Electronic Participation in a Comparative Perspective: Institutional Determinants of Performance

Introduction

Electronic participation (e-participation) has the potential to facilitate citizens’ involvement in public affairs, whether through information provision, expanded consultation or in-depth deliberative decision-making processes. An early definition of e-participation describes it as “ICT-supported participation in processes involved in government and governance” (OECD, 2003). Saebø et al. (2008, p.402) define e-participation to include all forms of “technology-mediated interaction between the civil society sphere and the formal political sphere and between civil society sphere and the administration sphere”. Highlighting the massive growth in academic research and governmental practice of e-participation, Wirtz, Daiser, & Binkowska (2018, p. 3) define it as “a participatory process that is enabled by modern information and communication technologies” and involves “stakeholders in the public decision-making processes through active information exchange, and thus fosters fair and representative policy-making”.

Often portrayed as a field lacking consistency, e-participation has become increasingly popular over the past few years (Medaglia, 2012). In fact, with globalization and technological innovations, participatory processes are being challenged and the evolving technology requires stakeholders to continuously ‘chase the digital wave’ (Gibson, Römmele, & Williamson, 2014) and to foster ways of promoting ‘creative citizenship’ (Rodríguez Bolívar, 2018). The participation literature highlights individual resources and the role of institutional and political factors as determinants of participation (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). More recently, revisited versions of this theory encompass the role of digital technologies and the positive correlation between individual resources and the likelihood of online engagement (Anduiza, Gallego, & Cantijoch, 2010). More generally, the academic literature in the field reports positive effects of e-participation for democracy, inclusion, transparency, accountability and good governance (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2012; Medaglia, 2012; Noveck, 2009; Wirtz et al., 2018).

Following the United Nations E-Government Survey, it is possible to identify three dimensions of e-participation, namely e-information, e-consultation and e-decision-making (United Nations, 2018). E-information reflects government uses of digital technology to provide information to citizens. Information made available through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can then be used as evidence for the advancement of the next stages in e-participation: consultation and decision-making. Public policies and the provision of services can incorporate the suggestions and commentaries of citizens directly or indirectly affected. When government elicits citizen participation in the formation of public policies and service delivery choices using ICTs, the process is defined as e-consultation. Once the consultation period is over, public officials “analyze the comments received and publish overall findings” (Scott, 2006, p. 350). The third stage of e-participation involves citizen participation in decision-making employing ICTs, including e-voting, online deliberation systems, and the evaluation of public policy proposals using social media (United Nations, 2018).

Early research on the determinants of the progress of e-government and e-participation in countries around the world highlights the role of technical infrastructure, economic development, and education levels as prime explanations (Åström, Karlsson, Linde, & Pirannejad, 2012; Siau & Long, 2009). However, prior empirical analyses have largely failed to take into account the institutional framework under which these progresses have been accomplished (Gulati, Williams, & Yates, 2014). More importantly, these analyses have neglected the fact that political institutions are not only affecting the expansion of digital government, but also often interact with more structural conditions to constrain or incentivize the adoption and expansion of e-participation (Gulati, Williams, & Yates, 2014; Kneuer & Harnisch, 2016).