Understanding Participatory Governance: An Analysis of Participants’ Motives for Participation

• Date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Per Gustafson,Nils Hertting
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074015626298
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/

American Review of Public Administration

2017, Vol. 47(5) 538 –549

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0275074015626298

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction

Despite the rapidly growing body of literature on participa-

tory, collaborative, or citizen-centered modes of governance

(Ansell & Gash, 2008; Barnes, Newman, Knops, & Sullivan,

2003; Fung, 2006; Lowndes, Pratchett, & Stoker, 2001;

Pateman, 2012; Skelcher & Torfing, 2010), there is still a lack

of knowledge about the key players in such participatory pro-

cedures—the participants. Research has often focused on

why policy makers and public managers initiate participatory

reforms (Cornwall, 2008), on specific models and procedures

of participation (Fung, 2006; Warren, 2009), and on how par-

ticipatory procedures can be assessed and evaluated (Geissel

& Newton, 2012; Smith, 2009). With regard to participants,

there is research on who participates or does not (Abers,

2001; Barnes et al., 2003; Hendriks, 2008) and also on how

participation affects participants’ resources, abilities, and

political orientations (Boulding & Wampler, 2009; Gaventa

& Barrett, 2012; Rogers & Weber, 2010; Talpin, 2011).

However, we know less about what motives participants have

for participating, what expectations they have and what

meanings they attribute to participatory governance (cf.

Blakeley & Evans, 2009).

In the present article, we argue that better knowledge of

participants’ motives for participation would be useful to

both theorists and policy makers. Although participatory

programs are typically initiated by public authorities (Fung,

2006; Nabatchi & Blomgren Amsler, 2014), input from par-

ticipants remains crucial to the quality and character of such

programs. The de facto “participatory design” (Fung, 2006)

is not only a top-down product of policy makers’ intentions

but is also defined by the bottom-up expectations of partici-

pants (Warren & Pearse, 2008, pp. 15-16; cf. Bevir, 2004).

An important reason for this is that the implementation of

participatory governance depends on the voluntary and often

1Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Per Gustafson, Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala

University, Box 514, Uppsala SE-75120, Sweden.

Email: per.gustafson@ibf.uu.se

Understanding Participatory Governance:

An Analysis of Participants’ Motives for

Participation

Per Gustafson1 and Nils Hertting1

Abstract

Despite the growing body of literature on participatory and collaborative governance, little is known about citizens’ motives

for participation in such new governance arrangements. The present article argues that knowledge about these motives is

essential for understanding the quality and nature of participatory governance and its potential contribution to the overall

political and administrative system. Survey data were used to explore participants’ motives for participating in a large-scale

urban renewal program in Stockholm, Sweden. The program was neighborhood-based, characterized by self-selected and

repeated participation, and designed to influence local decisions on the use of public resources. Three types of motives

were identified among the participants: (a) Common good motives concerned improving the neighborhood in general and

contributing knowledge and competence. (b) Self-interest motives reflected a desire to improve one’s own political efficacy

and to promote the interest of one’s own group or family. (c) Professional competence motives represented a largely

apolitical type of motive, often based on a professional role. Different motives were expressed by different categories of

participants and were also associated with different perceptions concerning program outcomes. Further analysis suggested

that participatory governance may represent both an opportunity for marginalized groups to empower themselves and

an opportunity for more privileged groups to act as local “citizen representatives” and articulate the interests of their

neighborhoods. These findings call for a more complex understanding of the role and potential benefits of participatory

governance.

Keywords

participatory governance, participants, motives, neighborhood renewal