.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Titterton, M. and Smart, H. 2008. Can participatory research be a route to empowerment? A case study of a disadvantaged Scottish community. Community Development Journal. 43, 1 (2008), 52--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Touchton, Michael, Wampler, Brian, Sugiyama, N. 2016. Participation and the Poor: Social Accountability Institutions and Poverty Reduction in Brazil. Political Science Faculty Publications and Presentations, Boise State University. I, I (2016), 52.Google Scholar
- Vassil, K. and Weber, T. 2011. A bottleneck model of e-voting: Why technology fails to boost turnout. New Media & Society. 13, 8 (Dec. 2011), 1336--1354.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang, C. et al. 2017. Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly. August (2017), 1--17.Google Scholar
- Weerakkody, V. et al. 2011. Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 3 (2011), 320--328.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wong, S. 2012. What Have Been the Impact of World Bank Community-Driven Development Program? (2012).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Participatory budgeting: the case for engaging citizens in local government decision making
Recommendations
Expanding the Design Space of ICT for Participatory Budgeting
C&T '17: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and TechnologiesThis paper analyzes existing practices and supporting technologies for Participatory Budgeting (PB), with a special focus on US-related initiatives, as a mean to understand the current and future design space of ICT for participatory democracy. We ...
Towards increasing citizen engagement in participatory budgeting digital tools
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data AgeIn this paper, we compile and describe features of participatory budgeting digital tools, and propose a number of potential future directions for those features that could increase citizen engagement.
Case studies of digital participatory budgeting in Latin America: models for citizen engagement
ICEGOV '10: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceThis article presents the study of the relationship between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and local governance in Latin America, mainly using the internet for participatory processes, such as the experiences of Digital Participatory ...
Comments