Almond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. The civic culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• • • VTT PUBLICATIONS 755 SOCIAL MEDIA FOR CITIZEN. Keywords social media, social networks, citizen participation. New business in open data-based.
Arnstein, Sherry R. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4: 216- 224., Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56: 947- 952., Barber, Daniel M. Citizen participation in American communities: Strategies for success. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Beatley, Timothy, David J. Brower, and William H. Representation in comprehensive planning: An analysis of the Austinplan process. Journal of the American Planning Association 60, 2: 185- 196., Beneviste, Guy.
Mastering the politics of planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buckwalter, Doyle, Robert Parsons, and Norman Wright. Citizen participation in local government: The use of incentives and rewards. Public Management 75, 9: 11- 15.
Burke, Edmund M. A participatory approach to urban planning. New York: Human Sciences Press. Callies, David. Public participation in the United States. Calyx And Corolla Case Pdf. Town Planning Review 47, 4: 286- 296. Catanese, Anthony James.
The politics of planning and development. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Clavel, Pierre. The progressive city: Planning and participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
In Public participation in planning, W. Derrick Sewell and J. Coppock, eds. London: Wiley. Crozier, Michel. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, Robert A. Dilemmas of pluralist democracy.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dahl, Robert A.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dear, Michael. Understanding the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 3: 288- 300., DeSario, Jack, and Stuart Langton, eds. Citizen participation in public decision making. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
DeSario, Jack, and Stuart Langton, eds. Citizen participation and technocracy. Policy Studies Review 3, 2: 223- 233., Ellul, Jacques. The technological society. London: Jonathan Cape. Etzioni-Halevy, Eva.
Bureaucracy and democracy: A political dilemma. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Fagence, Michael. Citizen participation in planning. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon. Fainstein, Norman I., and Susan S.
Citizen participation in local government. In Public policy across states and communities, Dennis R. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Fischer, Frank. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences 26: 165- 187., Fisher, Robert. Grass-roots organizing worldwide: Common ground, historical roots, and the tension between democracy and the state. In Mobilizing the community: Local politics in the era of the global city, Robert Fisher and Joseph Kling, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Forester, John.
Planning in theface of power. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fort, Rodney, Robert Rosenman, and William Budd. Perception costs and NIMBY. Journal of Environmental Management 38, 3: 185- 200., Frieden, Bernard J., and Marshall Kaplan. The politics of neglect: Urban aidfrom Model Cities to revenue sharing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Friedmann, John. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gans, Herbert J. People and plans. New York: Basic Books. George, R Varkki. Formulating the right planning problem.
Journal of Planning Literature 8, 3: 240- 259., Gerth, H. Wright Mills. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, Benjamin A. Community right to know: Environmental information for citizen participation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 12, 3: 315- 325., Grant, Jill.
The drama of democracy: Contention and dispute in community planning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press., Hampton, William. Research into public participation in structure planning. In Public participation in planning, W. Derrick Sewell and J.
Coppock, eds. London: Wiley. Henig, Jeffrey R. Neighborhood mobilization: Redevelopment and response. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Howe, Elizabeth. Normative ethics in planning. Journal of Planning Literature 5, 2: 123- 150., Hughes, George, and David Schirmer. Interactive multimedia, public participation, and environmental assessment. Town Planning Review 65, 4: 405- 414.
Hummel, Ralph P. The bureaucratic experience.
New York: St. Citizen participation in local planning: A comparison of US and British experiences. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2, 1: 1- 14., Kasperson, Roger E. Participation through centrally planned social change: Lessons from the American experience on the urban scene. In Public participation in planning, W. Derrick Sewell and J.
Coppock, eds. London: Wiley. Kathlene, Lyn, and John A. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10, 1: 46- 63., Krislov, Samuel. Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1917 Remington Enfield Serial Numbers here.
Kweit, Mary Grisez, and Robert W. People and politics in urban America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kweit, Mary Grisez, and Robert W. The politics of policy analysis: The role of citizen participation in analytic decisionmaking. Policy Studies Review 3,2: 234- 245., Kweit, Mary Grisez, and Robert W.
Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praeger. Lindblom, Charles. The market as prison. Journal of Politics 4: 324- 336., MacNair, Ray H., Russell Caldwell, and Leonard Pollane. Citizen participants in public bureaucracies: Foul-weather friends. Administration & Society 14,4: 507- 524., Menzel, Donald C., and J.
Edwin Benton. Citizen contacting in an urban county: Hillsborough County, Florida. Journal of Urban Affairs 13, 1: 33- 43., Morris, Jon. Involving local people in urban renewal. Town and Country Planning 62, 9: 246- 249.
Nadel, Mark V., and Francis E. In Handbook of political science, Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Niskanen, William A.
Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Novick, Peter. That noble drem: The objectivity question' and the American hitoical pjoessun. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., Oldfield, Adrian.
Citienshp and community: Civic republicanism and the moder world. London: Routledge. Pateman, Carole. Participation and democratic theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., Peters, B. The politics of bureaucracy. New York: Longman. Piven, Frances Fox. Whom does the advocate planner serve? In The politics of turmoil, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, eds. New York: Pantheon.
Polsby, Nelson. Community power and political theory.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rambanapasi, Christopher. The political economy of public participation in planning in pluralistic societies: The case of Zimbabwe. Geoforum 23,1: 259- 267. Rich, Richard C. Neighborhoodbased participation in the planning process: Promise and reality. In Urban neighborhoods: Research and policy, Ralph B.
Westport, CT: Praeger. Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin Webber.
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155- 169., Robinson, David. A survey with a difference. Planning 57, 1: 22- 23.
Scavo, Carmine. The use of participative mechanisms by large U.S. Journal of Urban Affairs 15, 1: 93- 109., Schattschneider,Elmer Eric. The semif-sovereign people.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Schatzow, Steven. Ihe influence of the public on federal environmental decsio-making in Canada. In Public participation in plaig, W. Derrick Sewell and J.
Coppock, eds. London: Wiley. Capitalism,socialismand democracy.
London: Allen & Unwin. Derrick, and J. Aperspective on public participation in planning.
In Public participation in planning, W R Derrick Sewell and J. Coppock, eds. London: Wiley. Stivers, Camilla. The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the administrative state.
Administration & Society 22, 1: 86- 105., Tauxe, Caroline S. Marginalizing public participation in local planning An ethnographic account.
Journal ofthe American Planning Association 61,4: 471- 481., Tulloss, Janice K. Citizen participation in Boston's development policy The political economy of participation. Urban Affizirs Review 30,4: 514- 537. Van Valey, Thomas L., and James C.
Public service centers: Ihe Michigan experience. In Citizen participation in public dcision making. See DeSario and Langton 1987. Walsh, Edward, Rex Warland, and Clayton D.
Backyards, NIMBYs, and incinerator sitings: implications for social movement theory. Social Problems 40,1: 25- 38., Williams, Sydney H. Citizen participation in city and regional planningr An effective American methodology. Town Planning Review 47: 349- 358., Zotti, Ed.
New angles on citizen participation. Planning 57, 1 (January): 19- 21.
Participation emerged has buzzword in the spectrum of development from 1960s. The concept developed as wider role in development when the capacity of state lead development ini tiatives questioned. In most of the development ini tiat ives taken place in developing nation and by the international agencies including UN, UNRSID, UNICEF, have made contribution to the wider acceptance of the concept.
The term has various connotations. Based on the level of participation or the intensity of the people’s participation the term has various typologies.
One of the most common believe with regard to the participation (may be false believe) is that the noti on of ‘I m ange and y ou participate’. Especi ally this notion i s common in most of the development project implemented by the agencies, they believe that they will develop the project and while implementing the project the notion of participation is ensured. But the term has a wider and deep explanation. It discussing the care and support forwarded by a community towards their development and sustainably of the development by their own initiatives.so participation is an answer to two questions. The first one is for whose benefit a development initiatives is developed and the next one is with what means the initiatives is realised.
In this context Sax sena (p31) di scussing participation include the notion of contributions,i nfluencing, s haring, or redistributing power and of control,resources,benefits,knowledge and skills to b e gained through beneficiary involvement in decision makin g”.Saxsena further discussing it has v oluntary p rocess and in the process people,including the disadvantaged (income,gender,education, caste or educat ion)influence or control the decision that affect them”. Many theories have been developed on participation, in this paper the Arnstein’s concept of ladder of citizen participation was critically discussed under three sessions namely meaning of participation, ladder of citizen participation and criticism.
Involving members of a society either as individuals or groups in planning and implementation of activi ties affect ing their lives has b een given different conn otations in the literature; among them participatory development (Chambers 1992; Nelson and Wright 1995) participatory governance (Hickey and Mohan 2004), democratic local governance (Blair 2000) or even community development (Dolsak and Ostrom 2003). All these refer to participation of local peo ple in one way o r t he other in development programme. According to Sherry Arnstein (1969:216), participation is a deliberate process that enables, to use her words, the ‘not have citizens’ presently excluded from the political and economic process to be included in the future. Here emphasis is given to the redistribution o f power and enabling environment which facilitates citizen’s participation in political and economic process in a deliberative manner. In this work she made attempt to discuss the typology of citizen’s participation from her experiences with federal social programs –including urban renewal, anti-poverty, and Model Cities.
She developed a typology of citizen participation arranged as rungs on a ladder, with each rung corresponding to the amount of “citizen control” within the process of determining a program or policy (GERSHMAN 2013).In this typology she made attempts to discuss participation as a tool applied among people to induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society (p. Arnstein (1969) highlights the fundamental point that “participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless” (p.
216).she discussing the level of people participation as eight rungs of a ladder. She is discussing these rungs as clear index of non participation. It involves influencing the public and gaining support through the use of propaganda. In her own words “People are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of ‘educating’ them or engineering their support” (p. These bodies typically have no legitimate function or power (Arnstein, 1969, p. The second rung of the ladder, therapy assumes that the public is incapable of decisionmaking and those in power subject citizens to paternalistic education exercises, or clinical group therapy, as a form of enlightenment (Brooks & Harris, 2008).
Here she discussing the next three rungs of the ladder and calls the phase as ‘tokenism’. The secon d stage begins wi th the third rung of the ladder, inf orming. At this rung, information flows from the public officia ls to the citizens wit h “no channel provided for feedback and no power for negotiation” (Arnstein, 1969, p. The most frequent tools used for “participation” and communication during the process of “informing” include news media, pamphlets, posters, responses to inquiry, and meetings which discourage questioning and provide superficial and irrelevant information (Arnstein, 1969, p. Consultation, the fourth rung on the ladder, provides for a two-way flow of information through meetings, hearings, and surveys. However, the public input gathered throughout this process is rarely taken into account. Arnstein (1969) categorizes this rung in the following way: “What citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have ‘participated in participation.’ And what the powerholders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving ‘those people’” (p.
The final level of tokenism is placation, where “citizens begin to gain influence through boards or committees, but they can still be outnumbered o r overruled, particularly when their opinions are unfavourable from the perspective of professional planners” (Brooks & Harris, 2008, p. The third stage of Arnstein’s ladder i.e.: citizen power begins with the sixth rung, partnership. At this rung, “[Citizens and power holders] agree to share planning and decision- making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving im passes”. (Arnstein, 1969, p. A rnstein discusses some characteristics that effectively facilitate partnership, such as organized citizen leaders and groups within the community and financial resources for technicians.
As the seventh rung on the ladder, delegated power exists when citizens can assure accountability of a program.