The preceding discussion illustrates how the traditional authority and control of the government has progressively given way to a more managerial form of institutional identity. This also extends to the activities represented for the government, which are increasingly concerned with controlling and monitoring the activities of an ever wider range of actors. Linguistically this is realised through a distinctive grammatical construction that allows the government to steer others’ activities at a distance. I call this verbal construction ‘managing actions’. As argued at the beginning of this chapter, the historical context of the New Labour government is one in which the post-war bureaucratic regime and its centrally regulated industrial economy had eventually given way to an emergent neoliberal model of ‘enabling, participatory’ governance. A key figure in this new style of governing is the active citizen- consumer, empowered and responsibilised to make choices that further their own interests or those of the ‘community’. Importantly, this requires a shift in power relations: citizens must have greater agency over their own actions; the government less direct control. We might posit that such an ‘autonomising’ model of democracy would be capable of absorbing potential conflict by instead offering choice, opportunity, possibility, and so forth. With greater reliance on individual volition, this form of ‘soft power’ would seem to be less coercive and more intrinsically democratic. However, I will argue that the discursive forms this takes, do not so much remove coercion as mask it in more subtle forms.
As shown in the case studies in this book, participatorygovernance can result in improved public policies, better public services, and, as a result, enhanced development outcomes. Participatorygovernance can improve the quality and quantity of information fed into public decision making by producing information that comes from an important but neglected perspective, or that is more accurate and more representative, and by gen- erating better awareness of citizens needs, particularly of poorer, under- privileged groups. This, in turn, can lead to improved implementation through more effectively targeted programs and the need for fewer subse- quent adjustments. Citizen monitoring can ensure the rational use of resources and provide a safeguard against leakages, while citizen evalua- tion can provide feedback on problems or shortcomings in service deliv- ery and, ideally, propose collective solutions. In Kenya, Tajikistan, and Tanzania, for example, local level participatorygovernance initiatives supported by the Aga Khan Foundation have led to concrete improve- ments in priority sectors, such as education, health, water, and sanitation (Chapter 4). Participatory budgeting initiatives have resulted in improved roads and market infrastructure in Zimbabwe (Chapter 9), and decreased crime rates in Uganda and Canada (Chapters 7 and 10), while, in the Philippines, local government units, using social contracts, have realized millions of pesos in savings (Chapter 8).
Section 3, Mapping the Landscape of Local ParticipatoryGovernance in Ireland, introduces some of the main participatory processes at local level and describes them in terms of their origins, purpose, participants, internal governance arrangements, degree of focus on social inclusion and oversight. Alongside this treatment of the formal mechanisms for participatorygovernance, section 3 also introduces a number of less formal mechanisms, which are recognised more by custom and convention than by explicit policy provision. We argue that these ‘governance light’ processes offer important insights into alternative forms of community action engagement with the democratic system. Finally, in section 3, the realm of local level civil society is surveyed. This is situated within a brief understanding of how civil society has emerged in Ireland more generally but seeks to understand some of the key, specifically local, characteristics that affect engagement within participatory processes.
An implication to emerge from this is the reliable prediction that the topic of participatorygovernance of cultural heritage will continue to grow, develop further and evolve in practices. Returning to the hypothesis at the beginning of the paper, that European Years shall send a political signal and set a commitment from the EU institutions and EU member governments that the focus of the Year should be taken into consideration in future policy-making, it is possible to state that the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 has managed to accomplish that. Cultural heritage has been mainstreamed in different agendas. Participatorygovernance of cultural heritage has been an important part of that journey. However, it still shall put efforts to reach a commitment and fully- fledged implementation from EU member governments.
The third wave of democratization in Latin America in the 1980s left behind a series of democratically elected governments whose legitimacy was widely questioned in the 1990s. In response, political elites promot- ed decentralizing reforms to bring policy-making closer to citizens through the transfer of policy authority, fiscal resources, and political rights to lower levels of government (O’Neill 2005). To this end, many decentralizing reforms included institutional innovations to promote “participatorygovernance” (Eaton 2004b; Hiskey and Seligson 2003; McNulty 2011; Van Cott 2008; Wampler 2008). Participatorygovernance constitutes institutional mechanisms that allow citizens – especially mar- ginalized ones – to participate in the formation, selection, design, imple- mentation, and oversight of local governments and policy programs. When used to incorporate marginalized groups, participatory institutions are sometimes coupled with the recognition of indigenous rights and customary laws (Van Cott 2008). Participatory institutions based on local customs are often referred to as “multicultural institutions.”
Hasan and Adnan (2001) in their unpublished paper ‘Sustainable Development Indicator Initiatives in Malaysia. Novel Approaches and Viable Frameworks mention that in Malaysia, work on sustainable development indicators (SDIs) started in 1995 with work undertaken by the Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Other agencies including The Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia (EPSM) initiative is especially relevant at the local government level. Others (e.g. Ministry of Housing and Local Government) commissioned commercial consultancy firms to develop sets of highly specific indicators of sustainability of development in urban areas. None are specially designed for sub-urban setting which can be directly applied to the study area. Nevertheless, the content such as basic needs, governance, social, economic and environmental aspect, housing and the built environment, transportation and connectivity, services are adopted from the Malaysian studies and adapted with modification for the suburban setting of the study area.
In order to put decision theory to work on real world problems, prior probabilities play a key role in bridging the gap between the idealized rational agent and ordinary human agents. We can ignore whatever tortuous path led the user to his/her current beliefs, and focus on helping them incorporate new information appropriately. In the case of natural resource management, sometimes we have the more modest goal of simply trying to build a reasonable model of the human component of the system dynamics. However, successful management often requires that local actors also gain a deeper understanding of the workings of the system, and their own impact upon it. Bayesian networks comprise one modeling approach that has proven quite useful in both cases, and there is a rapidly growing literature on their application in participatory resource management scenarios (Cain et al, 1999; Cain et al, 2001; McCann et al, 2006).
Digital data generated in the course of clinical care are increasingly being leveraged for a wide range of secondary purposes. Researchers need to develop governance policies that can assure the public that their information is being used responsibly. Our aim was to develop a generalisable model for governance of research emanating from health data repositories that will invoke the trust of the patients and the healthcare professionals whose data are being accessed for health research. We developed our governance principles and processes through literature review and iterative consultation with key actors in the research network including: a data governance working group, the lead investigators and patient advisors. We then recruited persons to participate in the governing and advisory bodies. Our governance process is informed by eight principles: (1) transparency; (2) accountability; (3) follow rule of law; (4) integrity; (5) participation and inclusiveness; (6) impartiality and independence; (7) effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness and (8) reflexivity and continuous quality improvement. We describe the rationale for these principles, as well as their connections to the subsequent policies and procedures we developed. We then describe the function of the Research Governing Committee, the majority of whom are either persons living with diabetes or physicians whose data are being used, and the patient and data provider advisory groups with whom they consult and communicate. In conclusion, we have developed a values-based information governance framework and process for Diabetes Action Canada that adds value over-and-above existing scientific and ethics review processes by adding a strong patient perspective and contextual integrity. This model is adaptable to other secure data repositories.
the inclusivity of the participatory budgeting process. Under the rubric of participation, residents may choose to volunteer with the participatory budgeting process; they may choose to attend public meetings about participatory budgeting; or they may simply participate in the final vote that determines the allocation of funding. Each type of involvement is detailed briefly below. Volunteers refers to residents who are members of a participatory budgeting committee, and regularly attend planning and decision-making meetings over a span of four to six months. Residents who volunteer have the most substantial level of engagement with the process. They help make procedural determinations locally in their ward, by determining the criteria used to rank various project proposals, and also city wide, through the annual writing of the rules meeting where terms for the entire participatory budgeting process are established. Volunteers, guided by aldermanic staff, decide which of the dozens of project proposals are included on the final ballot, an important decision that structures the possibilities for funding. They also staff mobile polls and other voting stations. Finally, volunteers also contribute their own project ideas, developing these proposals in conjunction with other residents, aldermanic staff, and sometimes municipal staff as well. Throughout the course of their involvement, volunteers typically meet the alderman and their staff, gain the exposure to municipal processes for infrastructure approval, as well as experience with the rules and regulations governing different municipal departments. Thus, many of the civic literacy benefits associated with participatory budgeting are most greatly reinforced at the volunteer level of engagement. In addition, attempts to create procedural and normative equality are mobilized in volunteer committee meetings, thus many of the deliberative aspects of the process are most pronounced at the volunteer level of involvement as well.
49 More recently, the MSI literature has started to examine the question of convergence, or institutional isomorphism, in the field of transnational sustainability governance (Dingwerth & Pattberg, 2009; L. W. Fransen, 2011, 2012b; Kaan, 2008; Overdevest, 2010; Zietsma & McKnight, 2009). As described in more detail below, convergence or isomorphism can be defined as any increase in the similarity between entities of a social system. Drawing on neoinstitutional theory, Dingwerth and Pattberg (2009) argue that diffusion in the form of mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures has made MSIs converge on a common model, featuring meaningful and costly participatory elements. Further evidence in support of the isomorphism hypothesis comes from the forestry sector. Here, Overdevest (2010) and Zietsma and McKnight (2009) show how interscheme competition between the FSC and its industry-initiated competitor programmes created pressures for convergence. However, others believe that institutional variation will persist (Auld & Gulbrandsen, 2013). In this regard, Fransen (2011, 2012b) argues that civil society actors, retailers, and manufacturers continue to struggle over the content and scope of private labour standards and that this has limited the possibilities of convergence among private governance arrangements in the apparel industry. In his study on the formation and evolution of MSIs in the forestry, coffee and fishery industries, Auld (2009) points to a second set of mechanisms. He shows how self-reinforcing processes at the organisational-level can lock in initial institutional design choices and thus impede later efforts to adapt.
the various forms of direct democracy. In this sense, the six types of Participatory Budgeting have been identified and associated with as many models of civic participation, which take into consideration several significant aspects within the different theoretical approaches of participatorygovernance, such as the weight of citizenship understood as the role which is attributed to the citizen as part of the participatory process, also attributing weight to the organizational model chosen for the implementation of the participatory project; all these aspects can be summarized through the following tables that take into account the most salient features of each participatory budget models developed in the numerous international experiences. In practice we can group the various experiences into three models: public-private negotiation table, management of funds for neighborhoods, participation of organized interests (Bertocci, 2010). The differences between the various models are nuanced and the various experiences taken over the years, as well as those in progress, present characters common to several models at the same time. In the proposed classification a particular weight is attributed to the “ideological charge” of the various experiences and their ability to contribute to the development of a “cooperative counter-power”, thus contrasting with the conventional models of government. In this sense, the case of Porto Alegre is taken as reference model and placed at the top of the proposed scale of value (Allegretti et al., 2010). The model of participatory democracy, of which the case of the Brazilian town has become a reference model for many European countries, is probably the most widespread; it is characterized by the implementation of a process concerning the involvement of segments of citizenship (usually of individual citizens) for the definition
All this while, the role of the youth was elucidated, understanding the conditions that create an environment of public participation, the Indian scenario-how the economy is unable to reap the complete potential of its youth population because opportunities are not being created enough for this cohort to be able to make the transformation into an responsible adulthood who will in turn create conditions for change. But since this is dialogue process involves two actors-the state and society, the role of the government needs to be defined accurately and transparently. India recognized the growing importance of information technology when it swept the globe during 1980s. This was followed by a paradigm shift in governance during the early 1990s. Countries started talking the language of e-governance. India launched the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP), its pet project for increasing accountability and transparency in its working and service delivery. Today, there’s a wider consensus that citizen par ticipation and civic engagement are the stepping stone to reach a higher level of democracy. Alongside rapid rise in internet usage and increase in spread of internet, there was an exemplar shift in delivery of essential public services- from human to technology interface. This has resulted in the launch of several dedicated portals which provide detailed information on government services, schemes and gives access to official data banks. For all purposes, it can be accepted that the state has taken IT as a tool for information dissemination and service delivery acutely. As of today, there is no difficulty in obtaining data or resources on any government department. This forms the first stage of public participation or participatorygovernance. Provision of information from the government towards its citizens is the necessary condition. The next and crucial part is the conversation that occurs between the two actors based on this information flow. What needs to be analyzed is the extent to which this engagement has taken place.
T BSUP and RAY housing projects had the preconditions for participatory success . National policy sought empowered city-level governance and community involvement within housing delivery, aims Kerala supported through pro-active institutional design drawing on its history of participatorygovernance K . In practice, however, the city-centre BSUP project was delayed and contentious, and the RAY Pilot Project had widely deviated from its holistic community plan, problems that were echoed in other BSUP sites across the city. A simplistic explanation of these shortcomings would blame local-level political interference: party-political rivalry drove conflict over beneficiary selection in the city- W C near-monopolistic hold over the fishing community was insulating the RAY project from local-level scrutiny altogether. With the projects offering highly-subsidised housing, incentives for graft and political capture certainly existed, but a more careful analysis needs to understand why the participatory spaces envisaged were relatively easily
Participatory design is another area where there are some parallels between architecture and software engineering. It is a growing practice that has been adopted by practitioners in both fields [33, 36, 31, 37]. In both cases, it is particularly relevant in projects with a large public user base. In software engineering, web development is one such area, particularly web-based collaborative environments and publicly-funded web applications. In architecture, community buildings and area-based urban regeneration initiatives are the main are- nas of participatory design practice. Participatory design practitioners aim to ensure that the community who will in- habit a new building or neighbourhood improvement scheme are properly represented during the design process. This is done in various ways, using tools and techniques that en- able non-architects to become directly involved in decision making about architectural problems. In the past most of the techniques used were manual, such as drawings, physi- cal models, or interactive displays, and were used in ‘face-to- face’ situations such as workshops and exhibitions. However, recently, academics and practitioners have begun to explore applications of digital media to participatory design, looking at interactive websites and geographic information systems (GIS) in particular [19, 4]. The application of virtual reality and computer game technology to design collaboration in ar- chitecture and urban design is an interesting and relatively new development [16, 23, 29].
This understandably disturbs the exercise of power since power-holders seem troubled to acquire reliable knowledge about the future, which diminishes their far-sightedness and ruling capacities. As a result, accounts about political decen- tralization, the inadequacy of rigid hierarchical structures and the compromised competence of the elite, appear regularly in the public discourse. They point at the eroded governmental expertise and at the inability of official institutions to keep pace with the expanding ‘ decision load ’ . The perception that the social reality is rapidly increasing its complexity further exacerbates the problem of how to react adequately and in a timely manner for administering the various aspects of social change. It is not surprising, then, that very specific narratives emerge in an attempt to reestablish elite-citizenry relation- ships. In all their variants they argue for more active partici- pation of citizens in the political process by making contribu- tion to the formulation of policies which directly affect them. This is commonly interpreted as an opportunity for more open (non-elitist) approach in contemplating and deciding about the future. In effect, the burden of political responsibility would be shared between the ruled majority and the ruling minority. The abovementioned developments outline the context in which ensuring a broader participation in foresight activities has been justified. A participatory approach requires the in- clusion of agents, which have traditionally been considered ‘external’ for the foresight endeavor. On the one hand, these could be individuals who do not have specific expertise in a given area (laymen) but are interested in or affected by its dynamics with regard to the future. On the other hand, those could be specialists, who are not educated in the discipline which is usually referred to as one providing expertise on the question at issue. As a consequence, they have often been denied access to public discussion, deliberation and subse- quent policy making.
In much the same way, the work of Piaget and Vygotsky has inspired the researches on collaborative and participatory approach (Dillenbourg et al., 1996). In fact, socio-constructivists were inspired by Piaget’s system of developmental stages. In other words, Piaget emphasized that children’s developmental stages are parallel to their cognitive progress. Furthermore, socio-constructivism partially believes the ideas related to cognitive conflict, which refers dichotomies between current, new information, and experiences. As with the participatory approach, the following study aims to examine its probable effects on academic achievement of EFL learners who study in the Azad University of Kerman. Apart from all the models and studies in language learning classrooms which are carried out by collaborative learning, there has been still demand for researches which focus on the effects of the participatory approach on academic achievement of EFL students. “Traditional methods of teaching have failed to produce graduates with the kinds of skills they need to be effective engineers e.g., working in teams; applying scientific and engineering theory and principles; solving unstructured, practical problems, and communicating with others” (Cabrera, Colbeck, Terenzini, 2001: 2). Not having done so might easily put forth the difficulties. Unsurprisingly, learners’ engagement which is a productive environment for collaboration and teamwork, and applying problem- solving activities can definitely be difficult feats in teaching a second language (Kalyuga, Mantai, Marrone, 2012).