Participatory Governance in Transition States Theory and Research Question Definitions of democracy tend to lean more towards Dahl s participatory democracy than Schumpeter s procedural version. In a definition of democracy building on Dahl s understanding of the concept (Dahl 1998), representation through competitive elections is not necessarily the key democratic institution. Stoker argues that in order to make democracy work in a modern de-politicised social context, there is a need to strengthen the civic base for democratic governance. This is to be achieved through involving citizens directly in decisionmaking, for example through consultation, deliberation, co-governance, direct democracy and e-democracy (Stoker 2006). In this study, I will focus on those forms of (democratic) participation which go beyond the ballot (Smith 2005), institutions that involve citizens in governance in more direct ways than through periodic elections for representative offices. In want of a more precise definition, I will tentatively term these institutions participatory governance. There is a large body of (qualitative) research devoted to classifying and evaluating different forms of participatory governance (Smith 2005, 16). An early endeavour in this subfield was made by Sherry Arnstein in 1969. Based to a large extent on personal experiences and convictions, Arnstein devised a ladder of citizen participation (including manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power and citizen control) where she argued that only the three top steps, partnership, delegated power and citizen control, were examples of real citizen power (Arnstein 2003). Smith, on the other hand, assesses democratic innovations by measuring the extent to which they deliver six democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. The conclusions made from this analysis focus on the observation that the same institution can deliver the different goods to a differential extent (Smith 2009), thus implicitly putting into question the possibility of assessing institutions according to one scale, as Arnstein attempted. Whereas the literature that sets out to evaluate forms of participatory governance is ample, there appears to be less interest in explaining why such practices are instituted and function in some polities and in others not. There are global trends which may influence the development towards more participatory forms of governance, such as the modernisation of public administrations and their role in society, developments towards decentralization and 1
reorganisation of local authorities (Bacqué and Sintomer 2010, 10). However, in a comparative view, these global trends do not affect all polities equally. Rather, social, historical and political factors most likely influence both the readiness to give citizens the possibility to participate, the final design of institutions, and the quality of citizen participation. The question here is thus one of democratization, but rather than looking at democratic transition at the macro-level, I will search for determinants of actual citizen participation. The tentative research question reads: What factors determine the level and quality of participatory governance in transition states? Although the study separates itself to some extent from the literature on democratization and democratic consolidation, there are nevertheless important insights to be incurred from this body of research regarding the factors that are favourable of democracy. Those factors that have been found to provide a favourable climate to democratic forms of government may also influence participatory governance in a broader sense. Studies which fall under the umbrella of modernization theory suggest that a number of socioeconomic factors related to modernity are important for the development of democracy (including for example wealth, industrialization, urbanization and education (Lipset 1959)). There also appears to be some intervening effect of change in values between modernization and democracy, although modernization does not necessarily lead to less traditional values (Inglehart och Baker 2000). Contrary to the linear picture painted by modernization theory, participatory governance may also be the result not of modern innovations but of tradition, for example New England town meetings, originating in the 17 th century (Smith 2009, 30). Thus, the extent to which institutions of participatory governance are based on tradition may influence the level of success. A number of conclusions can be drawn from previous research on the determinants of successful participatory governance which provides means for genuine participation. The above discussion is a non-exhaustive account and will have to be supplemented by findings from further studies on democratic transition as well as theories on for example social mobilization. Methodology Although there is a large body of quantitative research on democratization and consolidation, participation happens primarily on the local and individual level and encompasses aspects which are not readily measured quantitatively. For example, it is not sufficient to count the number of town meetings, or even the persons attending such meetings, but it is rather the 2
nature of the meetings that matters. To what extent do they grant power (over for example agenda setting, decision making and implementation) to the citizens/inhabitants. Therefore, I opt for a qualitative, comparative study, investigating the connection between certain socioeconomic, historical and political factors, based on previous research, and the level and quality of participatory governance. Variables will be measured on state level, with incidental evidence taken from the local level. Thus, although a qualitative approach is deployed, quantitative measures may inform the analysis, providing a measure of for example economic development. It is not a case here of arriving at some benchmark or absolute level of for example GDP at which a country is expected to institute forms of participatory governance. Rather, I will investigate possible causal relationships between for example wealth and participatory governance. For the dependent variable, there is no reliable quantitative measurement of participation on the local level. Therefore, I will assess institutions of participatory governance qualitatively, devising a schedule based on existing research, such as for example Arnstein s ladder of participation, and Smith s classification of participatory institutions discussed above. Case selection and material Eastern Europe and the former USSR is an interesting region for studying forms of participatory governance. Although there are a number of commonalities in terms of cultural and social setup, there is nevertheless sufficient variation in the independent variables. Thus, I strive to isolate the factors that may have a bearing on the level and quality of participatory governance through deploying a form of the Method of Difference (Moses and Knutsen 2007), although there will necessarily be more than one element differing between the cases. The similarities between cases are an advantage in that it makes it easier for key concepts to travel between the different contexts. On the other hand, this geographical concentration may lead to limitations in transferring findings outside of this particular region. The selection of cases will to some extent be dependent on the availability of material, but is also aimed to achieve a high level of variations on both independent and dependent variables. A tentative selection of cases includes Poland, Bosnia, Belarus, Russia, Lithuanian, and Ukraine. A common trait in all these states is the enactment into law of citizens participation on the micro-level, in the form of neighbourhood committees or village heads. The possibility to form neighbourhood committees or elect village heads has been enacted into the law of several post-soviet states as a voluntary form of local self-government. I will primarily look at two particular forms of participation on the micro level: neighbourhood 3
committees (in Russian коммитеты общественного самоуправление, committees of public self governance) and village heads and/or village committees. The latter category is a form of sub-municipal governance which in many cases has deep historical roots in many transition states. The institutions goes by different names, kmetsvo in Bulgaria, solectwo in Poland, mecna zajednica in the former Yugoslav countries etc.,, but has many common traits. They have primarily had functions related to community development, acting as a link between the local community and the municipality and administering services (Péteri 2008, 9-10). Concerning neighbourhood committees, they are a more modern invention. Forms of organisation on the basis of a quarter or even a single apartment building existed early in the history of the Soviet Union, but for the most part, these cannot be said to have constituted forms of participatory governance. Their members were even reputed to act as informants, reporting to the authorities on those that they were to represent. However, [h]ousing committees were not only instruments of social control, but also schools of social behavior for residents of apartment blocks. Frequently, they organized social events and assisted elderly residents. (Shomina, Kolossov och Shukhat 2002, 248). In the late 1980s, committees of social self-management, began appearing in Moscow (and later spread to other parts of the Union). Most probably, the innovation was instituted according to instructions from above, while the actual design of local self-government was devised locally (Levchik 2001, 20). Today, these neighbourhood committees can be observed in for example Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (where the law provides for such committees as a voluntary form of selfgovernment). The material used will be a mix of first and second hand sources. Since I purport to measure participation both in principle and in practice, I will use both laws and policies and accounts from the field to measure the dependent variable. The independent variables will also be measured using a mix of first and second hand sources as well as both quantitative and qualitative measures. Areas for development There are a number of weak or uncertain points in this research design, relating mainly to methodology: - The qualitative comparative approach outlined here is less rigid than both quantitative comparison and for example such well-defined qualitative methods as discourse analysis. I am ignorant of high-quality literature on comparative designs involving a small number of cases and would appreciate guidance on this issue. 4
- The proposed material will cover both participatory governance in principle (law) and in practice (accounts from the field ), converging these two aspects into one dependent variable. My question here is whether it is practicable to converge principle and practice in this way. - Last, I am unsure of the reliability of some secondary sources, especially those sources which have not been the subject of peer review, or have not been published in English. 5