Developing the Public Participation Field: The Role of Independent Bodies for Public Participation
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| Author | Mario Gauthier,Laurence Bherer,Louis Simard |
| DOI | 10.1177/0095399720957606 |
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
Administration & Society
2021, Vol. 53(5) 680 –707
Developing the Public
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Participation Field: The
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720957606
DOI: 10.1177/0095399720957606
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Role of Independent
Bodies for Public
Participation
Laurence Bherer1 , Mario Gauthier2,
and Louis Simard3
Abstract
This article examines how independent bodies for public participation
(IBPPs) can initiate a convergence around practices among actors in the
public participation field, especially sponsors of participatory arrangements
and the associated participation firms. As IBPPs have the public resources and
legal authority to independently organize participatory arrangements, they
can play a coordinating role in the public participation field. A comparison
of two IBPPs, one in Canada (Quebec) and one in France, shows that IBPPs
enhance the development of the participation industry and strengthen
recognition of several informal norms concerning public participation design
and implementation.
Keywords
public participation, organizational field analysis, public agency, participation
industry
1Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada
2Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Canada
3University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Laurence Bherer, Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy in the Political
Science Department, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale, Centre-ville, Montreal,
Québec, Canada H3C 3J7.
Email: laurence.bherer@umontreal.ca
Bherer et al.
681
Innovative mechanisms in democratic processes have been relatively well
mapped in the last 20 years. This is thanks to several studies on participation
processes as well as very helpful analyses aimed at classifying the many
innovations in the field. However, there is still little known about the organi-
zations and actors that operate at the heart of the public participation phe-
nomenon. Public participation is not limited to a series of isolated practices
but is organized through varied networks of organizations and actors. These
actors are giving greater form to public participation through promotion,
sponsorship, expertise, and other facilitation efforts (Chilvers, 2012). In the
last few years, the information gap regarding public participation actors has
been addressed to some extent by analyzing the role of the public engage-
ment industry (Lee, 2015) and its professionals (Bherer et al., 2017a).
This article seeks to specifically examine the actors at the heart of the emer-
gence of the public participation field—the “participation organizations”
(Chilvers, 2012, p. 290; Pallett, 2015, p. 770) or “organizations working with
participatory governance” (Fung & Warren, 2011, p. 343). Participation orga-
nizations are actors that have the capacity to coordinate and influence the
development of public participation practices: “Such actors were recognized
for their roles in speaking for, overseeing, coordinating, and professionalizing
the public dialogue field, which included networking, knowledge transfer,
developing guidance, training, and building capacity” (Chilvers, 2012, p. 296).
It includes professional associations, such as the International Association for
Public Participation and the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation in
the United States, as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as
Involve in the United Kingdom, that act as centers of expertise.
This article specifically examines the impact of a little-researched subcat-
egory of participation organizations that we have called “independent bodies
for public participation” (IBPPs). IBPPs are public agencies established at
arm’s length by governments to organize participatory forums in accordance
with the provisions of their enabling legislation. This legislation usually sets
out clear rules for the implementation of participatory arrangements but also
gives IBPPs room to maneuver in terms of putting participatory tools in
place. As autonomous public agencies, IBPPs are theoretically protected
from day-to-day political intervention and have public resources and the for-
mal power to influence public participation practices in multiple ways. This
means that IBPPs can act as pivotal organizations not only in implementing
participatory processes but also in consolidating public participation prac-
tices. The objective of this text is to examine some of the ways that IBPPs can
influence public participation practices by comparing two of the oldest IBPPs
still in operation: Quebec’s Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement
(environmental public hearings board, hereafter the BAPE) in Canada and
682
Administration & Society 53(5)
France’s Commission nationale du débat public (national commission for
public debate, hereafter the CNDP).
The concept of “organizational field” (from “organizational institutional-
ism” scholarship) is used to theoretically understand how IBPPs can influ-
ence public participation practices as a whole. Organizational fields have
been described as “a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers,
resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations
that produce similar services or products” (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p.
148). These definitions emphasize relationships between actors as well as
their shared understandings of power, knowledge, norms, and boundaries
with respect to the field. The concept of an organizational field implies that
there is institutionalization, that is, a growing recognition and increasing con-
centration of typical practices in the field. This article seeks to better under-
stand the coordinating role that the two IBPPs under study can play in their
respective fields by initiating a convergence around principles, rules, and
practices among the sponsors of participatory arrangements and the “partici-
pation firms” that are involved in these forums in various ways. The article
focuses on how IBPPs contribute to the development of institutional infra-
structure, which is defined as the set of formal and informal institutions that
prevail in a field and establish its governance. This could be the case with
IBPPs, whose autonomy and public status give them the resources and capac-
ity to create logics that help institutionalize the public participation field.
This article begins by explaining what an IBPP is, then presents a theoreti-
cal framework for understanding the contributions IBPPs make. The next
section examines how the BAPE, as an IBPP, contributes within its own field,
and the fourth section does the same for the CNDP. These latter two sections
begin by introducing the IBPP concerned and then describe its main contribu-
tions. The final section reviews and compares the impacts of the BAPE and
the CNDP to identify the processes they induce that help develop the institu-
tional infrastructure of their respective public participation fields. Rather than
evaluating the influence of IBPPs on participatory process quality, this article
looks at how the two IBPPs influence the logics of production, design, and
dissemination in their respective public participation fields. The article is an
exploratory study that takes an initial dive into the world of IBPPs by defin-
ing them analytically and then exploring two examples to provide a frame-
work for further investigations of this novel type of organization.
What Is an IBPP?
IBPPs belong in the administrative category of public agencies, that is, “those
governmental entities that (a) possess and exercise some grant of specialised
Bherer et al.
683
public authority, separate from that of other institutions but (b) are neither
directly elected by the people nor directly managed by elected officials”
(Thatcher & Sweet, 2002, p. 2). This category of organization includes such
very different public entities as telecommunications or energy regulatory boards,
food and drug agencies, and service provider agencies. Public agencies have
greater autonomy than that enjoyed by traditional ministries in national govern-
ments. This greater freedom extends to areas such as the delegated authority, the
management of financial and human resources, and day-to-day tasks.
The best-known unelected bodies are specialized regulatory agencies that
have the power to independently establish formal norms and standards to reg-
ulate a given sector. As part of this regulatory power, they can also supervise
and penalize the entities that they regulate. In some cases, they can also set up
participation forums, but this remains a very small part of what they do. The
interest here is in public agencies whose entire mandate is dedicated to public
participation: that is, those given the mandate to organize participation forums
in accordance with the provisions of their enabling legislation. IBPPs, like
regulatory agencies, have all been established by statute and are headed by a
board or a single nonministerial official. However, unlike executive agencies,
IBPPs do not carry out any formal regulatory activities. On the contrary, they
do have the authority to autonomously organize public forums, make informa-
tion public, and provide independent specialist advice (usually based on citi-
zen preferences). This statutory authority may cover the type of issue or
project for...
To continue reading
Request your trial