Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background, Theoretical Framework and Analytical Model
2.1. Background and Theoretical Framework
2.2. Analitical Model
3. Methodology
4. Case Study
4.1. Context
4.2. Decide Madrid e-Participation Platform
4.3. Actors
4.4. Organizational Factors
4.5. Evaluation
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kickert, W.J.M. Public Governance in the Netherlands: An Alternative to Anglo-American Managerialism. Public Adm. 2019, 75, 731–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoker, G. Governance as theory: Five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1998, 68, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomas, J.C.; Streib, G. E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research: Examining the Electronic Ties Between Citizens and Governments. Adm. Soc. 2005, 37, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vragov, R.; Kumar, N. The impact of information and communication technologies on the costs of democracy. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2013, 12, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN. United Nations E-Government Survey 2014; UN: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014; Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- UN. UN Global E-Government Survey 2003; UN: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- UN. UN E-Government Survey 2018; UN: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2018; Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- OECD. Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement; OECD: Paris, France, 2003; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/ (accessed on 3 February 2019).
- Bonsón, E.; Torres, L.; Royo, S.; Flores, F. Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov. Inf. Q. 2013, 29, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
- Brainard, L.A.; McNutt, J.G. Virtual Government–Citizen Relations: Informational, Transactional, or Collaborative? Adm. Soc. 2010, 42, 836–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criado, J.I.; Rojas-Martín, F. Adopting Social Media in the Local Level of Government: Towards a Public Administration 2.0? In Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice; Sobaci, M.Z., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 135–152. [Google Scholar]
- Norris, D.F.; Reddick, C.G. Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royo, S.; Yetano, A.; Acerete, B. E-Participation and Environmental Protection: Are Local Governments Really Committed? Public Adm. Rev. 2014, 74, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toots, M. Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia’s Osale.ee. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 546–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falco, E.; Kleinhans, R. Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for using digital platforms for citizen engagement. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 40, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Blanc, D. E-Participation: A Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends; Working Paper No. 163; United Nations DESA: New York, NY, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.un.org/ (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Panopoulou, E.; Tambouris, E.; Tarabanis, K. Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Inf. Organ. 2014, 24, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæbø, Ø.; Rose, J.; Flak, L.S. The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Gov. Inf. Q. 2008, 25, 400–428. [Google Scholar]
- Font, J.; Navarro, C. Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Adm. 2013, 91, 616–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Daiser, P.; Binkowska, B. E-participation: A Strategic Framework. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 41, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinbach, M.; Sieweke, J.; Süß, S. The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: A systematic literature review. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2019, 29, 61–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Medaglia, R. eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006-2011). Gov. Inf. Q. 2012, 29, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddick, C.; Norris, D.F. E-participation in local governments: An examination of political-managerial support and impacts. Transform. Gov.Peopleprocess Policy 2013, 7, 453–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sæbø, Ø.; Flak, L.S.; Sein, M.K. Understanding the dynamics in e-Participation initiatives: Looking through the genre and stakeholder lenses. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 416–425. [Google Scholar]
- Sæbø, Ø.; Rose, J.; Molka-Danielsen, J. eParticipation: Designing and Managing Political Discussion Forums. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2010, 28, 403–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sjoberg, F.M.; Mellon, J.; Peixoto, T. The Effect of Bureaucratic Responsiveness on Citizen Participation. Public Adm. Rev. 2017, 77, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meneses, M.E.; Nonnecke, B.; del Campo, A.M.; Krishnan, S.; Patel, J.; Kim, M.; Crittenden, C.; Goldberg, K. Overcoming citizen mistrust and enhancing democratic practices: Results from the e-participation platform México Participa. Inf. Technol. Int. Dev. 2017, 13, 138–154. [Google Scholar]
- DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mergel, I. Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Gov. Inf. Q. 2013, 30, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pina, V.; Torres, L.; Royo, S. Comparing online with offline citizen engagement for climate change: Findings from Austria, Germany and Spain. Gov. Inf. Q. 2017, 34, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Royo, S.; Yetano, A.; Acerete, B. Citizen Participation in German and Spanish Local Governments: A Comparative Study. Int. J. Public Adm. 2011, 34, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rainie, L.; Wellman, B. Networked. The New Social Operating System; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Castells, M. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Yetano, A.; Royo, S. Keeping Citizens Engaged: A Comparasion Between Online and Offline Participants. Adm. Soc. 2017, 49, 394–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelders, D.; Brans, M.; Maesschalck, J.; Colsoul, N. Systematic evaluation of public participation projects: Analytical framework and application based on two Belgian neighborhood watch projects. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porwol, L.; Ojo, A.; Breslin, J.G. An ontology for next generation e-Participation initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubicek, H.; Aichholzer, G. Closing the evaluation gap in e-participation research and practice. In Evaluating E-Participation: Frameworks, Practice, Evidence; Aichholzer, G., Kubicek, H., Torres, L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 11–45. [Google Scholar]
- Randma-Liiv, T.; Vooglaied, K.M. Organizing for E-Participation: Comparing European Experiences. Deliverable D5.2. Tropico Project. 2019. Available online: https://www.tropico-project.eu (accessed on 20 December 2019).
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research. Design and Methods; Sage: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bingham, L.B.; Nabatchi, T.; O’Leary, R. The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Adm. Rev. 2005, 65, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. E-Government in Spain; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. Available online: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- UN/ASPA. Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective; UN: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001; Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org (accessed on 15 January 2019).
- INE. Encuesta sobre equipamiento y uso de tecnologías de información y comunicación en los hogares 2017 [Data set]. 2018. Available online: https://www.ine.es (accessed on 17 January 2019).
- Pina, V.; Torres, L.; Royo, S. Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local government? An empirical study. Public Adm. 2007, 85, 449–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, G.; Pastor, G. The Quality of Participatory Processes in the Urban Redevelopment Policy of Madrid City Council. Lex Localis J. Local Self-Gov. 2018, 16, 841–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OGP. Madrid, Spain. 2018. Available online: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/countries/madrid-spain (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Europa Press. Cs critica que el proceso participativo de Ahora Madrid no cumple con garantías de confidencialidad y recuento electoral (02/02/2017). Available online: https://www.europapress.es (accessed on 14 December 2018).
- Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Acuerdo de 29 de octubre de 2015 de la Junta de Gobierno de la Ciudad de Madrid de Organización y Competencias del Área de Gobierno de Participación Ciudadana: Transparencia y Gobierno Abierto; No. 7.530; Boletín Oficial del Ayuntamiento de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
- Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Portal de Datos Abiertos del Ayuntamiento de Madrid [Data Set]; Ayuntamiento de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2019. Available online: https://datos.madrid.es (accessed on 1 July 2019).
- Panopoulou, E.; Tambouris, E.; Tarabanis, K. E-Participation Initiatives in Europe: Learning from Practitioners. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer Science+Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2010; Volume 6229, pp. 54–65. [Google Scholar]
- Nalbandian, J.; O’Neill, R.; Wilkes, J.M.; Kaufman, A. Contemporary Challenges in Local Government: Evolving Roles and Responsibilities, Structures, and Processes. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tambouris, E.; Macintosh, A.; Smith, S.; Panopoulou, E.; Tarabanis, K.; Millard, J. Understanding eParticipation State of Play in Europe. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2012, 29, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royo, S.; Yetano, A. “Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: Two experiences regarding CO2 emissions at municipal level. Electron. Commer. Res. 2015, 15, 323–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulgan, G. Reshaping the state and its relationship with citizens: The short, medium and long-term potential of ICTs. In The network Society. From Knowledge to Policy; Castells, M., Cardoso, G., Eds.; Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 225–238. [Google Scholar]
Politician 1 | Politicians of the governmental area in charge of Decide Madrid |
Politician 2 | |
Civil servant 1 | Senior civil servant of the general directorate in charge of Decide Madrid |
Civil servant 2 | Technical staff of the general directorate in charge of Decide Madrid |
Civil servant 3 | |
Citizen 1 | User of Decide Madrid and member of a municipal association |
Citizen 2 | User of Decide Madrid affiliated to the political party which promoted this initiative |
Citizen 3 | Users of Decide Madrid |
Citizen 4 |
Debates | E-forum where users can post topics, comment or state agreement or disagreement. The city council can also create debates. |
Proposals | Users make a request which can be complemented by audio-visual materials and/or supporting documents. Verified users can support the proposals and those proposals with the support of 1% of the people over 16 registered as residents in Madrid (27,662 inhabitants at 2018) are voted on. |
Polls | Polls are carried out when a proposal receives 1% support or when the city council wants citizens to decide on an issue. Polls can be open to all citizens or to the citizens of one district. |
Processes | This tool is used by the city council to seek different types of input (e.g., to develop or modify regulations, to request proposals for an activity). The way in which the processes are carried out depends on the information that the city council needs (e.g., debates, provision of documents in text format so that citizens can propose changes). |
Participatory budgeting | Annually, citizens can decide directly on how a part of the next year’s budget will be spent. The projects can be for the whole city or for specific districts and they may affect current expenditures, subsidies or public investments. Citizens can vote on projects for the whole city and/or projects for only one district of their choice. |
2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposals | Registered | 6984 | 8074 | 5500 | 4860 |
Reach enough support | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
Polls | Number of polls | 0 | 0 | 19 | 15 |
Participatory budgets | Number of participants | 45,529 | 67,132 | 91,032 | |
Number of votes in final phase | 32,725 | 38,866 | 53,891 | ||
Projects initially presented | 5814 | 3215 | 3323 | ||
Final projects | 206 | 311 | 328 | ||
Budget (millions €) | 60 | 100 | 100 | ||
% of the municipal budget | 1.2% | 1.8% | 1.8% | ||
Euros per inhabitant | 18.9 | 31.3 | 30.9 | ||
Debates | Debates started per day | 37.8 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.7 |
Comments per day | 151.5 | 21.9 | 7.2 | 6.5 | |
Processes | Processes started | 6 | 5 | 36 | 23 |
Debates | Proposals | Polls | Processes | Participatory Budgeting | Other |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 29 | 23 | 16 | 33 | 6 |
(39.2%) | (56.9%) | (45.1%) | (31.4%) | (64.7%) | (11.8%) |
Number of tools adopted (considering only the 5 basic tools) | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
18 | 11 | 11 | 7 | 4 | |
(35.3%) | (21.6%) | (21.6%) | (13.7%) | (7.8%) |
Panel A: Success Factors | ||
Adoption | Implementation | Institutionalization |
Contextual factors - Citizen demand for more direct citizen participation (15M movement) (D) Organizational factors - Financial resources (ICT) - Human resources (ICT, PS) - Learning from forerunners (ICT) Individual factors - Strong political support (PS) | Contextual factors - Internet penetration Organizational factors - Previous e-government experience (ICT) - Previous experience in citizen participation (D) - Financial resources (ICT) - Human resources (ICT, PS) - Staff recruitment process (PS) - Creation of a particular subculture of work (PS) - Detailed guidelines and procedures (PS, D) - Coordination and collaboration with other council areas (PS) - Platform accessibility (ICT) - Possibilities for offline participation (D) - Provision of relevant information before the participation (D) -Integration with the policy-making process (D) - Influence on decision-making for proposals and participatory budgets (D) Individual factors - Strong political support (PS) - Knowledge of senior managers and staff (ICT, D) | Internal institutionalization Organizational factors - Integration in the policy-making process (D) - Coordination and collaboration with other council areas (PS) - Progressive change in the perception of staff of other areas of government about direct citizen participation (PS) Individual factors - Strong political support (PS) External institutionalization Contextual factors - Country good positions in e-government and e-participation rankings (ICT) Organizational factors - OGP Membership (PS) - Open source software (ICT) - Human resources (ICT, PS) - Promotion (PS) Individual factors - Strong political support (PS) |
Panel B: Barriers conditioning the performance of Decide Madrid | ||
Adoption | Implementation | Institutionalization |
Contextual factors -Decreasing citizen interest (D) Organizational factors - Lack of transparency (information about the internal working of the city council and offline activities) (D) - Lack of feedback (D) - Associations not properly engaged (D) - Lack of moderation or other mechanisms to organize debates and proposals (D, ICT) - Concerns about the security of the platform and verification processes (ICT) | Internal institutionalization Organizational factors - Slow process of organizational change (PS) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Royo, S.; Pina, V.; Garcia-Rayado, J. Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674
Royo S, Pina V, Garcia-Rayado J. Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative. Sustainability. 2020; 12(4):1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoyo, Sonia, Vicente Pina, and Jaime Garcia-Rayado. 2020. "Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative" Sustainability 12, no. 4: 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674