Trends In Public Participation: Part 1 - Local Government Perspectives

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: PART 1 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

INTRODUCTION Enhanced public participation lies at the heart of the Labour government’s modernization agenda for British local government. As the white paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People states, ‘the Government wishes to see consultation and participation embedded into the culture of all councils . . . and undertaken across a wide range of each council’s responsibilities’ (DETR 1998, para. 4.6). Such bold statements suggest that the modernization programme is introducing fundamental change into local democratic practices: change which is addressed as much towards altering cultures and attitudes within local government as it is towards creating new opportunities for democratic participation. Yet the belief that local government should involve the public or ‘get closer to the community’ is hardly new. The history of British local government is littered with experiments in public participation and consultation (Gyford 1991; Burns et al. 1994; Stoker 1997). This article analyses the prospects for change through an examination of current practice and attitudes within local government. It presents findings from research commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to fill gaps in existing knowledge about the extent and nature of participation exercises in local government (Lowndes et al. 1998a). The study is unique in that it provides, in effect, a census of local government activity to enhance public participation. Survey-based analysis was complemented by qualitative research on the experience and aspirations of local government members and officers regarding public participation – both positive and negative. Consequently, this research complements existing studies of new developments in local participation which have tended to be largely descriptive and uncritical, focusing upon examples of ‘good practice’ and lacking any statistical underpinning regarding general trends (Stewart 1995, 1996 and 1997; LGA/LGMB 1998; New Economics Foundation 1999). Vivien Lowndes is Professor of Local Government Studies and Lawrence Pratchett is Reader in Local Democracy in the Department of Public Policy at De Montfort University, Leicester. Gerry Stoker is Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde. Public Administration Vol. 79 No. 1, 2001 (205–222)  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

206

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

The research had two key objectives: • To provide an up-to-date picture of the nature and scope of public participation in local government via a survey of all local authorities. • To investigate the views of local authorities and their citizens on participation initiatives in practice via selected case studies. This article reports the research findings as they relate to local authority activities and attitudes. A subsequent article will consider citizen perspectives (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker, 2001). A questionnaire was sent to the chief executives of all principal local authorities in England in January 1998, covering the level of use and trends in the take-up of a range of different participation methods. Local authorities were asked about their use of nineteen different forms of participation. The questionnaire also investigated perceptions of the factors stimulating participation initiatives and the benefits and problems encountered in practice. A response rate of 85 per cent was achieved. (In total 332 principal authorities that existed at the time responded, of which 310 provided substantive survey returns.) Alongside the survey, case studies were conducted in 11 local authorities. These involved in-depth interviews with individuals who had developed or organized participation initiatives, ranging from senior officers and members through to those responsible for managing specific activities. (For further details of the research methodology, including the topic guides employed, see Lowndes et al. 1998.) This article reports on the findings from both the survey and the case studies. As with all surveys, there are limits to interpreting the findings and generalizing them to the broader population (Denscombe 1998). These problems are compounded by the complex operational structures of most local authorities, which make it difficult for one individual to have complete knowledge of all the organization’s initiatives. It is inevitable, therefore, that there will have been some under-reporting of participation initiatives in some authorities. Where questions of attitude or perception have been answered there are also limits to interpretation, as these represent a personal understanding on the part of the respondent, rather than an organizational position. However, the high response rate (85 per cent of all authorities) and the seniority of most respondents (most were chief executives or senior officers within a policy unit) ameliorate these difficulties. In addition, the case studies were used, in part, as a triangulation tool to verify the reliability and validity of the survey instrument. It is important to note that the research was concerned only with local authority initiatives to stimulate participation; it did not cover communitygenerated activities such as self-help groups, petitions or direct actions. Following Parry et al., ‘participation’ was interpreted broadly to refer to public involvement in ‘the processes of formulation, passage and implementation of public policies’ (1992, p. 16), and electoral practices were not covered. Political parties were also beyond the terms of the research, although we

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 207

acknowledge the important role that such organizations play in structuring many opportunities for political participation. The initiatives under investigation varied significantly in terms of both their scale and scope – that is, their duration and cost, their policy or issue focus, and the numbers and specific groups of citizens targeted. They also varied in ‘depth’ – ranging from the provision of information, to consultation over specified options, to problem-based deliberation, and user-management of services. The nineteen forms of participation constitute an inelegant, yet pragmatic, bundle of activities, covering virtually all the rungs in Arnstein’s (1971) famous ‘ladder of participation’ (see Gyford 1991; Burns et al. 1994 or Audit Commission 1999 for commentaries). The one thing that all of these methods have in common is that they are attempts to encourage participation in local affairs beyond the traditional processes of political engagement (voting and party membership). It is for this reason that they can be seen as contributing (potentially) to a process of democratic renewal (DETR 1998; Pratchett 1999). THE USE OF DIFFERENT METHODS In order to establish a census of participation initiatives the survey asked each local authority to identify the different forms of participation or consultation they had used in the previous year. The responses from this are summarized in chart 1 (p. 216). For the purposes of analysis the different forms of participation are divided into five categories: • Consumerist methods – forms of participation which are primarily customer-oriented in their purpose and are mainly concerned with aspects of service delivery. • Traditional methods – methods which have a long history of use in local government and are traditionally associated with public participation. • Forums – activities which bring together users of particular services, residents of an area, individuals concerned with specific issues (for example, community safety) or those with a shared background or interest (for example, minority ethnic groups), on a regular basis. • Consultative innovations – new methods which seek mainly to consult citizens on particular issues rather than to engage them in sustained dialogue. • Deliberative innovations – new methods which encourage citizens to reflect upon issues affecting them and their communities through some form of deliberative process. This categorization is inevitably crude and a case can easily be made for including some forms within a different category. For the purposes of analysis, however, it displays some important distinctions between different forms of participation. The most striking feature of chart 1 is the dominance of consumerist methods as a means of consulting the public. Local authorities have clearly

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

208

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

responded to the customer orientation encouraged by Conservative governments in the 1980s and early 1990s, with 92 per cent of authorities operating a complaints/suggestions scheme and nearly as many (88 per cent) undertaking service satisfaction surveys. Traditional methods are also widely used, with more than four-fifths of authorities issuing consultation documents and holding public meetings during the census year. Forums are also a popular means of encouraging regular dialogue with different groups: while the organization and operation of forums varies greatly, it was notable that 87 per cent of all authorities claimed to operate at least one type of forum. Of greater interest, however, is the level of innovative methods in use. Nearly half of all authorities (47 per cent) used focus groups, and a significant proportion used other deliberative mechanisms to engage with communities in a more general way: some 45 per cent undertook some form of community planning or needs analysis involving public participation, while more than a quarter were using visioning techniques. Perhaps surprisingly, given recent publicity surrounding them (Smith and Wales 2000), only a small proportion of authorities (5 per cent) used citizens’ juries, although this figure is somewhat blurred by the different labels which various organizations attach to this activity. Consultative innovations such as citizens’ panels were less widely used than deliberative techniques, although 55 authorities already had a panel up and running and a further 18 expected to implement one in the near future. While different authorities use the terms citizens’ panel and citizens’ jury to describe a range of different techniques, for the purposes of this research the term citizens’ jury referred to groups of citizens brought together to deliberate on a specific issue, while the label citizens’ panel was reserved for a statistically representative sample of citizens who are periodically consulted on a range of issues. The other major area of innovative consultation was in the introduction of interactive web-sites: 24 per cent claimed to already have such technology in operation and a further 9 per cent anticipated implementation within the subsequent 12 months (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Such claims, however, need to be balanced against a more recent study of local government web-sites (SOCITM 1999) which found that no authority in Britain offers a truly transactional site and only 6 per cent offer a good level of interaction. The remainder offer only very limited interaction (22 per cent) or no interaction whatsoever (72 per cent). The extent to which technology is being used to extend participation and consultation is clearly limited. While chart 1 provides a valuable summary of the extent to which each form of participation is used by local authorities, it is also useful to analyse this information in different ways. It is evident, for example, that most authorities use more than one form of participation (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Indeed, the survey findings show that, on average, each local authority used around nine different forms of participation during the census year. Averages, however, can conceal marked differences between individual

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 209

authorities. Chart 2 (p. 217) disaggregates the data into type of authority to reveal significant differences between urban and rural authorities. The mean averages show that all three types of urban authority used around eleven different forms of participation. By contrast, district councils (which are generally smaller in terms of both population and geography – although with some notable exceptions) generally used only eight different forms of public participation. Given that chart 1 shows that the vast majority of authorities use at least two forms of customer-oriented consultation (complaints/suggestions schemes and service satisfaction surveys) and two traditional forms of participation (consultation documents and public meetings) this indicates a generally low level of innovation among smaller authorities. In some respects, this is not surprising – these authorities generally have smaller budgets and fewer resources with which to experiment. At the same time, however, it does appear to imply that smaller authorities will not necessarily be more actively engaged with their communities – at least, not through formal participation mechanisms. County councils, however, stand out within the predominantly rural areas. Counties were particularly advanced in their use of interactive web-sites and were also good at using other consultative approaches, presumably reflecting the problems of geography which confront most counties. Such a finding reinforces the argument that different participation approaches may be more suited to the needs of particular types of organization. The greater range of participation methods used in some authorities raises questions about the extent to which innovations are related to party political control. In particular, are the most innovative authorities controlled by the political parties most closely associated with the participation agenda at national level? Chart 3 (p. 218) analyses the average number of participation initiatives by political control. Somewhat surprisingly, it shows that there is very little difference between any of the three major parties. While Liberal-Democrat controlled authorities are slightly ahead, using a mean average of 9.8 initiatives, they are closely followed by Labour (9.6) and Conservative (9.1) controlled authorities. These figures may be affected by the exceptionally high number of Labour controlled authorities that existed at the time of the survey and the absence of Conservative controlled authorities. Of greater interest, however, are the consequences of an absence of clear political control. Where authorities have no overall control, the average number of initiatives drops to 8.4. This suggests that while the controlling party is not a significant factor in determining the average number of initiatives, the absence of one is. The absence of clear political leadership in ‘hung’ authorities appears to restrict the opportunities for experimentation with participation and reduces the opportunities for innovation. This effect is even stronger in Independent controlled authorities where the averages drop even further (6.2), although the relationship between small rural local government and Independent control somewhat blurs the analysis,

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

210

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

making it difficult to determine whether size or political control is the most important factor in causing this effect. TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS IN PARTICIPATION So far the analysis has concentrated upon the overall picture of participation as it existed at the time of the census. It is interesting, however, to examine the ways in which local authorities arrived at their current position. Chart 4 (p. 219) summarizes recent trends for some of the more innovative modes of participation and compares them with the recent growth in other, more conventional, methods. The most striking feature of chart 4 is the fact that all modes of participation are on the increase (this conclusion also applies to the other modes of participation not included in this chart). Even traditional modes of participation such as ‘public meetings’ and ‘question and answer’ sessions are being more widely used than previously. This suggests that there is a momentum behind the participation agenda which extends beyond any individual method. Indeed, it would appear that far from being a focus on a few fashionable innovations, the participation agenda has encouraged local authorities to renew their acquaintance with traditional forms of participation, as well as to experiment with alternatives. Of course, the distinction between traditional and innovatory forms of participation is not always apparent to individual authorities. In some of the case study authorities the introduction of ‘question and answer’ sessions during committee meetings was deemed a major innovation which had caused great controversy among councillors; in others it was deemed a first step towards more open participation; and in others it was a long-standing tradition which was taken for granted (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Such attitudes were important in determining the speed at which different innovations were taken on board by different authorities. Chart 4 also indicates the points at which innovation started to accelerate, notably the mid-1990s. Focus groups, in particular became particularly popular at this point, possibly reflecting national party interests in these tools. The other forms of innovative participation also show marked growth during this period: visioning, especially, shows a quite dramatic take-up in the three years from 1995. Clearly there is a process of learning and knowledge sharing involved as different authorities have experimented with different tools and passed that information on through the local government community. Of more significance here, however, is the apparent willingness of local government to engage with these innovations. The rapid take-up of new forms of participation suggests a latent disposition within local government for much greater public involvement and an enthusiasm for developing new opportunities. FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS TO ENHANCING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The sharp growth in many forms of participation in recent years raises important questions about the main purposes of public participation initiat-

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 211

ives and the factors stimulating the development of participation strategies. Respondents were asked to identify the main purposes and benefits of participation initiatives in their authority. Two stood out as being important to the majority of authorities. First, many respondents stressed the importance of gaining citizens’ views and recognized that council decisions were likely to be better informed if they were linked to participation exercises. Second, a large proportion of respondents saw participation as being directly related to service improvements, clearly reflecting the current emphasis on consultation within the Best Value framework. Both of these benefits, however, are largely internal to the commissioning organization, reflecting the information needs of decision makers and service providers rather than those of the community. Indeed, the goals of empowering citizens or increasing their awareness were largely secondary to the more tangible benefits of improving decision making. However, it should be noted that such a finding contrasts sharply with the experiences of many citizens, especially those who had experience of deliberative participation (see Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker, 2001, for a more detailed analysis of this point). Alongside the analysis of purposes and benefits, survey respondents were also asked to rank a number of issues according to how important they were in stimulating an interest in public participation measures within their authorities. Chart 5 (p. 220) summarizes their responses by attaching weighted scores to the various categories. There are always problems in asking individuals to attach ordinal rankings to complex and non-ordinal patterns of preferences or beliefs. While it is important to be cautious when interpreting such responses, however, it is clear that internal factors were considered by respondents to be much more important than external stimuli. Corporate strategy, departmental projects and ruling group policy all scored consistently high. By contrast, central government initiatives and local government networks were not deemed to be of much significance in stimulating activity in this area. Whether such responses reflect reality is not an issue here. What is significant, however, is the perception among respondents (local government chief executives) that the participation agenda is being driven more by local internal factors than by external imposition. There is, therefore, a strong sense of ownership of these initiatives. Such ownership, however, did not blind respondents to the difficulties they had encountered in developing participation strategies. Respondents were also asked to rank the main problems experienced in implementing participation initiatives. Their responses are summarized in chart 6, again using weighted scores derived from the rankings. As might be expected, the majority of respondents identified lack of resources and time as the main factors inhibiting the development of public participation. Such issues are not trivial. The case studies found that local authority resources rarely matched their ambitions in this area and that justifying greater expenditure on participation was always difficult when there were pressing social or

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

212

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

economic problems demanding resources (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Moreover, the time commitment necessary to make different initiatives successful acted as a powerful inhibitor to greater experimentation. As a consequence, several of the case study authorities had adopted a rolling policy of using different forms of participation in different years: perhaps holding a series of focus groups one year, conducting a residents’ survey another year, and so on. In so doing, they were often aware of the limitations of their strategy and, in particular, realized that the potential added value of matching information from several sources was lost through this method. The problem of when and how to commit resources to democratic enhancement, rather than to service delivery, is an unresolved dilemma which lies at the heart of the current process of democratic renewal. The other important point which emerges from chart 6 (p. 221) is that ‘lack of public interest’ was seen to be a major inhibitor in many authorities. Indeed, 58 (nearly one-fifth) of respondents ranked this factor first. Such findings have important policy implications, for while chart 4 suggested a latent disposition among respondents towards enhanced participation, chart 6 shows that the same respondents to do not perceive a strong demand for it. The challenge for local authorities, therefore, is not only to develop more and better opportunities for participation but also to stimulate demand for such initiatives across their communities. THE DRAWBACKS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Although the respondents demonstrated considerable enthusiasm towards enhanced public participation they were nonetheless frank about the problems and drawbacks associated with such initiatives. While two-thirds of authorities indicated that their experience of participation initiatives was largely positive, 35 per cent emphasized some negative effect (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Two problems were particularly common. First, almost a third of those identifying negative effects (32 per cent) were concerned that public participation initiatives raised unrealistic public expectations. This was particularly important when the authority’s ability to respond to particular issues was constrained by financial or legal limitations. Some authorities also indicated that this was a problem when public demand on a particular issue conflicted with broader council policy. Second, a quarter of those identifying negative effects were concerned that public participation initiatives slowed down the decision-making process by introducing additional stages into an already bureaucratic process. This was particularly a concern where the authority was working with other agencies which demanded a faster response. Respondents also identified other negative effects, although these occurred with less frequency. These included concerns that initiatives had introduced additional costs to the decision-making process or placed additional burdens on officers and members without any clear gains from participation. There were also concerns that issues were often captured by

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 213

particular groups who were not representative of the wider community, leading to populism and short-term decision-making among elected members. Concerns that community-based participation initiatives encourage parochialism and an over concentration on relatively trivial issues were also expressed. As one respondent put it ‘relatively minor issues assume greater importance than they perhaps warrant’. Another went further, suggesting that participation initiatives had led to greater conflict and acrimony among different sections of the community. This was matched by similar concerns that initiatives might undermine the authority or legitimacy of elected members or officers, and that being responsive to citizens may distract attention from other ‘more important’ issues. Finally, a small number of very active authorities expressed concerns that in some areas there was a danger of ‘consultation overload’, especially where many organizations were consulting on a range of overlapping issues. Coupled with this was a concern that unless initiatives are seen by all actors as being successful there is a danger of groups losing confidence not only in the initiative, but also in the authority more generally. Most respondents did not see these negative effects as excuses for avoiding participation. Rather, most authorities saw them as challenges to be overcome. Indeed, for many of the case study authorities such problems were seen as being a necessary part of the learning experience in developing more effective public participation strategies (Lowndes et al. 1998a). Nevertheless, all authorities acknowledged that there were certain issues which should not be opened up to participation. The most commonly mentioned issues were those of internal management, confidential issues, commercially sensitive matters and activities which are prescribed by statute, thereby leaving the council no discretion. Other respondents, however, identified equally pertinent issues, although these were less frequently reported. These included: issues requiring a quick response from the council; issues which might raise unnecessary fears among the community or lead to blight; areas where the ruling party had a clear manifesto commitment to proceed in a particular way; and those issues which might exacerbate community tensions or create unnecessary cleavages between communities. Most respondents were at pains to emphasize, however, that regardless of which issues were opened up to public participation the final decision should always rest with elected members. THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATION INITIATIVES Public participation is not simply about giving citizens more influence over particular decisions. Many of the case study authorities emphasized that participation initiatives were only one factor among many that might influence a decision. Elected members, particularly, argued that they had a duty to weigh a range of factors which might contradict current public opinion. Nevertheless, it is useful to reflect upon how much impact participation initiatives have on final decisions. The survey asked respondents to

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

214

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

describe in their own words the effect of their participation initiatives on final decisions. Chart 7 (p. 222) groups these into six categories. The key feature of these six categories is that only two (better informed decisions and strong influence) can be deemed to be wholly positive – and these accounted for only a third of respondents. The remaining two-thirds of respondents had noted some negative effects of initiatives in the work of the authority. While such reservations do not invalidate public participation initiatives, they should alert all those involved with the democratic renewal agenda to the issues which need to be addressed if initiatives are to be seen as being successful. The limited impact of public participation initiatives on final decisions is not wholly surprising and, indeed, it may even be appropriate. As the Audit Commission (1999, para. 48) observe, it is the elected member’s role to decide ‘what weight to give to the results of community consultation alongside other factors, such as available resources, statutory requirements and the views of partner organisations’. What is not clear from the survey findings, however, is whether the results of participation initiatives have been given their due weight in the decision-making process. Low levels of impact may well be explained by such arguments but they also need to be justified, especially to the public. CONCLUSIONS The survey of participation initiatives has shown a commitment and enthusiasm across local government for innovation in this area. Over the last few years the number and range of participation initiatives in local government has expanded greatly, offering citizens wide opportunities to take part in local affairs. This growth in participation opportunities reflects more than simply a response to the current democratic renewal agenda or, indeed, a party political programme. Rather, it demonstrates a sense of ownership within individual authorities of the democratic possibilities which such initiatives hold and a willingness to develop them. In providing a census of participation initiatives within local government, therefore, the survey has provided an important benchmark against which to measure democratic development in future years. The findings from the survey offer more than just a benchmark of participation activity. The experience of local authorities has revealed difficulties as well as advantages in enhancing public participation: difficulties which they must address if they are to meet consultation requirements in respect of Best Value, the power to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of the area, or the beacon council scheme. Top of most lists is the crucial dichotomy between justifying expenditure on democratic activities when specific services are still in need of resources. Similarly, the tension between introducing real democratic enhancements and achieving efficient and effective service delivery remains. As participation becomes

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 215

more entrenched in the culture of local government so these problems and dilemmas will become more pressing. The claim that the observed growth in participation initiatives represents democratic enhancement needs to be treated with some caution. While many of the initiatives do provide new opportunities for individuals or groups to articulate their preferences, it is clear that, on their own, they often do not live up to the fundamental democratic tests of popular control and political equality (Beetham 1999). Individual initiatives are often deliberately designed to discriminate in favour of particular groups or areas, especially where authorities are trying to reach socially excluded groups. In this respect, they automatically fail the democratic test, even though they may be seeking to address failings in existing democratic practice. Where they can enhance local democracy, however, is as part of a broader programme of participation and community engagement linked into traditional democratic processes (Lowndes et al. 1998b). The overall approach that local authorities adopt towards participation, therefore, will be important in establishing the extent to which individual initiatives can enhance local democracy. Among many authorities there is a perception that there is little public enthusiasm for enhanced participation, particularly among those groups who are traditionally excluded from political participation. Such a perception makes justifying participation initiatives even harder. These perceptions, however, are only half of the picture. Our research also investigated citizen attitudes and perceptions towards local government participation, including some of the most socially excluded groups in society. The findings from this part of the research are reported in a subsequent article in this journal (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker, 2001). Making the link between local government and citizen perceptions of participation is possibly the greatest challenge facing democratic renewal. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank the other members of the research team: Steve Leach, Melvin Wingfield and David Wilson. APPENDIX Charts 1–7 follow on pp. 216–22.

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

216

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 1 Use of different forms of public participation

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 2 Average number of initiatives by authority type

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 217

218

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 3 Average number of participation initiatives by political control

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 4 The growth in different forms of participation

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 219

220

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 5 Factors stimulating participation initiatives

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

CHART 6 Factors inhibiting participation initiatives

TRENDS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 221

222

VIVIEN LOWNDES, LAWRENCE PRATCHETT AND GERRY STOKER

CHART 7 Impact of participation on final decisions

REFERENCES Arnstein, S. 1971. ‘A ladder of citizen participation in the USA’, Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute 57, 4, 176–82. Audit Commission. 1999. Listen up! Effective community consultation. London: Audit Commission. Beetham, D. 1999. ‘Democratic audit in comparative perspective’, Parliamentary Affairs 52, 4, 567–81. Burns, D., R. Hambleton and P. Hoggett. 1994. The politics of decentralisation. London: Macmillan. Denscombe, M. 1998. The good research guide. Buckingham: Open University Press. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 1998. Modern local government: in touch with the people. London: DETR. Gyford, J. 1991. Citizens, consumers and councils. London: Macmillan. Local Government Association/ Local Government Management Board. 1998. Democratic practice: a guide. London: LGA/LGMB. Lowndes, V., L. Pratchett and G. Stoker (2001). ‘Trends in public participation: part 2 – citizens’ perspectives’, Public Administration 79, 2. Lowndes, V., G. Stoker, L. Pratchett, D. Wilson, S. Leach and M. Wingfield (1998a). Enhancing public participation in local government. London: DETR. —. 1998b. Modern local government: guidance on enhancing public participation. London: DETR. New Economics Foundation. 1999. Participation works! London: New Economics Foundation. Parry, G., G. Moyser and N. Day. 1992. Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge University Press. Pratchett, L. 1999. ‘New fashions in public participation: towards greater democracy?’, Parliamentary Affairs 52, 4, 616–33. Smith, G. and C. Wales. 2000. ‘Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy’, Political Studies 48, 1, 51–65. SOCITM. 1999. Well connected? A snapshot of local authority websites. Northampton: Society of Information Technology Management. Stewart, J. 1995. Innovation in democratic practice. University of Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies. —. 1996. Further innovation in democratic practice. University of Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies. —. 1997. More innovation in democratic practice. University of Birmingham: Institute of Local Government Studies. Stoker, G. 1997. ‘Local political participation’ in R. Hambleton et al., New perspectives on local governance. York: York Publishing Services.

Date received 24 February 2000. Date accepted 3 October 2000.

 Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001