16-U2D1 - Describe the areas that might cause the greatest problems in collaboration and how you might mitigate these issues?

76 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

Civic engagement and collaborative public management

are concepts that are defi ned broadly, making theoreti-

cal explication challenging and practical application of

empirical research diffi cult. In this article, the authors

adopt defi nitions of civic engagement and collaborative

public management that are centered on the citizen and

the potential for active citizenship. Following a histori-

cal review of civic engagement in the United States,

a conceptual model of fi ve approaches to civic engage-

ment is off ered. Citizen-centered collaborative public

management is enhanced through these approaches. Th e

authors suggest the need for further empirical research

on collaborative public management that is grounded in

citizenship action.

T here is a renewed interest in civic engagement

that extends widely across local, regional,

national, and online communities. Th e cur-

rent manifestations of civic engagement have taken on

many forms at these diff erent levels. Th e importance

of this subject to interested citizens, publics, policy

makers, and public administrators is refl ected in the

activities, programs, and projects that have been

initiated in recent years.

Our objective in this article is to consider how civic

engagement infl uences collaborative public manage-

ment. Defi nitions of each concept are established to

meet this objective. Macedo et al. rely on a broad

defi nition of civic engagement: “any activity, indi-

vidual or collective, devoted to infl uencing the collec-

tive life of the polity” (2005, 6). We wish to

distinguish the diff erent types of civic engagement to

which Macedo et al. allude in terms of what each

off ers for the achievement of collaborative public

management.

We advance the argument that deliberative and collec-

tive action strategies of civic engagement hold the

most promise in achieving a public-involving, citizen-

centered collaborative public management. Th is 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 partici-

pating 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 defi nitions in hand, we off er a review of

American civic engagement over the past half century.

Following this review, we consider fi ve approaches to

civic engagement and how each might contribute to

citizen-centered collaborative public management.

Th is discussion is followed by consideration of fi ve

dimensions or questions that can help us to under-

stand and assess civic engagement eff orts in practice.

Th rough our reviews and discussions, our aim is to

provide a new framing of the relevant literature on the

challenges and opportunities associated with eff ec-

tively engaging citizens in collaborative public

management.

Historical Shifts in Civic Engagement Th ere has been a marked shift in civic engagement

interest and emphasis over the past half century. To-

day, in light of research fi ndings 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. Th e Mayfl ower Compact, signed

by 41 male passengers aboard the Mayfl ower in 1641,

Terry L . Cooper Thomas A. Bryer University of Southern California

Jack W . Meek University of La Verne

Citizen-Centered 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].

Articles on Collaborative Public Management

Citizen-Centered Management 77

was the fi rst such covenant. Th e 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 diff erent 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. Th ese were fi rst linked

together through the Articles of Confederation, but

fi nally, 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

Jeff ersonian tradi tion, 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 eff ectively 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 com-

mon goals, either through mutual self-help or by

petitioning government. From the colonial era to the

present, there have been myriad other self-organizing

eff orts 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. Th e 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 consis-

tent with the theme of this special issue — collabora-

tive public management — we mainly address civic

engagement activities that involve citizens and

government.

Th e 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, effi ciency, scien-

tifi c management, and administrative management.

Th e 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 infl uence the electoral process.

Another result of the Progressive reforms was the

creation of barriers against the infl uence of the citi-

zenry on the day-to-day administration of govern-

ment. In the Progressive program of reform, citizens

were expected to vote for representatives, use the three

new mechanisms for changing laws and elected repre-

sentatives, 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 ad-

dressed adequately, either by the

professional experts or elected

offi cials. Interest groups had

been identifi ed 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, Th eodore

Lowi (1969) and others ( Parenti 1974 ) began to cri-

tique this thesis for its lack of support from the re-

search on interest groups. By that time, the trend was

toward single interest groups with very narrow foci

representing an elite with the power and fi nancial

resources to create eff ective 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. Th e

result was that the Progressive legacy of the profes-

sionalized administrative state came under fi re.

Demonstrations, protests, civil disorder (sometimes

involving widespread violence), and litigation com-

bined to create a turbulent and uncertain environ-

ment. 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).

Th e 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 confl ict to create change in gov-

ernment ( 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 offi cials.

78 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

came largely from churches. Alinsky sought to iden-

tify communities that had little economic or political

power and help them mobilize around the latent

confl ict between themselves and the power structure

of society at all levels. His strategy was to raise latent

confl ict to the surface and focus on the adversarial

relationship between low-income people and specifi c

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.

Th is adversarial or confl ict-based approach to engaging

government typifi ed 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 govern-

ment would never willingly relinquish power, so aggres-

sive adversarial advocacy was believed to be necessary.

Th is 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.

Th e adversarial orientation of this time period can be

clearly seen in Sherry Arnstein’s classic article, “A

Ladder of Citizen Participation” (1969), which be-

came 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 identifi ed as

“degrees of citizen power” (217). Th e 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.

Th e community organizing of the kind typifi ed 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 inter-

ests. One might well organize a neighborhood eff ectively

and still lose over and over again in the contest for po-

litical 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. Th e response of elected

offi cials 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

specifi c 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 adminis-

tration (ACIR 1979 ). Th ese government-initiated

mandates worked with varying degrees of eff ectiveness.

All suff ered from a lack of resources for their imple-

mentation, 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 ).

Th e 1980s refl ected yet another shift marked by the

election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency. Th e 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 eff orts

to carry out the legal mandates. Creighton (1995) , for

example, describes how the Interagency Council on

Citizen Participation was summarily shut down and

its fi les seized by federal agents.

One fi nds 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 fl ow of literature and federal

government activity is noteworthy ( Creighton 1995 ).

Th e action shifted during these years back to neigh-

borhoods, 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, beautifi cation, arts,

and recreation organizations. Toward the end of the

1980s, one began to hear an occasional voice that

referred to governance as diff erentiated from govern-

ment. 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 govern-

ment but as involving the interaction of government,

Citizen-Centered Management 79

business, and the nonprofi t (or nongovernmental)

sectors. Refl ecting the governance approach, during

these years, new experiments in institutional innova-

tion began to occur here and there across the nation

between cities and their neighborhoods. Offi cially

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. Th is general approach to institutional

innovation was fi rst articulated in Milton Kotler’s

Neighborhood Government: Th e 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 specifi ed 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 Th omson’s Rebirth of Urban

Democracy (1993) documents

and evaluates these political

experiments in a piece of exem-

plary social science research. Th is

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 coun-

cils be organized from the grassroots up, with people

in each community identifying their own boundaries,

designing their own bylaws, adopting their own sys-

tem of fi nancial accountability, and then requesting

certifi cation from the city Board of Neighborhood

Commissioners. Th is appears to be the most formal-

ized experiment in providing civic engagement at the

grassroots that has been offi cially 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 specifi ed

area. Th ese neighborhood councils refl ect the gover-

nance perspective of the late 1980s up to the present.

Th is 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 Th omson (1993) have demonstrated the general

eff ectiveness 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.

Th ese eff orts at institutional reform have attempted to

move civic engagement from the ad hoc adversarial

struggle of the 1960s and 1970s to an ongoing par-

ticipation in the governance process that seeks col-

laboration, even if there is confl ict from time to time

in the midst of offi cially sustained participation. Th is

is not the only form of civic engagement, as we

will argue later, but it is the most signifi cant 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 off er fi ve 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, citi-

zen effi cacy, citizen trust in government, citizen compe-

tence, government responsiveness, and government

legitimacy. Further empirical research is necessary to test

the assumptions behind this model, particularly the six

variables. We off er empirical justifi cation for our claims

where it is available in the discussion that follows.

Th e approaches depicted in fi gure 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. Th e outer ring of fi gure 1 — the

adversarial approach — represents the approach that is

least likely to contribute to collaborative public man-

agement through the maximization of citizen trust,

effi cacy, and competence, as well as government

trust, responsiveness, and legitimacy. Th e 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 agen- cies to engage citizens in their

administrative and policy processes.

80 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

management, as these approaches are most likely to

build citizen effi cacy, citizen trust in government, and

citizen competence. Furthermore, deliberative ap-

proaches 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

confi dence in government ( Yang and Holzer 2006 ).

Th ese 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. Th ough 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 eff orts 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 ). Th e ma-

jor fl aw 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

eff orts 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).

Th ere are many examples of successful social move-

ment 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. Th e use of

mobile telecommunications technology enables so-

called smart mobs ( Rheingold 2002 ) to quickly show

solidarity and achieve some policy objective.

Th is approach may engender within citizens greater

internal effi cacy, or what Berry, Portney, and Th omson

(1993) alternatively refer to as citizen capacity. Specifi -

cally, internal effi cacy refers to the extent to which

citizens feel they understand and seek to infl uence

governmental decisions. Internal effi cacy contrasts

with external effi cacy, which is the extent to which

citizens feel government will be responsive to their

eff orts to infl uence it (Berry, Portney, and Th omson

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Approaches to Civic Engagement

Citizen-Centered Management 81

1993). Th e adversarial approach may allow for en-

hanced 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 impor-

tance of administrator trust in citizens as a precursor

to their engagement with citizens. He off ers 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 offi ce, 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 associ-

ated 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 registra-

tion, but registration is only half the equation, as

eff orts associated with the civil rights movement to

make voting easier and more accessible have shown.

With the rising use of the Internet, electoral ap-

proaches 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. Th e 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 mak-

ers. As Cornfi eld and Anderson observe, in the long

term, the “campaign website . . . will be a political

staple” (2003, 1). Th e 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 offi ce 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

offi ce, 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 nonprofi t, “all-partisan” group that off ers

guidance and a support network to young candidates

( Anderson 2004, 62 ).

Electoral approaches, like adversarial approaches, may

facilitate some citizen effi cacy, 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 engage-

ment 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 eff ectiveness 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 fl aws. It is confl ictual, occurs late

in the legislative or regulatory process, off ers one-way

communications, and tightly controls public input.

Th e 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 fl aws in the hearing process. For example,

Redman describes the celebration of a “well-planned

and thoroughly successful hearing” (1973, 134). Th e

hearing celebrated was largely a scripted aff air 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.” Th e key factor in this predeter-

mined outcome was that many members of the com-

mittee 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 aff ect the way many Americans live”

( Redman 1973, 126 ). Th e 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).

82 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

Citizens who do have the opportunity to be heard

may feel empowered and believe they can make a

diff erence. Likewise, government offi cials may be

responsive to activist citizens who bother to show up

for hearings, a fi nding 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 collab-

orative public management is limited.

Civil Society Approaches Th e kinds of civic engagement discussed thus far focus

on ways that citizens can interact with politicians or

public administrators in the interest of aff ecting policy

or politics. Th ere are other types of engagement that

focus more on building solidary benefi ts rather than

achieving some purposive or material end. Th e larger

civil society is home to thousands of volunteer organi-

zations, 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. Th ere are diff erent 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 specifi c 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 diff er-

ence between adversarial approaches and consensus

and deliberative approaches by describing two models

of democracy: adversarial and unitary. Deliberative

and consensus-based eff orts — the unitary model —

diff er 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 eff orts that seek

joint action across sectors of society, classes of people,

or types of individuals. Th ey seek consensus in action

through lengthy, sometimes tedious deliberation. Th e

core components of these approaches to engagement

are dialogue among diff erent 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.

Th e 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-specifi c 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 diff erent

governance actors have the potential to enhance citi-

zen 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 eff orts have focused on the citizen and bringing

diverse citizen knowledge and experience to the atten-

tion of policy makers. Th e 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 po-

litical discourse ( Mathews 1999 ). Studies of the NIF

have shown positive results for citizen effi cacy and

self-actualization, for example, through enhanced

citizen knowledge, skills, and competency. Researchers

have documented the results of four high school class-

rooms that used the NIF as a pedagogical tool. Th ey

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 benefi ts 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 ).

Th e 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

Citizen-Centered Management 83

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. Th ese

approaches are each described in more detail in

Lukensmeyer and Torres (2006, 24) . An edited vol-

ume by Gastil and Levine (2005) presents case studies

of several of these processes, demonstrating the poten-

tial 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. Th is

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. Th e polling process results

in changed views among citizens

following deliberation of an issue,

with new opinions based on more

thoughtful and informed assess-

ments. Th ese results are consis-

tent 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 govern-

ment 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.

Th ere 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 simi-

lar 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

news paper 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.

Th e Yosemite example demonstrates how citizens can

engage to infl uence a policy or implementation deci-

sion. Negotiated rulemaking, particularly in the envi-

ronmental 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 commit-

ment to decisions made by nonexperts ( Harter 1997 ).

Similarly, Th omas (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

confl icted with the scientifi c

knowledge preferences of Mary-

land regulators, minimizing the

degree of trust between the two

sets of actors. Th is fi nding is consistent with Progres-

sive Era reforms that sought to make government

more scientifi c in its approach to solving public prob-

lems. Another example comes from Parkinson (2004) ,

who observes how the ideals of deliberative democracy

are diffi cult to achieve once they collide with the work

practices and assumptions of a new public manager.

Th ere may be, in this confl ict 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 con-

sensus-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 fi ve approaches to civic engagement

off er 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.

84 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

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 fi rmly against

democratic processes that threaten the prevailing ad-

ministrative 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 nonscientifi c forms of

knowledge for informing policy creation and imple-

mentation. 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.

Th e purpose of the engagement approach, as such, is

one factor that could determine the eff ort’s ability to

maximize citizen effi cacy, competence, and trust, as well

as government trust, responsiveness, and legitimacy.

Altogether, we identify fi ve factors that may infl uence

the degree of success of each approach: the size, scope,

purpose, location, and process employed to engage

citizens. Th ese fi ve 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 in-

volved 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). Th e diversity of engagement dimensions

also addresses the nature of the participants in terms

of the expertise they bring to the engagement eff ort

(Fischer 2000 ).

Th e question of who is involved is important when

considering approaches to civic engagement that lead

to a well-functioning citizen-centered collaborative

public management. Specifi cally, when addressing

issues of citizen trust, effi cacy, 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 participat-

ing 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 effi cacy. Th ey also found

that “most town meetings are not well-attended forums

that engage a large cross-section of the community.

Th e challenge before community leaders is to reach

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

It is normally assumed that engaged citizens’ involve-

ment 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. Th e 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 respon-

sibility; 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

aff airs of the public. Th e 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.

Th e costs of civic participation represent an important

consideration of civic engagement, particularly

around the dimension of who is concerned. Unless

they are structured adequately, civic engagement

eff orts can represent an undue burden on citizens

because of the time and other sacrifi ces required to

participate. Costs may rise and fall depending

on the location, duration, and required

time and resource investment. Each eff ort needs

to be assessed on its own terms to determine

the costs to citizens and how those costs might

aff ect the quality and quantity of participation

( Cooper 1979 ).

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

citizen-sponsored forms of civic engagement. Th e

federal government, through AmeriCorps or Teach for

America, off ers ways in which citizens can address

Citizen-Centered Management 85

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 diff erentiated from national interest groups.

Specifi cally, 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 eff orts may occur: policy initiation,

budgeting, or implementation. Th e major focus of

the Learning and Design Forum, discussed previ-

ously, is policy implementation, where the neighbor-

hood 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 collabora-

tive public management. Specifi cally, engagement

eff orts 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 eff ort, 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 of government is also a concern. Some approaches

to civic engagement may be more appropriate for

particular problems and diff erent levels of govern-

ment. Many engagement strategies focus on face-to-

face community settings or meetings with citizens and

city representatives ( Kathi and Cooper 2005 ). It is

diffi cult, 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.

Th is question is important in that it ultimately forces

evaluators and administrators of engagement eff orts

to confront the local context in purely local engage-

ment eff orts 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 fi fth 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. Th ese two modal foci have been further

dissected into diff erent approaches to citizen partici-

pation. 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 citi-

zen participation techniques, Rosener (1978) argues

that each citizen participation technique holds diff er-

ent benefi ts 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 fulfi lls the needs of 14 diff er-

ent functions of participation. Th ese functions in-

clude identifying alternatives, disseminating

information, facilitating advocacy, resolving confl ict,

and developing support. Th e 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 Th e conceptual model off ered here for framing civic

engagement in collaborative public management has

limited empirical verifi cation. We feel, based on the

literature cited, that the model is appropriate as an

initial means of understanding how collaborative

86 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

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 defi ne 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. Th e organizational

forms included citizen groups, special interest groups, citizen

committees, and task forces. Th e individual forms included

voting, attending meetings, campaigning or lobbying, and

demonstrating. Th e 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 identifi ed: 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 Offi ce .

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 F . 1908 . Th e Process of Government:

A Study of Social Pressures . Chicago : University of

Chicago Press .

Berry , Jeff rey M . , Kent E . Portney , and Ken Th omson .

1993 . Th e Rebirth of Urban Democracy .

Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press .

Boyte , Harry C . 1980 . Th e Backyard Revolution:

Understanding the New Citizen Movement .

Philadelphia : Temple University Press .

Brainard , Lori , and Patricia Siplon . 2004 . Toward

Nonprofi t Organization Reform in the Voluntary

Spirit: Lessons from the Internet . Nonprofi t and

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

Bryer , Th omas A . , and Terry L . Cooper . 2006a .

Diff erentiating 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 . Th eses of a New

Reformation: Th e 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 . Th e Hidden Price Tag:

Participation Costs and Health Planning . American

Journal of Public 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 Cliff s, NJ : Prentice

Hall .

— — — . 2005 . Introduction to Neighborhood

Government: Th e Local Foundations of Political Life ,

by Milton Kotler . Lanham, MD : Lexington Books .

Cornfi eld , Michael , and David M . Anderson , eds .

2003 . Th e Civic Web: Online Politics and

Democratic Values . Lanham, MD : Rowman &

Littlefi eld .

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

Public Participation in the United States , Interact:

Th e Journal of Public Participation 1 ( 1 ): 7 – 23 .

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

Click on Democracy: Th e Internet’s 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 Th inking 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 ].

Citizen-Centered Management 87

Doble , John , and Iara Peng . 1999 . Th e Enduring Eff ects

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: Th e 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: Th e 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 &

Littlefi eld .

Gastil , John and Peter Levine , eds . 2005 . Th e

Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for

Eff ective 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

Affl iction 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: Th e

Local Foundations of Political Life . New York :

Bobbs-Merrill .

— — — . 2005 . Neighborhood Government: Th e Local

Foundations of Political 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 , Th eodore J . 1969 . Th e End of Liberalism;

Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority .

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 . Beyond Adversary

Democracy . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

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

Administration: Th e Minnowbrook Perspective .

Scranton, PA : Chandler .

Marshall , Patricia , ed . 1977 . Citizen Participation

Certifi cation for Community Development: A Reader

on the Citizen Participation Process . Washington,

DC : National Association of Housing and

Redevelopment Offi cials .

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? Th e

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 Th ey Succeed, How

Th ey Fail . New York : Vintage Books .

Putnam , Robert D . 2000 . Bowling Alone: Th e Collapse

and Revival of American Community . New York :

Simon & Schuster .

Redman , Eric . 1973 . Th e Dance of Legislation . New

York : Simon & Schuster .

Rheingold , Howard . 2002 . Smart Mobs: Th e 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 Eff ectiveness? 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 . Th e Listening Bureaucrat:

Responsiveness in Public Administration . Public

Administration Review 54 ( 4 ): 364 – 69 .

Th omas , Craig W . 1997 . Public Management as

Interagency Cooperation: Testing Epistemic

Community Th eory at the Domestic Level . Journal

of Public Administration Research and Th eory 7 ( 2 ):

221 – 46 .

Truman , David B . 1951 . Th e Governmental Process;

Political Interests and Public Opinion . New York :

Alfred A. Knopf .

88 Public Administration Review • December 2006 • Special Issue

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 . Th e 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

Eff orts . Public Administration Review 65 ( 3 ): 273 – 85 .

Yang , Kaifeng , and Marc Holzer . 2006 . Th e

Performance – Trust Link: Implications for

Performance Measurement . Public Administration

Review 66 ( 1 ): 114 – 27 .