Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management || Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management

Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public ManagementAuthor(s): Terry L. Cooper, Thomas A. Bryer and Jack W. MeekSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management(Dec., 2006), pp. 76-88Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096572 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 22:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:13:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096572?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Articles on Collaborative Public Management

Terry L. Cooper is the Maria B. Crutcher

Professor in Citizenship and Democratic

Values and Social Ethics at the University of

Southern California. His research centers on

citizen participation and public ethics.

Currently, he is the director of the USC Civic

Engagement Initiative, which is expanding the work of the Neighborhood Participation

Project beyond neighborhood councils and

Los Angeles. E-mail: [email protected].

Thomas A. Bryer is a doctoral

candidate in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of

Southern California. His primary research

interests are government-citizen relations

and bureaucratic responsiveness. E-mail: [email protected].

Jack W. Meek is a professor of public administration in the College of Business

and Public Management at the University of

La Verne. Since 2003, he has been a visiting scholar in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of

Southern California, working with the Civic

Engagement Initiative.

E-mail: [email protected].

Terry L. Cooper Thomas A. Bryer University of Southern California Jack W. Meek

University of La Verne

Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management

Civic engagement and collaborative public management are concepts that are defined broadly, making theoreti- cal explication challenging and practical application of empirical research difficult. In this article, the authors

adopt definitions of civic engagement and collaborative

public management that are centered on the citizen and the potential for active citizenship. Following a historical review of civic engagement in the United States, a conceptual model offive approaches to civic engagement is offered. Citizen-centered collaborative public management is enhanced through these approaches. The authors suggest the need for further empirical research on collaborative public management that is grounded in

citizenship action.

here is a renewed interest in civic engagement that extends widely across local, regional, national, and online communities. The cur-

rent manifestations of civic engagement have taken on

many forms at these different levels. The importance of this subject to interested citizens, publics, policy makers, and public administrators is reflected in the

activities, programs, and projects that have been initiated in recent years.

Our objective in this article is to consider how civic

engagement influences collaborative public management. Definitions of each concept are established to meet this objective. Macedo et al. rely on a broad definition of civic engagement: "any activity, individual or collective, devoted to influencing the collective life of the polity" (2005, 6). We wish to

distinguish the different types of civic engagement to which Macedo et al. allude in terms of what each offers for the achievement of collaborative public management.

We advance the argument that deliberative and collective action strategies of civic engagement hold the most promise in achieving a public-involving, citizen- centered collaborative public management. This kind of collaborative public management represents a form of governance that extends beyond "the process of

facilitating and operating in multiorganizational arrangements to solve problems that cannot be solved, or solved easily, by single organizations" (Agranoff and McGuire 2003, 4). We intentionally use the phrase citizen-centered collaborative public management to

emphasize the role of the public in collaborative man-

agement processes, which have not always recognized the value of citizenship. In achieving this outcome, we believe that civic engagement means "people participating together for deliberation and collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks,

developing civic identity, and involving people in

governance processes" (Cooper 2005, 534).

With these definitions in hand, we offer a review of American civic engagement over the past half century. Following this review, we consider five approaches to civic engagement and how each might contribute to citizen-centered collaborative public management. This discussion is followed by consideration of five dimensions or questions that can help us to understand and assess civic engagement efforts in practice. Through our reviews and discussions, our aim is to

provide a new framing of the relevant literature on the

challenges and opportunities associated with effec-

tively engaging citizens in collaborative public management.

Historical Shifts in Civic Engagement There has been a marked shift in civic engagement interest and emphasis over the past half century. To-

day, in light of research findings that point to a loss of social capital (Putnam 1995) and a decline in trust of

government (Nye, Zelikow, and King 1997), stakes are high in knowing more about the role of civic

engagement as a central component of a vital American democracy.

Civic engagement in the United States goes back at least to the early Puritan communities, with their

organization around covenants that provided the basis for self-governance. The Mayflower Compact, signed by 41 male passengers aboard the Mayflower in 1641,

76 Public Administration Review * December 2006 * Special Issue



was the first such covenant. The roots of American democratic thought and practice can be found in these antecedents of the New England town meeting, which is often considered the exemplar of direct

democracy in U.S. history.

Civic engagement took different forms in other parts of colonial America, but all that asserted the right to self-government ultimately led to the severing of ties with the British as part of the Declaration of

Independence in 1776 and the creation of state

governments immediately after. These were first linked

together through the Articles of Confederation, but

finally, in 1789, by the U.S. Constitution. In addition to Puritan democratic thought, one ought to include in the foundations of American civic engagement antifederalist perspectives, the

Jeffersonian tradition, and our tradition of voluntary associations

(Cooper 1991).

Below the formal structures of self-government, Alexis de

Tocqueville described a web of

voluntary associations that was a mechanism for combining the relative weakness of individuals in an egalitarian society into aggregations of power that could effectively solve problems, assert needs and

preferences, and engage government. Tocqueville noted that these associations were the training grounds for citizenship and civic competence. In

them, people learned how to associate their interests with those of others and cooperate to achieve common goals, either through mutual self-help or by petitioning government. From the colonial era to the

present, there have been myriad other self-organizing efforts that are beyond the scope of this paper, includ-

ing the committees of correspondence through which the Revolutionary War was organized, the Under-

ground Railroad that aided the escape of slaves from the South, militia organizations, communal societies, and labor unions. The limits of this essay require us to focus on the last half century, with some attention to the precursors of the early 20th century. To be consistent with the theme of this special issue-collaborative public management-we mainly address civic

engagement activities that involve citizens and

government.

The watershed in the changing environment for these forms and traditions of civic engagement came at the end of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th century. During this era, the American Progres- sive reform movement began the pivotal process of

transforming the administrative arms of government around the norms of professionalism, efficiency, scientific management, and administrative management. The Progressives also accomplished reforms to the

electoral process that established the referendum, recall, and initiative in many states. One result was the creation of more but limited opportunities for citizens to influence the electoral process.

Another result of the Progressive reforms was the creation of barriers against the influence of the citi-

zenry on the day-to-day administration of government. In the Progressive program of reform, citizens were expected to vote for representatives, use the three new mechanisms for changing laws and elected representatives, but otherwise leave the administration of

government services to the professional experts.

By the 1960s, it had become obvious to many people in our increasingly diverse American society that their

interests were not being addressed adequately, either by the

professional experts or elected officials. Interest groups had been identified by American

pluralist thought in the early 20th century as the best way to channel the interests of citizens to government in a complex, large-scale society such as the United States (Bentley 1908;

Truman 1951). However, by the 1960s, Theodore Lowi (1969) and others (Parenti 1974) began to cri-

tique this thesis for its lack of support from the research on interest groups. By that time, the trend was toward single interest groups with very narrow foci

representing an elite with the power and financial resources to create effective lobbying organizations.

During the 1960 and 1970s, the increasingly diverse interests in American society became more and more assertive-even aggressive-in relation to government at all levels, especially the federal government. The result was that the Progressive legacy of the profes- sionalized administrative state came under fire.

Demonstrations, protests, civil disorder (sometimes

involving widespread violence), and litigation combined to create a turbulent and uncertain environment. Within the academy, the Progressive approach to the administrative role was also challenged by a series of authors beginning in the 1940s and with considerable force by the New Public Administration that emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s

(Frederickson 1971; Marini 1969).

The mass-based community organization movement launched by Saul Alinsky of the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago during the 1940s found fertile

ground for its approach to civic engagement in the turmoil of the 1960 and 1970s. Alinsky's approach involved the use of conflict to create change in government (Alinsky 1969, 1971). He worked mainly with the poor and dispossessed using money that

By the 1960s, it had become obvious to many people in our

increasingly diverse American

society that their interests were not being addressed adequately,

either by the professional ex-

perts or elected officials.

Citizen-Centered Management 77



came largely from churches. Alinsky sought to iden

tify communities that had little economic or political power and help them mobilize around the latent conflict between themselves and the power structure of society at all levels. His strategy was to raise latent conflict to the surface and focus on the adversarial

relationship between low-income people and specific leaders in government. He assumed that cooperation with government was not desirable because poor people would always be co-opted in the process. Behind Alinsky's approach was his experience in the labor movement. Having written a biography of United Mine Workers leader John L. Lewis, Alinsky was attempting to apply a labor-organizing model to low-income communities.

This adversarial or conflict-based approach to engaging government typified much of the civic engagement action and theory during the 1960s and 1970s. Regard- less of whether it followed Alinsky's theory, strategies, and tactics, the dominant view of civic engagement during this era was that power was a zero-sum game. For the citizenry to have more power, government would have to have less. It was assumed that government would never willingly relinquish power, so aggressive adversarial advocacy was believed to be necessary. This was true of the civil rights movement, the anti- Vietnam War movement, the student movement, the

women's movement, and the environmental movement, as well as the community organization movement.

The adversarial orientation of this time period can be

clearly seen in Sherry Arnstein's classic article, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation" (1969), which became one of the central reference documents for many pursuing the study of civic engagement during these

years. In that essay, Arnstein presents a "ladder" model of citizen participation that comprises eight rungs, with "manipulation" and "therapy" at the bottom characterized as "nonparticipation." "Citizen control" and "delegated power" are at the top and identified as

"degrees of citizen power" (217). The assumption clearly and starkly laid out by Arnstein, both in her model and the accompanying text, was that power is

an equation in which government loses power when citizens gain power.

The community organizing of the kind typified by Alinsky began to show its limits during the 1970s. Neighborhoods were small cells in the body politic and had limited power when they confronted citywide interests. One might well organize a neighborhood effectively and still lose over and over again in the contest for political power in the large urban centers of America. Poor

people were always in the minority and regularly lost when confronting majority interests and power.

During the 1970s, a shift became evident that had

begun during the late years of the War on Poverty of

the 1960s: the increased adoption of legislative man dates for citizen participation. The response of elected officials to growing and more aggressive demands for

participation, particularly at the federal level, was to divert the political pressure away from themselves and onto public administrators by writing into legislation specific mandates for the inclusion of citizens in the

implementation of federal programs. Politicians were able to tell the activists that they had responded to their demands by adopting 155 federal mandates for citizen participation by the end of the Carter administration (ACIR 1979). These government-initiated mandates worked with varying degrees of effectiveness. All suffered from a lack of resources for their implementation, and administrators' logical response was to

comply at the minimally required level so as not to drain resources otherwise allocated for the operation of their programs. Administrators were put in a bind in which their most reasonable way out was to do just enough to comply with the legal mandates but not

enough to make them work well (Cooper 1979).

The 1980s reflected yet another shift marked by the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency. The noise in the streets had died down, the war in Vietnam had ended after the United States and its allies in South Vietnam were defeated in 1975, and the nation had been lulled into a more passive mode. Reagan ap- peared to care little for citizen participation beyond the voting booth and moved quickly to disarm those in Washington, D.C., who were making serious efforts to carry out the legal mandates. Creighton (1995), for

example, describes how the Interagency Council on Citizen Participation was summarily shut down and its files seized by federal agents.

One finds a relative hiatus in the literature on citizen

participation throughout the 1980s. It is not that

nothing was written during this decade, but the diminution in the flow of literature and federal

government activity is noteworthy (Creighton 1995). The action shifted during these years back to neighborhoods, self-help, and local government. Boyte's Backyard Revolution (1980) revealed a lot of nearly invisible activity at the small scale of neighborhoods in the form of mutual self-help, beautification, arts, and recreation organizations. Toward the end of the 1980s, one began to hear an occasional voice that referred to governance as differentiated from government. One of the earliest of those voices was Harlan

Cleveland, who argued that what we need more of is

governance, not government (Cleveland 1988).

Within the United States and in the international

arena, this distinction was articulated with increasing clarity, generally intending to call for more governance- meaning that the process of governing should no

longer be understood as the sole business of government but as involving the interaction of government,




business, and the nonprofit (or nongovernmental) sectors. Reflecting the governance approach, during these years, new experiments in institutional innovation began to occur here and there across the nation between cities and their neighborhoods. Officially recognized neighborhood council organizations emerged during the late 1980s and early 1990s in

places such as Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St.

Paul, Minnesota; Dayton, Ohio; and Birmingham, Alabama. This general approach to institutional innovation was first articulated in Milton Kotler's

Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life (1969). In that work, Kotler calls for the creation of legal jurisdictions at the neighborhood level that would function as units of government with certain specified authority and power. Prompted by the current interest in similar

approaches to reconnecting citizens with governance in a more formal manner, Kotler's book was reissued in 2005 (see

Cooper 2005). Berry, Portney, and Thomson's Rebirth of Urban

Democracy (1993) documents and evaluates these political experiments in a piece of exem-

plary social science research. This kind of civic innovation has now

spread to an increasing number of American cities including Seattle, Washington; Columbus and Dayton, Ohio; New York City; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Birmingham, Alabama; and Los Angeles, California.

Los Angeles adopted a new city charter in 1999, man-

dating that a citywide system of neighborhood councils be organized from the grassroots up, with people in each community identifying their own boundaries,

designing their own bylaws, adopting their own system of financial accountability, and then requesting certification from the city Board of Neighborhood Commissioners. This appears to be the most formal- ized experiment in providing civic engagement at the

grassroots that has been officially connected to the

governance process. One requirement imposed from above is that each neighborhood council must include all stakeholders within a community-that is, those who live, work, or own property within the specified area. These neighborhood councils reflect the governance perspective of the late 1980s up to the present.

This current institutional innovation orientation of civic engagement in the United States is still playing out, and it is unclear where it will lead. Berry, Portney, and Thomson (1993) have demonstrated the general effectiveness of these experiments in facilitating civic

engagement in small to medium-sized cities. However, the results are not yet clear with respect to how this

approach will work in large metropolitan complexes such as New York and Los Angeles.

These efforts at institutional reform have attempted to move civic engagement from the ad hoc adversarial

struggle of the 1960s and 1970s to an ongoing participation in the governance process that seeks col-

laboration, even if there is conflict from time to time in the midst of officially sustained participation. This is not the only form of civic engagement, as we will argue later, but it is the most significant new dimension of the process.

Approaches to Civic Engagement A pivotal moment in the history of civic engagement in the United States occurred when the Carter admin-

istration issued requirements for federal agencies to engage citizens in their administrative and policy processes. A product of this

period was the 1978 Advisory Committee on Intergovernmen- tal Relations (ACIR) report, which categorized the forms of civic engagement that federal

agencies could employ. Here, we extend the ACIR categorization to offer five approaches to civic

engagement that encompass the collaborative public management aspects of the concept.1

Figure 1 illustrates a conceptual model of approaches to civic engagement, with citizen-centered collaborative

public management at the center. Overall, we suggest that six variables need to be maximized in order to achieve a well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative

public management: government trust in citizens, citizen efficacy, citizen trust in government, citizen competence, government responsiveness, and government legitimacy. Further empirical research is necessary to test the assumptions behind this model, particularly the six variables. We offer empirical justification for our claims where it is available in the discussion that follows.

The approaches depicted in figure 1 are placed in order,

ranging from least likely to most likely to contribute to collaborative public management that is citizen centered and public involving. The outer ring of figure 1-the adversarial approach-represents the approach that is least likely to contribute to collaborative public man-

agement through the maximization of citizen trust,

efficacy, and competence, as well as government trust, responsiveness, and legitimacy. The innermost

ring-the deliberative approach-represents the most likely approach to maximizing these variables.

Based on a review of the literature, we suggest that deliberative approaches to engagement are most likely to lead to citizen-centered collaborative public

A pivotal moment in the history of civic engagement in the

United States occurred when the Carter administration issued

requirements for federal agencies to engage citizens in their

administrative and policy processes.




Civic Engagement Approaches

Adversarial

Electoral

Information Exchange

Civil Society

Deliberative Enhancing Enhancing

Government Citizen-Centered Government Trust in Citizens Collaborative Public

Management Legitimacy

Enhancing Enhancing Citizen Efficacy Government

Responsiveness

Enhancing Citizen Enhancing Citizen Trust in Competence

Government

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Approaches to Civic Engagement

management, as these approaches are most likely to build citizen efficacy, citizen trust in government, and citizen competence. Furthermore, deliberative approaches are also most likely to develop government trust in citizens (Yang 2005), enhance governmental legitimacy (Fung 2006), and improve the quality of

governmental responsiveness as viewed through citizen confidence in government (Yang and Holzer 2006). These objectives can be achieved, as Stivers (1994)

suggests, through active listening by bureaucrats rather than a biased response to a squeaky wheel. Each of these variables can be observed in each approach. For instance, electoral approaches that mainly stop at the

voting booth may engender perceived adequate govern ment legitimacy among citizens and citizen trust in

government, but these variables, we suggest, are likely to be maximized using other approaches.

Neither the literature nor the examples cited here are intended to be comprehensive. Rather, the work we reference is intended to be representative of the diversity of approaches to civic engagement that exist in the

sociopolitical landscape and can lead to citizen-centered collaborative public management. We begin with the

approaches that are least likely to contribute to citizen- centered collaborative public management and conclude with those that are most likely to have a positive contri- bution. Though we present these approaches in such an

order, we recognize, as some authors argue-such as those in the volume edited by Gastil and Levine

(2005)-that combined and comprehensive approaches are likely to be most productive in achieving broader democratic outcomes.

Adversarial Approaches A common approach to civic engagement employs processes and efforts that seek collective or individual

forms of adversarial action to achieve desired commu-

nity or societal ends. Social movements are adversarial,

though they can also be co-opted and thus lose their adversarial edge (Piven and Cloward 1977). The ma-

jor flaw of the mid-20th-century social movements is that what started out as energetic, street-level action was transformed at the height of the movement into efforts to create permanent organizations. In doing so,

organizers failed to recognize that "it is not possible to

compel concessions from elites that can be used as resources to sustain oppositional organizations over time" (Piven and Cloward, 1977, xxi).

There are many examples of successful social movement organizations. For example, the Association of

Community Organizations for Reform Now

(ACORN), formed in 1970, today stands as the

largest organization mobilizing low- and moderate- income families to achieve social justice and commu-

nity health objectives. It lists numerous policy successes on its Web site (www.acorn.org). Today, social movement organizations are enabled by new

technologies that allow activists to be mobilized

quickly-MoveOn is one such example. The use of mobile telecommunications technology enables so- called smart mobs (Rheingold 2002) to quickly show

solidarity and achieve some policy objective.

This approach may engender within citizens greater internal efficacy, or what Berry, Portney, and Thomson

(1993) alternatively refer to as citizen capacity. Specifi- cally, internal efficacy refers to the extent to which citizens feel they understand and seek to influence

governmental decisions. Internal efficacy contrasts with external efficacy, which is the extent to which citizens feel government will be responsive to their efforts to influence it (Berry, Portney, and Thomson




1993). The adversarial approach may allow for enhanced citizen competence in certain areas, but the other four variables are likely to be left lacking in civic

engagement that is purely and solely adversarial in nature. For example, Yang (2005) observes the importance of administrator trust in citizens as a precursor to their engagement with citizens. He offers that

citizens, who are seen as always complaining and

demanding rather than trying to understand and work

through, are not conducive to the development of

government trust in citizens. As such, it exists at the low end of the continuum-that is, it is least likely to lead to well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative

public management.

Electoral Approaches Activities in the electoral domain include voting, run-

ning for office, volunteering for a candidate or issue

campaign, participating in discussions about candidate or issue campaigns, contributing money to candidate or issue campaigns, and participating in rallies for or

against particular candidates or issue proposals.

Over the past several decades, with occasional punc- tuations, electoral forms of participation have declined or, at best, remained steady depending on the data taken into consideration (Macedo et al.

2005). Some successes have been seen during the 1992 and 2004 presidential elections, but the spikes associated with these competitive elections have not shown themselves to be sustainable. Organizations such as Rock the Vote have attempted to engage young people in the electoral arena by encouraging voter registration, but registration is only half the equation, as efforts associated with the civil rights movement to make voting easier and more accessible have shown.

With the rising use of the Internet, electoral approaches have adopted this medium to attempt to

rejuvenate the electorate. Candidate campaigns have made particular and increasing use of the Internet, as evidenced by the much-discussed Web strategy of Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004. Dean's

strategy relied on the Internet to quickly raise money and mobilize supporters following every turn of the

campaign. The campaign's blog became an active place for campaign supporters to gather and discuss cam-

paign activity, raising ideas there that they hoped would be embraced by the campaign's decision makers. As Cornfield and Anderson observe, in the long term, the "campaign website... will be a political staple" (2003, 1). The Internet is not only being used to educate and recruit voters but also to build com-

munity, which may be based on shared beliefs, a desire for action, a desire for discourse, or a shared identity (Davis, Elin, and Reeher 2002).

Running for office is another electoral strategy that

may be expanding. Gaddie (2004) presents case studies

of nine young candidates and their journey through the candidate election process, entry into elected

office, and beginning of a legislative career. Organiza- tions have been formed to support and train candi-

dates, such as groups associated with political parties (e.g., the Twenty-First Century Democrats,

www.21stcenturydems.org), as well as groups such as

Party Y, a nonprofit, "all-partisan" group that offers

guidance and a support network to young candidates

(Anderson 2004, 62).

Electoral approaches, like adversarial approaches, may facilitate some citizen efficacy, trust, and competence in certain areas, and governmental legitimacy may be realized through the act of voting alone. When

dealing with the bureaucracy, however, there is still less likely to be a maximization of these variables.

Legislative and Administrative Information Exchange Approaches Perhaps the most common approach to civic engagement besides those associated with electoral activities is the legislative and administrative hearing. Hearings are often required by law, as in the Administrative Proce- dure Act of 1946, but the effectiveness of the hearing as a tool for engagement and education is perhaps seldom realized. In a review of literature on the public hearing, for instance, Baker, Addams, and Davis

(2005) point out its flaws. It is conflictual, occurs late in the legislative or regulatory process, offers one-way communications, and tightly controls public input. The time and location of hearings might also serve to

prevent more than a small crowd from attending. Harter (1997) describes the failure of administrators to embrace a more consensus-based approach through its

hearing process as a fear of commitment to decisions made outside their self-interest and expertise.

Reports from congressional staff members also high- light flaws in the hearing process. For example, Redman describes the celebration of a "well-planned and thoroughly successful hearing" (1973, 134). The

hearing celebrated was largely a scripted affair with

expert witnesses-longtime friends of the committee

chairman or people like the chairman in terms of

personality and demeanor-answering questions that were preplanned. Caspar (2000) describes the passage of a prominent bill through a Senate committee as a

"forgone conclusion." The key factor in this predeter- mined outcome was that many members of the committee expected to serve under the same chairman for several years. Yet it is recognized that what happens in

hearing rooms-either legislative or administrative- "can directly affect the way many Americans live"

(Redman 1973, 126). The hearing might be improved as an instrument of civic engagement by adequately preparing, publicizing, launching, facilitating, listen-

ing, and following up with citizens (Baker, Addams, and Davis 2005).




Citizens who do have the opportunity to be heard

may feel empowered and believe they can make a difference. Likewise, government officials may be

responsive to activist citizens who bother to show up for hearings, a finding that has been seen in research

(Gormley, Hoadley, and Williams 1983). With the

failings or shortcomings of the hearing, the possibility for this approach to maximize the variables necessary to achieve a well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative public management is limited.

Civil Society Approaches The kinds of civic engagement discussed thus far focus on ways that citizens can interact with politicians or

public administrators in the interest of affecting policy or politics. There are other types of engagement that focus more on building solidary benefits rather than

achieving some purposive or material end. The larger civil society is home to thousands of volunteer organizations, social clubs, and other forms of association that bring people together. Putnam (2000) argues that such associational activity is the foundation on which other kinds of policy and politics-focused engagement are built. There are different views of civil society, citizenship, and the role of government in civil society across cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions (Rosenblum and Post 2002). However, community, whether existing online (Brainard and Siplon 2004) or in a specific geographic location (Kemmis 1990), is

something that is seen as pivotal for sustaining civic life and may lead to other forms of civic engagement as a result of the trust that is developed.

Deliberative Approaches On the opposite side of the spectrum from adversarial kinds of civic engagement are those that seek to create a universal "us." Mansbridge (1983) frames the difference between adversarial approaches and consensus and deliberative approaches by describing two models of democracy: adversarial and unitary. Deliberative and consensus-based efforts-the unitary model-- differ from the information exchange approaches discussed previously in that the latter approaches are driven by experts, with citizens sharing their views one at a time (Lukensmeyer and Torres 2006). In the information exchange approaches, there is often little, if any, opportunity for the full and open discussion of ideas. Deliberative and consensus-based approaches, such as those discussed here, include efforts that seek

joint action across sectors of society, classes of people, or types of individuals. They seek consensus in action

through lengthy, sometimes tedious deliberation. The core components of these approaches to engagement are dialogue among different types of people, joint action, and shared responsibility for outcomes.

An example of this approach is the collaborative model designed to bridge the gap between Los Angeles neighborhood councils and administrative agencies.

The Learning and Design Forum seeks to build

knowledge that representatives of each group have of the other, develop a shared action plan for improving neighborhood-specific service delivery, and implement that action plan to the mutual satisfaction of both

parties (Kathi and Cooper 2005). In this case, the data suggest forums that bring together different

governance actors have the potential to enhance citizen and administrator knowledge of each other and

improve government responsiveness to citizens. How- ever, barriers such as culture (Bryer and Cooper 2006a) and hierarchical leadership of an agency (Bryer and Cooper 2006b) can prevent the realization of outcomes. Another example of the collaborative model can be found in the work of the National

Policy Consensus Center, which has developed a

guide for government agencies to successfully initiate, conduct, and follow through with a consensus model of decision making (see www.policyconsensus.org/ publications/practicalguide/index.html).

Other efforts have focused on the citizen and bringing diverse citizen knowledge and experience to the attention of policy makers. The Kettering Foundation's National Issues Forum (NIF) serves to create public dialogue on issues of importance to counter the sound-bite politics that dominate contemporary political discourse (Mathews 1999). Studies of the NIF have shown positive results for citizen efficacy and self-actualization, for example, through enhanced citizen knowledge, skills, and competency. Researchers have documented the results of four high school classrooms that used the NIF as a pedagogical tool. They found that students enhanced their knowledge about

citizenship, developed new civic skills, and adopted new attitudes consistent with ideals of active citizen-

ship. Additionally, students were found to be more

competent and open-minded in dealing with a policy issue (e.g., whether to require school uniforms) than their colleagues who did not participate in NIF classrooms (Doble and Peng 1999).

Other research on the NIF shows other benefits of deliberative practice. For example, in forums focusing on the issue of immigration, researchers found that citizens who participated were more measured in their attitudes and opinions than other citizens who did not

participate. Nonparticipating citizens tended to

strongly agree or strongly disagree with statements about immigrants and immigration, perhaps because

they did not have the opportunity to weigh the pros and cons of their positions (Doble 2005).

The organization AmericaSpeaks facilitates large-scale deliberations called 21st Century Town Meetings among hundreds or thousands of diverse citizens at the same time. Such a deliberative process was used to inform decisions regarding the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site in New York City and the




District of Columbia budget, and it is currently being used to generate discussion and policy options for

Congress regarding the nation's health care systems. Other processes include ChoiceWork Dialogues, Deliberative Polling, Citizens Juries, Consensus Con-

ferences, Study Circles, and Citizen Assemblies. These

approaches are each described in more detail in

Lukensmeyer and Torres (2006, 24). An edited volume by Gastil and Levine (2005) presents case studies of several of these processes, demonstrating the potential of each to achieve outcomes associated with a more informed and competent citizenry and to

improve policies and policy outcomes.

In the spirit of face-to-face modes of deliberation, Ackerman and Fishkin (2004) make a proposal for a national Deliberation Day before each election. This would be a day that allows for thoughtful discussion of the candidates and issues, giving citizens greater power through information when they exercise the

right to pull the lever, punch a card, or touch a com-

puter screen to vote. A central component of Fishkin's

proposal is the Deliberative Poll, which begins with a random opinion survey of citizens on any number of

issues, followed by a random selection of survey re-

spondents who participate in face-to-face deliberation about the issues surveyed. The polling process results in changed views among citizens

following deliberation of an issue, with new opinions based on more

thoughtful and informed assess- ments. These results are consistent across countries and localities in the United States

(Fishkin, n.d.).

Leib (2004) goes further than Ackerman and Fishkin in calling for a change in institutions. He recom- mends the creation of a popular branch of government alongside the elected branches. Like jury duty, under this proposal citizens would be called on from time to time to deliberate on key issues and make recommendations to Congress and the president.

There are also consensus-based processes that can

occur without face-to-face interaction. For example, the Delphi process is described by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission as a "sequence of mailed questionnaires [that] is particularly useful in

obtaining the participation of a relatively large group of people who are familiar with the subject under consideration" (Marshall 1977, 124). A process similar to Delphi was used in the case of the Yosemite National Park during the late 1970s to create the Yosemite General Management Plan with optimal citizen feedback. To demonstrate the scope of the

multistage deliberative project, the National Park Service began planning for it in 1975, placed newspaper notices around the country in 1976, and

conducted two rounds of questionnaires that received

10,000 responses. Based on the questionnaire re-

sponses, a draft management plan was written in 1978 and mailed to more than 53,000 recipients, requesting feedback. From a total of 2,563 responses and 48

hearings held around the country, a revised plan was created in 1979 and approved in 1980. In all,

throughout the process, more than 60,000 people participated.

The Yosemite example demonstrates how citizens can

engage to influence a policy or implementation decision. Negotiated rulemaking, particularly in the environmental arena, provides other examples that

emphasize the barriers to consensus-based approaches. As with the limitations of the information exchange approach discussed earlier, administrators and

regulators might be reluctant to embrace a consensus- based hearing process because of a fear of commitment to decisions made by nonexperts (Harter 1997).

Similarly, Thomas (1997) observes that public agency executives are more likely to protect their

autonomy than to form interagency cooperative relationships.

Fear and uncertainty about engaging in consensus- based rulemaking may be rooted in the general culture

of administrative and rulemak-

ing agencies. Paolisso (2002), for

example, observes how the expe- riential knowledge of watermen in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay conflicted with the scientific

knowledge preferences of Mary- land regulators, minimizing the

degree of trust between the two sets of actors. This finding is consistent with Progres- sive Era reforms that sought to make government more scientific in its approach to solving public problems. Another example comes from Parkinson (2004), who observes how the ideals of deliberative democracy are difficult to achieve once they collide with the work

practices and assumptions of a new public manager. There may be, in this conflict of assumptions, a pref- erence among administrators for separating the ordi-

nary citizen from the knowledgeable citizen, thus

failing to generate needed citizen input or advanced

learning about citizen needs. Some of these barriers

may be overcome in order to pursue meaningful consensus-based action through the use of assurance mechanisms regarding participation in negotiation or collaboration in the way agreements are used between

government actors and their stakeholders (Weber and Khademian 1997).

Summary of Approaches It is clear that the five approaches to civic engagement offer many opportunities for meaningful citizen action and governmental response in the furtherance

Fear and uncertainty about en-

gaging in consensus-based rule-

making may be rooted in the

general culture of administrative and rulemaking agencies.




of citizen-centered collaborative public management. However, as some of the empirical literature reveals, there are barriers to achieving these outcomes.

Such barriers include and perhaps are driven by the administrative state, which may stand firmly against democratic processes that threaten the prevailing administrative ethos (Waldo 1948). Examples of this can be seen in the case of regulatory agencies that fear commitment to citizen-derived policy plans or in the case of the scientists and regulators on the Chesapeake Bay who were not open to nonscientific forms of

knowledge for informing policy creation and implementation. We suggest, however, that these barriers can be overcome with engagement approaches that endeavor to build knowledge and develop shared

understanding between citizens and public administrators.

The purpose of the engagement approach, as such, is

one factor that could determine the effort's ability to maximize citizen efficacy, competence, and trust, as well as government trust, responsiveness, and legitimacy. Altogether, we identify five factors that may influence the degree of success of each approach: the size, scope, purpose, location, and process employed to engage citizens. These five dimensions will be considered next.

Five Dimensions of Civic Engagement

Who Is Involved? A central concern in characterizing civic engagement is the size, depth, and diversity of citizen participation. Here we can see multiple kinds of participation- one kind dealing with how many citizens are involved in the engagement (from few to many), as well as one dealing with the breadth of citizen diver-

sity involved in the engagement, ranging in both income and ethnic diversity (homogeneity and het- erogeneity). The diversity of engagement dimensions also addresses the nature of the participants in terms of the expertise they bring to the engagement effort

(Fischer 2000).

The question of who is involved is important when

considering approaches to civic engagement that lead to a well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative

public management. Specifically, when addressing issues of citizen trust, efficacy, and competence, as well as government trust, legitimacy, and responsiveness, the maximization of each of these variables depends on how wide and deep the pool of citizens participating is. In the case of the legislative or administrative

hearing, for example, administrators may be fully responsive to those who bother to show up, but this limited responsiveness to the squeaky wheel is not the same as responsiveness based on a reasoned dialogue with a full range of stakeholders to a given policy, regulatory, or service delivery issue.

Often, the number of citizens involved is limited.

DeSantis and Hill (2004) examined citizen opinions and perceptions of participation and found that citizen attendance in open town meetings was attributable to citizen characteristics-namely, those who are older,

engage in community discussion, read newspapers and have high levels of political efficacy. They also found that "most town meetings are not well-attended forums that engage a large cross-section of the community. The challenge before community leaders is to reach

beyond the older and most-engaged residents" (172).

It is normally assumed that engaged citizens' involvement can only be usefully applied to a small or limited number of citizens. However, in some instances, the

practice of deliberative democracy has been achieved in four cities ranging in population from 100,000 to 400,000 (Weeks 2000) when working with budgeting priorities and envisioning the future. The Yosemite Plan cited earlier included more than 60,000 participants.

Citizen participation can be viewed in terms of high versus low ethical citizenship (Cooper 1984). High ethical citizenship conceives of citizenship as a responsibility; there should be a wide distribution of author-

ity rather than focused or centered on a few. Low ethical citizenship, on the other hand, conceives of

authority as hierarchically distributed; individual citizens, according to this perspective, are limited in the extent to which they should and can participate in affairs of the public. The distinction, functionally, is between legislative or administrative information

exchanges (i.e., the hearing) and more deliberative, consensus-based approaches to engagement. Approaches that implicitly adopt at least a high ethical

citizenship perspective, thus anticipating and expect- ing great depth and width of citizen participants, are more likely to lead to citizen-centered collaborative public management.

The costs ofcivic participation represent an important consideration of civic engagement, particularly around the dimension of who is concerned. Unless

they are structured adequately, civic engagement efforts can represent an undue burden on citizens because of the time and other sacrifices required to

participate. Costs may rise and fall depending on the location, duration, and required time and resource investment. Each effort needs to be assessed on its own terms to determine

the costs to citizens and how those costs might affect the quality and quantity of participation (Cooper 1979).

Who Initiates Civic Engagement? Initiation ranges from government-sponsored to

citizen-sponsored forms of civic engagement. The federal government, through AmeriCorps or Teach for America, offers ways in which citizens can address




problems in urban areas. Another example is the use of workshops by the Army Corps of Engineers to

accomplish educational and shared governance goals in order to improve support of general permits that are issued (Rosener 1981).

Other factors related to civic engagement include top-down and bottom-up initiation,

professional and grassroots initiation, and interest

group initiation. Cooper, Nownes, and Roberts

(2005) found that local-level interest groups can be differentiated from national interest groups. Specifically, they report that neighborhood, labor, and faith-based groups at the local level have compara- tively enhanced their positions with business groups compared to those at the national level.

Why Are Citizens Involved? Why civic engagement takes place is a concern that relates to whether the engagement is focused on

policy creation or implementation. Policy creation refers to citizens entering into a dialogue that shapes policy content and to whom the policy is directed.

Policy implementation refers to citizen engagement in the way policies are eventually put into practice by administrative bureaucracies. Nancy Roberts

(2004) refers to "arenas" of citizen participation to

identify the point in the policy process when citizen

engagement efforts may occur: policy initiation,

budgeting, or implementation. The major focus of the Learning and Design Forum, discussed previously, is policy implementation, where the neighborhood council leadership develops joint agreements with city departments in the service provision (Kathi and Cooper 2005).

Like the question of who is involved, this question is

important for assessing approaches to civic engagement and how they might lead to citizen-centered collaborative public management. Specifically, engagement efforts that are focused on citizen feedback at one stage of the policy process, such as policy implementation, might make citizens feel less trusting of government than if they were able to work with government to

bring a policy from inception to implementation and

beyond. To maximize trust development and ensure a successful engagement effort, both administrators and citizens need to be in agreement at the outset with

respect to the question of why.

Where Does the Engagement Take Place? Where civic engagement takes place in terms of the level ofgovernment is also a concern. Some approaches to civic engagement may be more appropriate for

particular problems and different levels of government. Many engagement strategies focus on face-to- face community settings or meetings with citizens and

city representatives (Kathi and Cooper 2005). It is difficult, though not impossible, to hold community

meetings on national policy problems, although the Yosemite Park planning process was a shining example of how this can be done. AmericaSpeaks has held national dialogues in selected, geographically dis-

persed public hearings on Social Security, engaging 45,000 citizens, and more recently, it has conducted a similar sequential national hearing process on health

policy.

This question is important in that it ultimately forces evaluators and administrators of engagement efforts to confront the local context in purely local engagement efforts or in a set of locally administered

sequential national hearings. Each local area comes with its own biases, and each local bureaucracy comes with its own culture and way of dealing or

working with citizens. Recognizing and working through the local context is necessary to break

through barriers that prevent advancement to a

well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative

public management.

How Are Citizens Involved? A fifth dimension of civic engagement is the process that is employed. On the broadest level, this ranges from confrontational or competitive modes of en-

gagement to collaborative or cooperative modes of

engagement. These two modal foci have been further dissected into different approaches to citizen participation. Arnstein (1969), for example, uses the meta-

phor of the ladder to identify a range of citizen

participation alternatives, from nonparticipation (manipulation) to citizen power. In a review of citizen participation techniques, Rosener (1978) argues that each citizen participation technique holds different benefits for the deliberative policy process. Rosener lists 39 techniques and processes-ranging from arbitration and mediation planning to citizen

referenda, hotlines, and task forces-and assesses each in terms of how it fulfills the needs of 14 different functions of participation. These functions include identifying alternatives, disseminating information, facilitating advocacy, resolving conflict, and developing support. The result is a matrix of

techniques and functions that can be performed to

serve various participation interests. As Rosener ar-

gues, the context in which the engagement strategies are to be used must be recognized: "[T]he decision to

employ any technique, or combination of techniques, must be accompanied by an appraisal of the context within which participation will take place" (Rosener 1977, 60).

Conclusion The conceptual model offered here for framing civic

engagement in collaborative public management has limited empirical verification. We feel, based on the literature cited, that the model is appropriate as an initial means of understanding how collaborative




public management can successfully include citizens

through other traditions of civic engagement. It is our

hope that work in this important area will continue and that given the variety of local contexts, we will be able to define the conditions under which public- involving, citizen-centered collaborative public management can be achieved.

Note 1. In 1978, the report of the Advisory Commission on Intergov-

ernmental Relations, Citizen Participation in the American

Federal System, outlined four forms of citizen participation and three techniques for participation. The organizational forms included citizen groups, special interest groups, citizen

committees, and task forces. The individual forms included

voting, attending meetings, campaigning or lobbying, and

demonstrating. The information dissemination forms included

conferences, publications, the use of mass media, and other

forms of advertising. Finally, the information collection forms

included hearings, consultation, and surveys. In addition to

these forms, three broad techniques were identified: legal,

psychological, and technological.

References Ackerman, Bruce, and James S. Fishkin. 2004.

Deliberation Day. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). 1978. Citizen Participation in

the American Federal System. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2003.

Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press.

Alinsky, Saul D. 1969. Reveille for Radicals. New York:

Vintage Books.

. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer

for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books.

Anderson, David M. 2004. Youth04: Young Voters, the

Internet, and Political Power. New York: W W Norton.

Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen

Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-24.

Baker, William H., H. Lon Addams, and Brian Davis.

2005. Critical Factors for Enhancing Municipal

Public Hearings. Public Administration Review

65(4): 490-99.

Bentley, Arthur E 1908. 7he Process of Government:

A Study of Social Pressures. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Berry, Jeffrey M., Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thomson.

1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy.

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Boyte, Harry C. 1980. The Backyard Revolution:

Understanding the New Citizen Movement.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Brainard, Lori, and Patricia Siplon. 2004. Toward

Nonprofit Organization Reform in the Voluntary

Spirit: Lessons from the Internet. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(3): 435-57.

Bryer, Thomas A., and Terry L. Cooper. 2006a.

Differentiating Design and Implementation

Responsiveness of Bureaucracy in a Collaborative

Setting. Paper presented at the Academy of

Management, August 14, Atlanta, GA. www.usc-

cei.org/pdfs/Bryer_Cooper_AOM%202006.pdf

[accessed August 23, 2006].

--. 2006b. Exploring Bureaucratic

Responsiveness Across Stages of Collaboration:

Networks, Inertia, and the Political Environment.

Paper presented at the 2006 Meeting of the

Midwest Political Science Association, April 20,

Chicago. www.usc-cei.org/pdfs/Bryer_Cooper_

MPSA2006.pdf [accessed August 23, 2006].

Caspar, Barry M. 2000. Lost in Washington: Finding the Way Back to Democracy in America. Amherst:

University of Massachusetts Press.

Cleveland, Harlan. 1988. Theses of a New

Reformation: The Social Fallout of Science 300

Years After Newton. Public Administration Review

48(3): 681-86.

Cooper, Christopher A., Anthony J. Nownes, and

Steven Roberts. 2005. Perceptions of Power:

Interest Groups in Local Politics. State and Local

Government Review 37(3): 206-16.

Cooper, Terry L. 1979. The Hidden Price Tag:

Participation Costs and Health Planning. American

Journal ofPublic Health 69(4): 368-74.

. 1984. Citizenship and Professionalism in

Public Administration. Special issue, Public

Administration Review 44: 143-51.

. 1991. An Ethic of Citizenship for Public

Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

-. 2005. Introduction to Neighborhood

Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life,

by Milton Kotler. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Cornfield, Michael, and David M. Anderson, eds.

2003. The Civic Web: Online Politics and

Democratic Values. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Creighton, James L. 1995. Trends in the Field of

Public Participation in the United States, Interact:

The Journal ofPublic Participation 1(1): 7-23.

Davis, Steve, Larry Elin, and Grant Reeher. 2002.

Click on Democracy: The Internets Power to Change

Political Apathy into Civic Action. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

DeSantis Victor S., and David Hill. 2004. Citizen

Participation in Local Politics: Evidence from New

England Town Meetings. State and Local

Government Review 36(3): 166-73.

Doble, John. 2005. Public Thinking about the New

Challenges of American Immigration: An Analysis

of Results from the 2003-2005 National Issues

Forums (Report to the Kettering Foundation).

www.nifi.org [accessed August 22, 2006].




Doble, John, and lara Peng. 1999. The Enduring Effects

of National Issues Forums (NIF) on High School

Students (Report to the Kettering Foundation).

www.nifi.org [accessed August 22, 2006].

Fisher, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the

Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Fishkin, James S. n.d. Deliberative Polling: Toward a

Better-Informed Democracy. http://cdd.stanford.edu/

polls/docs/summary/ [accessed August 22, 2006].

Frederickson, H. George. 1971. Toward a New Public

Administration. In Toward a New Public

Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective, edited

by Frank Marini, 309-31. Scranton, PA: Chandler.

Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in

Complex Governance. Special issue, Public

Administration Review 66: 65-74.

Gaddie, Ronald Keith. 2004. Born to Run: Origins of the Political Career. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Gastil, John and Peter Levine, eds. 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for

Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First

Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gormley, William, John Hoadley, and Charles

Williams. 1983. Potential Responsiveness in the

Bureaucracy: Views of Public Utility Regulation. American Political Science Review 7(3): 704-17.

Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An

Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law Journal 46(6):

1389-1428.

Kathi, Pradeep Chandra, and Terry L. Cooper. 2005.

Democratizing the Administrative State--

Connecting Neighborhood Councils and City

Agencies. Public Administration Review 65(5):

559-67.

Kemmis, Daniel. 1990. Community and the Politics of Place. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kotler, Milton. 1969. Neighborhood Government: The

Local Foundations of Political Life. New York:

Bobbs-Merrill.

. 2005. Neighborhood Government: The Local

Foundations ofPolitical Life. Rev. ed. Lanham,

MD: Lexington Books.

Leib, Ethan. 2004. Deliberative Democracy in

America: A Proposal for a Popular Branch of

Government. University Park: Penn State

University Press.

Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End ofLiberalism;

Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis ofPublicAuthority. New York:

W.W Norton.

Lukensmeyer, Carolyn J., and Lars H. Torres. 2006.

Public Deliberation: A Manager's Guide to Public

Deliberation. Washington, DC: IBM Center for

the Business of Government.

Macedo, Stephen, et al. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How

Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation

and What We Can Do About It. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Press.

Mansbridge, Jane J. 1983. BeyondAdversary

Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marini, Frank, ed. 1971. Toward a New Public

Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective.

Scranton, PA: Chandler.

Marshall, Patricia, ed. 1977. Citizen Participation

Certification for Community Development: A Reader

on the Citizen Participation Process. Washington,

DC: National Association of Housing and

Redevelopment Officials.

Mathews, David. 1999. Politics for People: Finding a

Responsible Public Voice. 2nd ed. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr., Philip D. Zelikow, and David C.

King, eds. 1997. Why People Don't Trust Government.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Paolisso, Michael. 2002. Blue Crabs and Controversy

on the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural Model for

Understanding Watermen's Reasoning about Blue

Crab Management. Human Organization 61(3):

226-39.

Parenti, Michael. 1974. Democracy for the Few. New

York: St. Martin's Press.

Parkinson, John. 2004. Why Deliberate? The

Encounter between Deliberation and New Public

Managers. Public Administration 82(2): 377-95.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward. 1977.

Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How

7hey Fail. New York: Vintage Books.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. BowlingAlone: The Collapse and Revival ofAmerican Community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Redman, Eric. 1973. The Dance ofLegislation. New

York: Simon & Schuster.

Rheingold, Howard. 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next

Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Roberts, Nancy. 2005. Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. American Review of Public Administration 34(4): 315-53.

Rosenblum, Nancy L., and Robert C. Post, eds. 2002.

Civil Society and Government. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Rosener, Judy. 1978. Citizen Participation: Can We

Measure Its Effectiveness? Public Administration

Review 38(5): 457-63.

1981. User-Oriented Evaluation: A New

Way to View Citizen Participation. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science 17(4): 583-97.

Stivers, Camilla. 1994. The Listening Bureaucrat:

Responsiveness in Public Administration. Public

Administration Review 54(4): 364-69.

Thomas, Craig W. 1997. Public Management as

Interagency Cooperation: Testing Epistemic

Community Theory at the Domestic Level. Journal

ofPublicAdministration Research and Theory 7(2):

221-46.

Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process;

Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf.




Weber, Edward P., and Anne M. Khademian. 1997. From Agitation to Collaboration: Clearing the Air

through Negotiation. Public Administration Review

57(5): 396-410.

Weeks, Edward C. 2000. The Practice of Deliberative

Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials.

Public Administration Review 40(4): 360-73.

Yang, Kaifeng. 2005. Public Administrators' Trust in

Citizens: A Missing Link in Citizen Involvement

Efforts. PublicAdministration Review 65(3): 273-85.

Yang, Kaifeng, and Marc Holzer. 2006. The

Performance-Trust Link: Implications for

Performance Measurement. Public Administration

Review 66(1): 114-27.




Documents

Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management || Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public Management