The Potential for Public Empowerment through Government‐Organized Participation

• Author: Neal D. Buckwalter
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12217
• Published date: 01 September 2014
• Date: 01 September 2014

Neal D. Buckwalter is assistant profes-

sor in the School of Public, Nonprof‌i t and

Health Administration at Grand Valley State

University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His

research examines the interplay between

bureaucracy and democracy, with particular

interest in the impacts of administra-

tive decision processes on the perceived

legitimacy of governance structures. His

work focuses mainly on state and local

governments.

E-mail: buckwaln@gvsu.edu

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, 573

the use is non-commercial and no modif‌i cations or adaptations are made.

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 74, Iss. 5, pp. 573–584. © 2014

The Authors. Public Administration Review

published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on

behalf of The American Society for Public

Administration. DOI: 10.1111/puar.12217.

Neal D. Buckwalter

Grand Valley State University

 is article develops a better theoretical understanding

of the linkage between the processes and outcomes associ-

ated with government-organized public participation,

including its potential to empower citizens in guiding

administrative decisions. Special focus is given to those

factors that shape the development

and maintenance of the citizen–

administrator relationship. To this

end, the research examines the

work of federally mandated citizen

review panels and their interac-

tions with state child protection

agency administrators. Based on

52 in-depth interviews conducted

with citizens and administrators

in three U.S. states, a grounded

theory approach is employed to derive a series of test-

able theoretical propositions.  e insights gained are of

importance not only to public administration scholars but

also to citizens and administrators who engage one another

through formally organized channels of participation.

Public administration scholars and practitioners

have long grappled with the prospects of bal-

ancing democracy’s aims at openness and public

inclusion with bureaucracy’s focus on ef‌f‌i ciency and

expertise. A better understanding of these tensions

has become increasingly important as a wide range of

citizen participation opportunities have emerged dur-

ing the past half century, many of which have sought

to bring citizens to a more inf‌l uential position relative

to administration (Arnstein 1969; Kweit and Kweit

1981; Roberts 2004;  omas 1995). Broadly speak-

ing, citizen participation mechanisms are categorized

as either citizen driven or government organized

(Simonsen and Robbins 2000; Wandersman 1984).

 e latter is the focus of this article, and it is most

often the result of legislative mandate; thus, it is at

times referred to as mandated participation.

Under the auspices of a vast regime of intergov-

ernmental grants, the U.S. federal government has

over the past 50 years increasingly linked funding

eligibility, at least in part, to the recipient jurisdiction’s

willingness and ability to facilitate public involve-

ment. Even with such provisions for participation,

the recipient subnational government (i.e., state or

locality) often retains signif‌i cant discretion to interpret

and implement the provisions

for increased public inclusion.

In other words, once public par-

ticipation has been mandated,

the choice for administrators

is not necessarily whether to

include the public but rather

how inclusive to be in terms

of quality of interaction and

potential for impact.

Government-Mandated Citizen Participation

 e modern origins of mandated participation in

the United States reach back to the mid-twentieth

century, a pivotal time in the development of direct

citizen inclusion in policy making and implementa-

tion (Roberts 2004). Two concurrent trends made

this possible. Not only was the scope of government

responsibility growing, but also a notable decline in

public trust in traditional governing institutions was

beginning.  ese conditions fueled the rising interest

in more direct citizen involvement, including dif‌f er-

ent varieties of government-sponsored participation

(Simonsen and Robbins 2000).

In the 1960s, the Community Action Programs of

Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty emphasized

“maximum feasible participation.” Mandated public

involvement was further institutionalized during

the 1970s with the expansion of federal grant-in-aid

programs to states and localities. By 1978, public

participation requirements were featured prominently

in 155 separate grant programs, which accounted

for more than four out of every f‌i ve dollars of federal

grant funds (ACIR 1979). Despite recognition of

the challenges to measuring its ef‌f ectiveness (Rosener

1978), the number of policy areas with direct citizen

involvement has ballooned far beyond community

 e Potential for Public Empowerment through

Government-Organized Participation

 e choice for administrators

is not necessarily whether to

include the public but rather

how inclusive to be in terms

of quality of interaction and

potential for impact.