The future of public participation: Empirical analysis from the viewpoint of policy-makers

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

The future of public participation: Empirical analysis from the viewpoint of policy-makers Sascha Alexander Wagner a,⁎, Sebastian Vogt b, Rüdiger Kabst b a

University of Giessen, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department for Human Resource Management, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, and Entrepreneurship, Licher Straße 62, 35394 Gießen, / Germany University of Paderborn, Faculty of Business & Economics, Warburger Straße 100, 33098 Paderborn/Germany

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 August 2015 Received in revised form 12 February 2016 Accepted 17 February 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Futures studies Delphi survey Social change Public policy Public participation E-participation

a b s t r a c t In recent years, social changes have significantly increased the importance of public participation, and technological developments have delivered additional opportunities for participation in political decision-making processes in Western democracies. Nevertheless, despite discussions on this topic, little is known about the desirability of future developments in public decision-making from the viewpoint of policy-makers. Our study provides an evaluation of such future developments by allowing 171 German policy-makers to discuss ten projections concerning future public participation in an online-based Delphi survey. We thus obtain knowledge about expected developments, their desirability and their impact on political actions in the future. Moreover, on the basis of the collected data and 1415 text responses, we are able to identify the proponents and sceptics of these developments. We also determine the influential characteristics related to these developments and discuss power-related barriers to future developments. Thereby, our study provides guidance for policy-makers and civil servants. Moreover, we carry out the first comprehensive assessment of the future of public participation from the perspective of 171 elected representatives using a Delphi approach. The results obtained are not only of interest to German policy-makers; rather, they provide relevant information for all democratic countries with elements of public participation. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Since the very beginnings of direct democracy and public participation in policy-making during the times of the Greeks and Romans, the idea of the cooperative inclusion of the public in political decisionmaking processes has been subject to continuous change (Breindl and Francq, 2008). After a phase of little significance in the first half of the 20th century, public participation was demanded more intensely and has been employed to legitimize political decisions in Western democracies since the 1960s (Lourenço and Costa, 2007; Evans-Cowley and Hollander, 2010; Fedotova et al., 2012; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). In the following decades, this purpose slowly shifted, currently, the aims are to increase the quality of policy-making processes and to generate citizen support for decisions (Lourenço and Costa, 2007). In the 1990s, after the German reunification, this approach to public participation gained relevance in Germany. The newly formed German federal states anchored elements of participation within their constitutions on several institutional levels. Subsequently, and over time, the western federal

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.A. Wagner), [email protected] (S. Vogt), [email protected] (R. Kabst).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.010 0040-1625/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

states also added additional participation opportunities to their constitutions (Kost, 2005). In recent years, the demand for public participation has increased even further, and controversial discussions have taken place regarding how the demand can be met. On the one hand, social and technological changes have led to an altered self-confidence and a perception of entitlement within the population (Evans-Cowley and Hollander, 2010; Ganapati and Reddick, 2014; Macintosh and Whyte, 2008). On the other hand, those in the political and administrative spheres feel uncertain about how to respond to these changes without excessively undermining their own interests (Bertot et al., 2012; Picazo-Vela et al., 2012). Social processes of change manifest themselves in the form of increased citizen demands in the administrative and political spheres. The classical formal procedures of determining political representatives no longer satisfy citizens, and they demand additional informal opportunities to participate and represent their interests (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; King et al., 1998). Technological innovations have encouraged this development (Chadwick, 2003; Clarke et al., 2007; Kampen et al., 2006); Currently, communications and interactions between political stakeholders have become simplified through the use of new technologies, that offer numerous possibilities for application in the field of public participation (Macintosh and Whyte, 2008; Ganapati and Reddick, 2014; Ke and Wei, 2004).

66

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

These dynamics have a strong political impact. Elected political representatives are confronted with an increa sed demand for opportunities to participate, which means that they must consider the will of the people more than ever before, especially during legislative periods. Their potential anxiety about a loss or shift in power could be a driving force for avoiding future developments (Klages and Vetter, 2013; Ruhenstroh-Bauer, 2012). If political representatives truly fear losing power, such fears could lead to strong impairments in the progress of public participation. Because it is not entirely clear what specific developments can be expected in the field of public participation nor what opinions municipal policy-makers have about such developments, the power that policy-makers possess due to their professional status explains why the separate consideration of their evaluations of such developments is necessary. In the end, policy-makers decide whether voluntary, informal public participation measures will be implemented. The question of the future structure and the examination of potential barriers to the progression of public participation is therefore of strategic importance, especially for policy-makers and administration professionals, and requires a thorough examination. Despite extensive academic discussion about the impact of new technologies on the public sector, there are comparatively few findings regarding the impact of the incentive structures of individual stakeholder groups on the transformation process triggered by technical and social changes. The majority of the extant literature addresses the presentation of different participation methods and descriptions of their employment and their advantages (Webler et al., 2001; Hoskins and Kerr, 2012; Vogt et al., 2014). Other works are concerned with the analysis of technical, process-related and legal frameworks and problems (Bertot et al., 2012; Luna-Reyes et al., 2010). Moreover, Bertot et al. (2012) compile a comprehensive list of research questions that, from their point of view, need to be answered in the future. This list includes, inter alia, questions about governing and governance as well as the future design of democratic models. Thereby, the questions of who will have decision-making authority in the future and what a democratic transformation process will look like are identified as key policy and research questions. Specific questions concerning the incentive structures of individual stakeholders in the process as well as their impacts as potential barriers or hindrances to such developments are examined only sporadically, although various authors describe the potential of the described social and technological developments for the transformation of power relations as realistic and potentially problematic (Bertot et al., 2012; King et al., 1998; Picazo-Vela et al., 2012; Lathrop and Ruma, 2010; Noveck, 2009). Individual studies, such as the works by Hilbert et al. (2009) and Jenssen (2009), broach the issue of the acceptance of modern instruments for participatory decision-making by the public, but their findings relate to single instruments. Pedersen and Johannsen (2015) also address public participation and the increased potential to undermine representative governments. However, the focus of their work lies exclusively on the perceptions and assessments of one stakeholder group, namely, civil servants. Nevertheless, one implication of their work for future studies is to focus on research that sheds more light on the political logic behind future developments. Vogt and Haas (2015) and Walther et al. (2016) use a comparable approach and address the question of the impact of stakeholder groups. They examine administration professionals and citizens, thereby providing a conceptual research framework. However, the central stakeholder group of policy-makers is not addressed in their studies, although they suggest the analysis of this perspective as a task for future research. With our study, we tie in to the works of Vogt and Haas (2015) and Walther et al. (2016) and assess the future of public participation from the perspective of policy-makers. Table 1 shows the most relevant studies that contribute to the stream of research that we examine in our work. The aim of our study is to investigate how future developments in the field of public participation, such as those discussed in the literature, are evaluated from policy-makers' perspectives, and whether policy-

makers will promote or impede such developments. Furthermore, we will determine whether these policy-makers can be distinguished from each other based on certain characteristics. Supplementary to the works of Vogt and Haas (2015) and Walther et al. (2016), our work provides a valuable addition to the research data about the stakeholder group of policy-makers. This supplement allows for a holistic consideration of the topic from different perspectives while examining various incentive structures for future studies. Therefore, our study provides interesting information and guidance for policy-makers and civil servants alike. The results obtained are not only of interest to German policy-makers and administration professionals; rather, they provide a general view of the possible developments in democratic countries with elements of public decision-making. To obtain adequate knowledge to close the previously described research gap, we use primary data from a web-based, real-time Delphi survey from 2012. The survey was conducted with selected experts from local German politics. Ten projections about the future of public participation derived from the literature were discussed and assessed in an iterative, sequential process. The Delphi method provided the appropriate methodology for structuring and analyzing the expert opinions to ensure the anticipation of future developments (Landeta, 2006). The question of the future of public participation is a subject that especially strongly depends on the current participating agents and is influenced by them. The subject matter treated in our work is an area of the Social Sciences that is influenced by great emotions and differing incentives. The complexity resulting therefrom requires a methodology that is capable of creating a picture that is as valid as possible, while also taking all circumstances into account. The Delphi method appeared as best suited for our research project, since it provides, as described by Landeta (2006), reliable and valid results, if the given weaknesses of the methodology are faced accordingly. By complying with Landeta's notes on the successful and constructive implementation of a Delphi-study, we can utilize the strengths of the methodology and reduce weaknesses with appropriate measures. Thus, we could generate a highly involved panel of experts for our study. Moreover, we have assembled a qualified research team as a further measure for quality assurance. This team consists of scholars with great experience in the use of the Delphi-methodology as well as of experts from political consulting with key activities in public participation. In addition, as required by Landeta (2006), the employed future projections were generated on the basis of intense literature research and refined in expert workshops. 2. Projection development, methodology and survey procedure To achieve our primary goal of accurately simulating the future structure of public participation, the first step in our study is to define projections for its future. Therefore, we refer to 10 projections about the future of public participation in Germany developed by Vogt and Haas (2015). In their study, Vogt and Haas (2015) conduct a comprehensive literature review. The projections derived from the literature review consider currently discussed and established theories regarding the development of public participation. Vogt and Haas (2015) focus on evaluating the results and findings of current international research. The studies used in the analysis in this paper were identified via manual inquiries in research databases and libraries and have only been used after thorough examination. The references used for the analysis were thematic research papers and articles from specialists' books. The identification of relevant sources was performed in a standardized manner and with methodological rigor. Hence, the reliability and validity of the data collected can be guaranteed for the formulation of the Delphi survey (Von der Gracht and Darkow, 2010). The results of this process were discussed with German experts in political science and political practice. As a result, 10 projections were formulated. Afterward, the projections were examined with regard to their accuracy and specificity on the basis of the acknowledged literature on the Delphi procedure and

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

67

Table 1 Most relevant studies that have contributed to the presented research approach. No. Author, year

Journal

Title

Key results

01.

King et al. (1998)

Public Administration Review

The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration

02.

Vogt and Haas (2015)

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

The future of public participation in Germany: Empirical analyses of administration experts' assessments

03.

Hilbert et al. (2009)

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

• Provides a list of potential barriers for the implementation of public participation • Addresses the important aspect that the interests of individual groups can be highly contentious and have the potential to hinder participation processes • Examines the future of public participation from the exclusive perspective of administration experts • Suggests examinations of the viewpoints of other stakeholder groups, such as policy-makers and citizens • Addresses the acceptance of a single instrument for public decision-making by political representatives

04.

Walther et al. (2016)

05.

Bertot et al. (2012)

Government Information Quarterly

06.

Pedersen and Johannsen (2015)

Administration & Society

07.

Jenssen (2009)

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

Foresight tools for participative policy-making in inter-governmental processes in developing countries: Lessons learned from the eLAC Policy Priorities Delphi International Journal of A Strategic Foresight about Future Public Service Public Administration in the Developments from the Citizens' Perspective Digital Age

• Examines the future of public participation from the exclusive perspective of citizens • Suggests examinations of the viewpoints of other stakeholder groups, such as policy-makers and administration experts The impact of polices on government social media • Highlights opportunities and challenges in implementing ICT in usage: Issues, challenges, the public sector and recommendations • Provides a comprehensive list of key policies and research questions related to the topic Where and How You Sit: How Civil Servants View • Examines the potential of public participation to undermine Citizens' Participation representative democracies from the viewpoint of civil servants • Suggests future comparative studies that shed more light on the political logic of future developments Foresight and governance: how good can it get? The • Addresses aspects of the power relations between stakeholder case of stakeholder image construction in a municipal groups in public decision-making processes vision project

the guidelines developed by Salancik et al. (1971). Regarding the high methodological quality of the development process of Vogt and Haas (2015), we decided to use the same 10 projections to perform our Delphi survey. Table 2 displays the future projections for the underlying research, their short titles and the main references the projections are based on. The data collection for our Delphi procedure was conducted in 2012. In this context, a timeframe ending in 2020 was chosen for the projection's formulation. This timeframe was chosen because our Delphi panel consists of German policy-makers who face elections every 4 to 6 years; thus, a date close to an election could influence these policy-makers' opinions. Therefore, to encourage an open exchange

among our expert panelists, a time was chosen that would not be immediately influenced by political decisions (Murphy, 1989). Moreover, the 2020 timeframe was also selected to compare our projections with the official development strategies of the EU Commission, which uses the same timeframe for the establishment of its development plans (Europa 2020). Our analysis was conducted using a web-based, real-time Delphi survey (RT-Delphi). Based on the approach of the classical Delphi procedure developed in the 1960s by the RAND corporation, where forecasts are generated by conducting expert-group discussions and analyzing consensus (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963), the utilized RT-Delphi procedure represents a modernized, Internet-based version (Geist, 2010; Gnatzy

Table 2 Delphi projections for the future of public participation in 2020. No

Projection in 2020

Short title

References

01.

Municipalities offer their citizens a multitude of opportunities for participation.

Number of opportunities

02.

One central contact point is established where citizens can find all relevant participation opportunities.

Public contact point

03.

The processes of political decision making and forming of the political will are fully transparent and comprehensible to the citizens.

Transparency

04.

Due to an established culture of participation, citizens identify more strongly with political decisions.

Identification

05. 06.

As soon as a problem becomes known, citizens become involved in critical political processes. Early public participation functions to legitimate politics.

Earliness Legitimation

07.

Because of an increase in social interconnection due to social media, citizens of all socioeconomic categories receive additional qualification to become involved in participation processes. Public participation takes place primarily via the Internet.

Additional qualifications

King et al. (1998); Breindl and Francq (2008); Macintosh and Whyte (2008) Irvin and Stansbury (2004); Leggewie and Bieber (2001); Vogt et al. (2014) Bonsón et al. (2012); Kim et al. (2005)’ Bertot et al. (2012) Evans-Cowley and Hollander (2010); Dawes (2008); Klages and Vetter (2013) Rowe and Frewer (2000) Breindl and Francq (2008); Rowe and Frewer (2000) Bonsón et al. (2012); Evans-Cowley and Hollander (2010) Bertot et al. (2012); Bonsón et al. (2012); Fedotova et al. (2012); Phang and Kankanhalli (2008) Krek et al. (2012); Insua et al. (2008)

08. 09. 10.

Politicians acknowledge public participation as decision support to obtain information on public opinions without ceding decision competencies. Mobile applications, such as the management of compliance via mobile phones, are standard in participation projects.

Internet Decision support Mobile applications

68

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

et al., 2011). The Delphi method is a qualitative, heuristic procedure for the creation of forecasts. A turn-based, expert-group discussion takes place in which each anonymously participating group member receives feedback on his or her assessment via the evaluations of other experts in the discussion group. The goal is to identify whether a dissensus or a consensus for the individual projections appears (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Geist, 2010; Linstone and Turoff, 2011; Rowe and Wright, 1999; van de Linde and van der Duin, 2011). The methodology and approach of the Delphi procedure have been verified through scientific applications (Torres, 2005) and are considered reliable and valid (Landeta, 2006; Parente and Anderson-Parente, 2011). Particularly in the political and social sciences, the Delphi method is an established analysis technique (Herzog, 1993; McKenna, 1994; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Webler et al., 1995). The RT-Delphi method is different from the classic procedure due to its use of technology and the resulting acceleration of the discussion process, which allows for consideration by larger expert groups (Gordon and Pease, 2006). In cooperation with the Association of Municipal Councils of Germany (DSTGB), the next step in our research involved identifying 421 policy-makers who had previous experiences with implementing public participation opportunities in their municipalities and thus could be consulted as experts for our analysis. Each of the 421 policymakers is the highest political representative within his or her respective municipality. The sample consists of mayors, head mayors and district administrators. In the following step, the policy-makers recruited for the group discussion submitted their evaluations and estimations regarding the established projections from mid-June to mid-August 2012. The established projections were rated by the experts in terms of their expected probability (0% - 100%), their desirability (5-point Likert scale; 1 = low and 5 = high) and their expected political impact (5-point Likert scale; 1 = low and 5 = high). Each quantitative evaluation of the projections could be explained and justified using qualitative arguments (Geist, 2010; Gnatzy et al., 2011). In accordance with the Delphi procedure, all of the participants were informed about the other experts' summarized estimations in relation to individual projections. This procedure provided all of the experts with the opportunity to compare their quantitative and qualitative estimations with the summarized results of the expert group and, if necessary, to adjust their own evaluations. In addition to the quantitative and qualitative engagement with the established projections, the participants were asked to provide information about themselves and their occupations. With this information, further analyses could be conducted after the Delphi survey. The additional collected information, including sex (male or female) and age (20–30, 31–40, 41–50 or older than 50), is standard in participation research (Rijke, 2009; Emmer, 2001). In addition, we asked about the participants' position (a description) in their municipality and how long they had held that position (in years). Both the position and their duration in office could have an impact on the policy-makers' attitudes toward the subject matter. In this context, it was also determined whether these occupations were voluntary or full-time. Participants were also asked about the number of administrative staff and citizens in their municipalities because research findings have suggested that the size of a municipality (Caren, 2007; Folz and Hazlett, 1991; Oliver, 1999) and the size of its administration (Wolman, 1986) can impact the design and frequency of public participation. Another requested attribute was party affiliation because attitudes toward public participation could be affected by political orientations. Finally, the respective region of the municipality was determined (Northern Germany; Southern Germany; Eastern Germany; Western Germany). The region was recorded because research findings show that there are geographic differences with regard to attitudes toward political issues (Gornig and Häußermann, 1994). Subsequently, the quality of the generated data was evaluated. On this occasion, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used for a standard

distribution. To verify potential response bias, a non-response bias test should also be conducted (Cavana et al., 2001). For this purpose, we used the Mann–Whitney U-test to test the first one-third of the responses against the last one-third for significant differences (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). In addition to the expected probability, the political impact, and the desirability of each public participation projection, the interquartile range and the convergence rate were determined in the evaluation of the RT-Delphi. One aim of the Delphi methodology is to achieve a consensus among expert panelists via discussion and thus to reach an approximation from the experts' divergent attitudes at the beginning of the procedure (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Gupta and Clarke, 1996). The convergence rate helps to determine whether this approximation process has occurred and is represented by a change in the standard deviation of the respective projections during the processing rounds. The Delphi methodology uses the degree of consensus to provide a further indication of the distribution of the probability ratings of the entire expert group in addition to the immediate subjective likelihood of occurrence for each projection submitted by the experts. Therefore, as a measuring unit of consensus, the interquartile range acts as an indicator of the unity among the experts regarding the expected probability (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Gupta and Clarke, 1996). Based on specifications in the literature (De Vet et al., 2005; Scheibe et al., 2002; Spinelli, 2010), an interquartile range of less than or equal to 25 is generally accepted as evidence of an existing consensus. In addition to the analytical steps, which are directly associated with the RT-Delphi procedure, a group comparison was conducted using the participants' personal data. This analysis was applied to the projections for which no consensus among the experts could be reached during the procedure. The process involves investigating whether a consensus can be found in specific subgroups. Thus, if significant differences exist in the investigated group, the process determines whether a consensus regarding the projections has been achieved within subgroups. Based on the results of the group comparisons, a hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to examine whether the participants could be divided into clusters regarding their expected probabilities for the projections. According to Ogden et al. (2005), the application of the expected probability variable is expedient for the clustering of strategic circumstances. Using the Euclidian distance measurement, we apply the Ward linkage method for both cluster analyses. This method simultaneously subsumes cases into clusters and minimizes the growth of square arrow amounts. This methodology is particularly well suited for small sample sizes (Humphries et al., 2007; Tapio, 2003). 3. Analysis and results In cooperation with the German Association of Towns and Municipalities (DStGB), 421 political leaders from German municipalities were invited to participate in our study. Of the invited policy-makers, 171 agreed to actively participate in the Delphi survey (a participation rate of 41%). In comparison with other Delphi surveys, this participation rate represents a good, above-average result (Bardecki, 1984) and suggests considerable interest in the topic discussed. The 171 participants could take part in various discussion rounds and compare and adjust their estimations with those of the other experts. On average, the participants took part in 3 Delphi rounds. In each round, the quantitative evaluations could be substantiated with qualitative statements. In total, 1415 arguments were submitted, i.e., an average number of 8.3 statements per participant. The analysis of the study data regarding the presence of a standard distribution found that the available data were not normally distributed. On the basis of this finding and the small number of cases, nonparametric tests, such as the Mann–Whitney U-test and the Kruskal– Wallis H-test, were subsequently used because they do not require a standard distribution (Preble, 1984). Possible response bias was verified using a non-response bias test (Cavana et al., 2001); no significant

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

differences were observed, which leads to the conclusion that there were no differences between the participants and non-participants (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). 3.1. Delphi statistics First, we investigate the general study data across all of the participants and the range of the achieved consensus regarding the expected probability of each projection. Table 3 illustrates the results of the study. Columns 1 and 2 show the average of the expected probability (EP) for each projection. The first (EP First) and final evaluation stages (EP Final) are also presented. Table 3 includes the final evaluation of the political impact (I), the desirability of occurrence (D) and the interquartile range (IQR). Finally, the convergence rate (CV) is displayed. Projections 1 “Number of opportunities” (63%), 4 “Identification” (53%), 6 “Legitimation” (59%), 8 “Internet” (54%) and 9 “Decision support” (56%) show a likelihood of occurrence of more than 50%. Therefore, the panelists consider the occurrence of these projections more likely than their non-occurrence. The occurrence of the remaining projections, with EP values of less than 50%, is consequently rated as rather unlikely. This finding applies to projections 2 “Public contact point” (35%), 3 “Transparency” (37%), 5 “Earliness” (49%), 7 “Additional qualifications” (46%) and 10 “Mobile applications” (47%). Political impact and desirability were each measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very small impact and 5 = very high impact). Therefore, the strongest political impact is expected for projections 6 “Legitimation” (Mean = 3.7), 4 “Identification” (Mean = 3.6) and 1 “Number of opportunities” (Mean = 3.5). Desirability is highest for projections 4 “Identification” (Mean = 4.1), 6 “Legitimation” (Mean = 3.8) and 5 “Earliness” (Mean = 3.6). Positive desirability (D N 2.5) can be identified across all of the projections. The negative convergence rate figures indicate that an adjustment of expectations took place during the Delphi rounds for all of the projections. However, as an indicator of the outcome of the consensus process, the interquartile range only shows a value below the required threshold of 25 for the existence of a consensus for projection 9, “Decision support” (IQR = 20). The remaining projections' IQR values fall between 30 and 40 and do not indicate consensus building. 3.2. Consensus building within subgroups To investigate whether consensus building has taken place among the experts in subgroups, group comparisons are carried out below using the data collected about the participants. Significant group differences regarding each projection's expected probability can be identified. For group comparisons, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used for the comparison of two groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis H-test was used for comparisons between several groups. Table 4 shows the mean values for each subgroup and projection (M) and the level of significance (p) of each group comparison. In the case of groups with a significant difference, the IQR is also displayed. Table 4 exclusively contains projections for which one of the group comparisons shows a significant result.

Table 3 Delphi survey results. No.

Projection

N

EP Final

EP First

I

D

IQR

CV

01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10.

Number of opportunities Public contact point Transparency Identification Earliness Legitimation Additional qualifications Internet Decision support Mobile applications

171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171

63 35 37 53 49 59 46 54 56 47

63 36 38 53 49 58 47 55 56 46

3.5 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.2 3.5 2.8

3.5 2.9 3.7 4.1 3.6 3.8 3.4 2.9 3.6 2.7

30 33 30 40 40 30 30 35 20 38

−0.7% −3.5% −2.1% −1.2% −0.8% −3.3% −0.8% −0.5% −0.8% −1.4%

69

Significant differences can be observed in the examination of projection 1 “Number of opportunities”. For group comparisons via “Position”, “Number of inhabitants”, “Number of employees” and “Region”, significant response behavior differences can also be observed. A consensus is displayed for the “municipalities with 2,000 to 5,000 inhabitants” (IQR = 23) and “20,000 to 50,000 inhabitants” (IQR = 10.00) subgroups. Therefore, there is a consensus within these two subgroups regarding the projection that there will be a variety of participation opportunities in 2020. Consensus is also observed in the sample's distribution regarding the number of administrative staff: municipalities with more than 100 employees agree with respect to projection 1 (IQR = 23). Regarding projection 4, a consensus among the female participants can be identified (IQR = 18). The female panelists consider the occurrence of projection 4 more likely (EP final = 66) and more desirable (D = 4.3) and expect it to have a stronger political impact (I = 4.3) than do their male colleagues. The group comparisons concerning projection 5 show significant differences with regard to the size of the municipality and the number of administrative staff. A consensus regarding expected probability cannot be identified. With respect to the subgroup comparison for projection 7, significant differences between the participants' responses can be identified in accordance with their position; thus, a consensus within this subgroup is not achieved. In their evaluation of projection 8, female participants expect a higher probability (EP final =67) than do their male colleagues (EP final = 53). The estimation of the political impact in projection 8 (I = 3.6) is also rated higher by the female participants. The same applies to the question of the projection's desirability (D = 3.3). Thus, the female participants reach a consensus regarding projection 8 (IQR = 20). With regard to projection 10, significant differences within the distributions of political parties, municipality sizes and administration sizes can be identified. Thus, no consensus can be found in any of the investigated group distributions. All of the consensus values (IQR) exceed the required indicator value. 3.3. Hierarchical cluster analysis for proponents and skeptics Based on the presented group comparisons, in our next analysis step, we determine whether the panelists can be divided into different, previously invisible groups with regard to their evaluations of public participation. Hence, we conduct a hierarchical cluster analysis of all of the participants using each projection's expected probability. The analysis of the dendrogram indicates a two-cluster solution. Because using a dendrogram to determine the number of clusters is subjective and does not clearly indicate a solution (Humphries et al., 2007), a Scree plot was created as a complement, which also suggests a twocluster solution. Table 5 shows the mean value of the final estimation regarding the expected probability (EP) per cluster. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the mean values of the expected probability per cluster results in a highly significant difference between the two clusters for each projection. Based on the expected probabilities displayed in Table 5, the first cluster (N = 136) shows a significantly higher average for each projection's expected probability than does the second cluster (N = 35). To answer the question about the role of municipal politics in the implementation of future platforms for public participation, this result implies a division of the panelists into proponents and skeptics of the developments described in the projections. Therefore, the characteristics that distinguish the two clusters from each other are investigated. Both clusters are compared using the characterization variables previously employed for the group comparisons. This comparison shows highly significant differences (p = 0.000) in the cluster composition in terms of the number of inhabitants and administrative staff within the municipalities and in terms of full-time or voluntary occupation. The cluster of skeptics clearly represents a significantly higher proportion of policy-makers from small municipalities. In the municipalities with up to 20 administrative staff, 69% belong to the cluster of skeptics,

70

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

Table 4 Comparison of mean values of the expected probability of occurrence.a), b), c), d), e) Mean in % (M) and significance level (ρ)

Projection 1: Number of opportunities

Groups

N

M

ρ

IQR

M

ρ

130 20 11 10 159 12 64 29 59 9 7 44 34 59 23 11 31 36 44 17 42 34 53 19 65

64 50 70 69 62 71 65 63 61 59 58 48 68 63 74 74 49 62 64 66 70 56 71 60 60

.099*

30 44 30 41

52 52 65 56 50 66 54 57 48 56 72 47 51 55 58 59 52 47 53 62 56 53 52 53 53

.313

Positionb

Gendera Political partyb

Number of inhabitantsb

Number of employeesb

Regionb

a b c d e

Mayor Local Mayor Head Mayor Others Male Female No party SPDc CDUd Freie Wählere Others Below 2000 2000–5000 5,000–20,000 20,000–50,000 50,000 or more 0–5 5–20 20–50 50–100 100 or more Northern Germany Southern Germany Eastern Germany Western Germany

Projection 4: Identification

.247 .880

.000***

.013 **

.008***

34 22 30 10 40 40 30 30 40 23 45 30 40 30

Projection 5: Earliness

.037 ** .144

.291

.378

.994

IQR

40 18

M

ρ

50 40 58 49 58 48 51 55 47 36 46 40 50 53 59 49 40 46 54 49 54 50 54 44 47

.263

Projection 7: Additional qualifications IQR

.846 .175

.024**

.065*

.390

34 43 37 35 45 40 48 35 38 35

Projection 8: Internet

M

ρ

IQR

M

ρ

45 48 65 41 46 52 48 49 42 48 55 43 49 47 52 39 45 44 47 51 47 49 48 50 43

.049*

30 30 30 31

55 47 57 59 53 67 56 55 55 34 54 48 54 59 55 55 48 52 60 50 58 52 57 49 55

.398

.404 .241

.482

.851

.662

.043 ** .238

.214

.173

.723

IQR

35 20

Projection 10: Mobile applications M

ρ

49 39 45 36 47 38 52 42 47 26 44 35 50 50 57 41 36 45 49 46 55 44 48 41 48

.187

IQR

.212 .054*

.005***

.047**

38 50 30 35 65 34 45 40 30 55 35 48 54 28 35

.634

Significance of group difference according to the Mann–Whitney U-test; * p b 0.1; ** p b 0.05; ***p b 0.01 Significance of group difference according to the Kruskal-Wallis H-test; * p b 0.1; ** p b 0.05; ***p b 0.01 The Social Democratic Party of Germany (German: Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands). The Christian Democratic Union of Germany (German: Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands). Free voters (German: Freie Wähler).

and 32% belong to the cluster of proponents. This difference also exists in relation to the number of inhabitants. In the cluster of skeptics, 74% of the municipalities have less than 5,000 inhabitants, while these small municipalities account for only 38% of the cluster of proponents. Both clusters also differ in terms of the panelists' occupations: 51% of the skeptics are volunteers, while only 19% of the proponents are volunteers. 4. Discussion and conclusion The aim of our study was to define projections regarding possible future developments in public participation and to have them evaluated by selected experts from the political sphere. We were then able to draw a precise picture of the expected opportunities for public participation in the year 2020. First, we examined the general Delphi results and the extent of consensus building among the selected experts.

Table 5 Quantitative data by cluster and projection. Cluster Label

Cluster 1 – Proponents

Cluster 2 – Skeptics

Number of respondents (N)

136

35

Projections

Mean Values of EP final

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 No. 10

70 38 40 57 55 65 50 59 60 52

Number of opportunities Contact point for public Transparency Identification Earliness Legitimation Additional qualifications Internet Decision support Mobile applications

34 22 29 35 28 34 34 36 38 26

Based on these examinations, we analyzed whether there were differing estimations of future developments based on personal factors, such as age, political affiliation and political office held, and whether a consensus or a dissensus could be identified within subgroups. In this context, the question arose about whether proponents or skeptics could be identified by subgroups and what characteristics might define such subgroups. The overall results of the Delphi survey presented in Table 3 showed a comparatively high expected probability of significantly more than 50%, which confirms the relevance of the postulated projections. Although the second half of the projections display expected probabilities of below 50%, the values have a minimum EP of 35% and are therefore relatively high. Hence, the projections' expected probabilities can generally be rated as high. Only projection 9 shows an interquartile range below 25; hence, a consensus among all of the experts can be identified. The IQR values of the remaining projections range between 30 and 40 and thus show a higher distribution in the responses. This distribution indicates different evaluations of the expected probabilities. Consequently, a general tendency toward high expected probabilities can be observed, but no specific range of values can be defined for most of the projections. Nevertheless, the results of our Delphi discussion lead to the strong assumption that there will be a variety of public participation opportunities in 2020. These opportunities will be used to support and legitimize decisions at an early stage and, in turn, result in a stronger identification by the population with the decisions reached (Dawes, 2008; Holzer et al., 2004) and help to create an established participation culture (Klages and Vetter, 2013; Lowndes et al., 2001). These aspects are of central importance for the strategic orientation of future generations of policy-makers because, as noted by King et al. (1998), future electoral success will depend on the availability of participation opportunities. This importance is also underscored by the high evaluation of political impact in our results. The results of our expert discussion also

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

support another theory discussed in the literature: the Internet as a medium will gain further importance, and policy-makers are aware of the Internet's future role (King, 2007). Increased transparency in political actions (Bonsón et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2005) and the development of additional qualifications for the public's participation in political decisions (Dapp and Geiger, 2011), as different sources expect, are also supported by our results with an average expected probability and a high desirability. Finally, according to the discussions among the ruling policy-makers regarding strategic considerations, the “Mobile applications” and “Public contact point” projections will likely be relatively neglected. The distribution of the responses can partly be traced back to the participants' personal characteristics. The results of the group comparisons presented in Table 5 indicate that there are significant differences in the responses with regard to the “Number of opportunities”, “Earliness”, “Identification” and “Mobile applications” projections. In particular, the “Number of opportunities” projection reveals that participants from larger municipalities provide higher expected probability values. This result corresponds with findings from the literature in which those from larger municipalities expect a strong establishment of participation opportunities (Breindl and Francq, 2008; King et al., 1998; Rowe and Frewer, 2000). The measurement of the intensity of the approximation process via the convergence rate (CV) provides another indication regarding the cause of the response distribution. In this case, we found that all of the projections have negative convergence rates, which indicates that adjustment processes have taken place. Nevertheless, the convergence rates and thus the amount of evaluation adjustments are relatively low. Although the participants, on average, took part in 3 discussion rounds and exchanged a total of 1415 arguments (an average of 8.3 arguments per participant), there were only minor adjustments in the projection evaluations, which indicates the policymakers' firm attitudes toward the issue of public participation. The results of our cluster analysis show that proponents and skeptics of public participation developments can be distinguished from each other based on certain characteristics. In this context, the size of the municipality is an influential factor in the evaluation of future public participation opportunities. Our cluster analysis provides a two-cluster solution that consists of a cluster of proponents and a cluster of skeptics. A comparison of the two clusters in terms of municipality size results in a highly significant difference. In the cluster of skeptics, 68% of the policy-makers hold office in municipalities with few administrative staff and inhabitants. Policy-makers from smaller municipalities thus more often belong to the cluster of skeptics. This result is consistent with our theoretical approach; experts from larger municipalities recognize the need for and benefits of participation opportunities and are confronted with citizens' demands for additional participation platforms to a greater extent than those from smaller municipalities (Breindl and Francq, 2008; King et al., 1998; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Weber et al., 2015). Recent research results show that the public demand for participation platforms largely depends on the public administration's implementation options (Holtkamp and Bathge, 2012). In this context, larger municipalities, which have appropriate resources to realize such platforms, are under greater pressure to take action. Smaller municipalities are characterized by a shorter distance between the political actors and the population, and the citizens come into contact with the political representatives more frequently and directly (Van De Walle and Bouckaert, 2003). The findings gathered in our study bring up an interesting paradox that underscores the relevance of our research approach across different stakeholder groups. On the one hand, the chosen policy-makers evaluate the developments as positive and desirable, while on the other hand, the implementation, or rather the establishment of participation opportunities, is not well advanced in many areas. Therefore, the question arises why policy-makers, with their substantial impact, have not more strongly promoted the establishment of such participation opportunities.

71

To resolve this paradox, three aspects need to be considered. First, the policy-makers' assessments of EP, I and D need to be examined in the context of other stakeholders. To evaluate the assessments, reference values are needed, which we can obtain from the studies by Vogt and Haas (2015) and Walther et al. (2016). In a future study, the results for all three stakeholder groups can be compared to determine whether the assessments of the policy-makers are comparatively positive or negative. The second aspect that is of relevance in this context is the necessity of cooperation between the three stakeholder groups for a successful establishment of participation opportunities. In this regard, cooperation means that there needs to be political will on the one hand and the willingness to implement the relevant project on the part of the administration on the other hand; conflicts of interests that have a negative impact on the establishment of such opportunities can certainly occur in this regard (Bertot et al., 2012; King et al., 1998; Vogt and Haas, 2015). In the next step, the population needs to show an interest in the participation opportunity and also to seize it. However, such activity requires the opportunity to be both relevant and attractive, and there must also be sufficient trust within the population (Zuiderwijk et al., 2015). If there is no support from one of the stakeholders, implementation will be impeded. Another cause of the current state of the distribution of participation opportunities could also be the complex interplay among the different stakeholders. As mentioned above, dependence on the provided resources needs to be viewed as a third explanation (Holtkamp and Bathge, 2012). To increase the establishment of participation opportunities, competences and resources that heretofore might have been missing need to be supplied. A participation approach only gains in perceived relevance due to growing social pressure from the population, and only then will the necessary resources be provided. In this context, the impact of the size of the municipality and the linked resources become clear once again. The results of our study show a strong evaluation of future developments in the area of public participation and provide indications of influencing factors and impediments in such development. Furthermore, the results provide a basis for comparisons with other stakeholder groups regarding a comprehensive answer to the question of what public participation will look like in 2020. 5. Limitations and future research The present study provides important insights regarding future developments in the field of public participation from the perspective of policy-makers. Nevertheless, our study has limitations. Thus, we present the most relevant limitations and describe the study's implications for future research. First, our study does not claim completeness in terms of the selection of the projections discussed. The projections used in this study were created by Vogt and Haas (2015) on the basis of extensive analyses of the relevant literature. We employed these projections in our study because we are convinced that they will have the strongest impact in the future. Therefore, other aspects discussed in the literature have been disregarded in our study. Future research should bear in mind current trends and consider social and technological developments. Second, our Delphi survey exclusively refers to Germany. The political system in Germany has its own characteristics, and the results are thus not necessarily generalizable to other countries (Hendriks and Tops, 1999). Indeed, the results obtained may deviate from those in other countries. The national focus should therefore be extended to other countries in follow-up studies. These studies should consider country-specific structures in terms of the culture and political system and make future developments visible across national borders. Third, the Delphi survey focused on discussions among political experts. Thus, within our study, political representatives were exclusively considered. With this work, we complete the research series about the future of public participation in Germany. In combination with the

72

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73

work of Vogt and Haas (2015) and Walther et al. (2016), a comparative study that considers all of the stakeholders in public participation should be drawn up in the future. Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable findings regarding the developments that policy-makers expect in the field of public participation by 2020.

Acknowledgements The data collection of this analysis is partly based on the support of further partners. We would like to thank the Institute for Future Studies and Knowledge Management (IFK) of the EBS Business School, Germany for making available the RT-Delphi tool developed at the institute. Further, we would like to thank the employees of the German Association of Towns and Municipalities (DStGB) for their support for the identification of experts.

References Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14, 396–402. Bardecki, M.J., 1984. Participants’ response to the Delphi method: An attitudinal perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 25 (3), 281–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00401625(84)90006-4. Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Hansen, D., 2012. The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Gov. Inf. Q. 29 (1), 30–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., Flores, F., 2012. Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov. Inf. Q. 29 (2), 123–132. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001. Breindl, Y., Francq, P., 2008. Can Web 2.0 applications save e-democracy? A study of how new internet applications may enhance citizen participation in the political process online. Int. J. Electron. Democr. 1 (1), 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJED.2008.021276. Caren, N., 2007. Big City, big turnout? electoral participation in American cities. J. Urban Aff. 29 (1), 31–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00321.x. Cavana, R., Delahaye, B.L., Sekeran, U., 2001. Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. John Wiley & Sons, Australia. Chadwick, A., 2003. Bringing E-democracy back In: why it matters for Future research on E-governance. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21 (4), 443–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0894439303256372. Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., Westmarland, L., 2007. Creating citizenconsumers: Changing publics and changing public services. Pine Forge Press. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 9 (3), 458–467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458. Dapp, M.M., Geiger, C.P., 2011. Munich open Government day—bürgerschaftliches engagement im web 2.0. HMD Prax. Wirtschaftsinformatik 48 (4), 26–36. Dawes, S.S., 2008. The evolution and continuing challenges of E-governance. Public Adm. Rev. 68, S86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x. De Vet, E., Brug, J., Nooijer, J., de Dijkstra, A., Vries, De, Nanne, K., 2005. Determinants of forward stage transitions: a Delphi study. Health Educ. Res. 20 (2), 195–205. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg111. der Gracht, Von, Darkow, I.-L., 2010. Scenarios for the logistics services industry: A Delphi-based analysis for 2025. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 127 (1), 46–59. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.013. Emmer, M., 2001. Elektronische Agora? Digitale Spaltung? Der Einfluss des Internetzugangs auf politische Aktivitäten der Bürger. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. 46th International Scientific Colloquium. Illmenau Technical University. Evans-Cowley, J., Hollander, J., 2010. The new generation of public participation: internetbased participation tools. Plan. Pract. Res. 25 (3), 397–408. Fedotova, O., Teixeira, L., Alvelos, H., 2012. E-participation in Portugal: evaluation of government electronic platforms. Procedia Technol. 5, 152–161. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.protcy.2012.09.017. Folz, D.H., Hazlett, J.M., 1991. Public participation and recycling performance: explaining program success. Public Adm. Rev. 51 (6), 526–532. Ganapati, S., Reddick, C., 2014. The use of ICT for Open Government in U.S. Municipalities. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 37 (3), 365–387. Geist, M.R., 2010. Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: a comparison of two studies. Eval. Program Plann. 33 (2), 147–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. evalprogplan.2009.06.006. Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, Heiko, Darkow, I.-L., 2011. Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach - A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (9), 1681–1694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.006. Gordon, T., Pease, A., 2006. RT Delphi: An efficient, “round-less” almost real time Delphi method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (4), 321–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2005.09.005. Gornig, M., Häußermann, H., 1994. Regionen im Süd/Nord-und West/Ost-Gefälle. Kommunalpolitik. Springer, pp. 155–175.

Gupta, U.G., Clarke, R.E., 1996. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 53 (2), 185–211. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00094-7. Hendriks, F., Tops, P., 1999. Between democracy and efficiency: trends in local Government reform in The Netherlands and Germany. Public Adm. 77 (1), 133–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00147. Herzog, R.J., 1993. Building practitioner-held theory through triangulation. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 3 (4), 431–456. Hilbert, M., Miles, I., Othmer, J., 2009. Foresight tools for participative policy-making in inter-governmental processes in developing countries: lessons learned from the eLAC policy priorities Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (7), 880–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.01.001. Holtkamp, L., Bathge, T., 2012. Lokale Bürgerbeteiligung in der Haushaltskrise. der moderne staat-Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 5 (1). Holzer, M., Lung-Teng, H., Seok-Hwi, s., 2004. Digital Government and Citizen Participation in the United States. In: Pavlichev, A., Garson, G.D. (Eds.), Digital government: principles and best practices. Igi Global, pp. 306–319. Hoskins, B., Kerr, D., 2012. Final study summary and policy recommendations: participatory citizenship in the European Union. Humphries, A.S., Towriss, J., Wilding, R., 2007. A taxonomy of highly interdependent, supply chain relationships. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 18 (3), 385–401. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1108/09574090710835129. Insua, D.R., Kersten, G.E., Rios, J., Grima, C., 2008. Towards decision support for participatory democracy. IseB 6 (2), 161–191. Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is It Worth the effort? Public Adm. Rev. 64 (1), 55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004. 00346.x. Jenssen, S., 2009. Foresight and governance: how good can it get? the case of stakeholder image construction in a municipal vision project. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 21 (8), 971–986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320903262397. Kampen, J.K., Bouckaert, G., Van De Walle, S., 2006. Assessing the relation between satisfaction with Public Service delivery and trust In government. the impact of the predisposition of citizens Toward Government on evalutations of its Performance. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 29 (4), 387–404. Ke, W., Wei, K.K., 2004. Successful e-government in Singapore. Commun. ACM 47 (6), 95–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/990680.990687. Kim, P.S., Halligan, J., Cho, N., Oh, C.H., Eikenberry, A.M., 2005. Toward participatory and transparent governance: report on the sixth Global Forum on reinventing Government. Public Adm. Rev. 65 (6), 646–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210. 2005.00494.x. King, S.F., 2007. Citizens as customers: exploring the future of CRM in UK local government. Gov. Inf. Q. 24 (1), 47–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.02.012. King, C.S., Feltey, K.M., Susel, B.O., 1998. The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Adm. Rev. 58 (4), 317–326. Klages, H., Vetter, A., 2013. Bürgerbeteiligung auf kommunaler Ebene: Perspektiven für eine systematische und verstetigte Gestaltung (edition sigma). Kost, A., 2005. Direkte Demokratie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—eine Einführung. Direkte Demokratie in den deutschen Ländern. Springer, pp. 7–13. Krek, J., Losito, B., Ridley, R., Hoskins, B., 2012. Good practices report: participatory citizenship in the European Union. Landeta, J., 2006. Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73 (5), 467–482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002. Lathrop, D., Ruma, L., 2010. Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. O′Reilly Media, Inc. Leggewie, C., Bieber, C., 2001. Interaktive Demokratie. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 41 (42), 37–45. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 2011. Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (9), 1712–1719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09. 011. Lourenço, R.P., Costa, J.P., 2007. Incorporating citizens’ views in local policy decision making processes. Decis. Support. Syst. 43 (4), 1499–1511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. dss.2006.06.004. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., Stoker, G., 2001. Trends in Public participation: part 2 - citizens’ perspectives. Public Adm. 79 (2), 445–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299. 00264. Luna-Reyes, L.F., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Celorio-Mansi, J.A., 2010. Reporte de Resultados De Talleres Con Directores De Informática Municipales. Universidad de las Américas Puebla-INFOTEC, Cholula, Mexico. Macintosh, A., Whyte, A., 2008. Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2 (1), 16–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 17506160810862928. McKenna, H.P., 1994. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? J. Adv. Nurs. 19 (6), 1221–1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994. tb01207.x. Murphy, J.J., 1989. Identifying strategic issues. Long Range Plan. 22 (2), 101–105. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(89)90128-3. Noveck, B.S., 2009. Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press. Ogden, J.A., Petersen, K.J., Carter, J.R., Monczka, R.M., 2005. Supply Management strategies for the Future: A Delphi study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 41 (3), 29–48. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1055-6001.2005.04103004.x. Oliver, J.E., 1999. The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on local civic participation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 43 (1), 186–212. Parente, R., Anderson-Parente, J., 2011. A case study of long-term Delphi accuracy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (9), 1705–1711. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2011.07.005.

S.A. Wagner et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 106 (2016) 65–73 Pedersen, K.H., Johannsen, L., 2015. Where and how you sit: how civil servants view citizens’ participation. Adm. Soc. 48 (1), 104–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399714555753. Phang, C.W., Kankanhalli, A., 2008. A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Commun. ACM 51 (12), 128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1409360.1409385. Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., Luna-Reyes, L.F., 2012. Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 29 (4), 504–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.002. Preble, J.F., 1984. The selection of delphi panels for strategic planning purposes. Strateg. Manag. J. 5 (2), 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050206. Rijke, J.de., 2009. Politische partizipation jugendlicher und junger erwachsener: altes und neues. Politik-Wissenschaft-Medien. Springer, pp. 221–237. Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25 (1), 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101. Rowe, G., Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15 (4), 353–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7. Ruhenstroh-Bauer, P., 2012. Angst vor Bürgerbeteiligung? Bürgerproteste im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Medien: Beiträge zur 7. Fachtagung des DFPK. In: Appenzeller, S., Flemming, F., Küpper, L. (Eds.), Bürgerproteste im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Medien: Beiträge zur 7. Fachtagung des DFPK, Frank & Timme GmbH, pp. 37–41. Salancik, J.R., Wenger, W., Helfer, E., 1971. The construction of Delphi event statements. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 3, 65–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0040-1625(71)80004-5. Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., Schofer, J., 2002. Experiments in Delphi methodology. In: Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (Eds.), The Delphi Method, pp. 262–287. Spinelli, T., 2010. The Delphi decision-making process. J. Psychol. 113 (1), 73–80. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9923559. Tapio, P., 2003. Disaggregative policy Delphi. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70 (1), 83–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00177-9. Torres, L., 2005. Service charters: Reshaping Trust in Government-the case of Spain. Public Adm. Rev. 65 (6), 687–699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00498.x. van de Linde, E., van der Duin, P., 2011. The Delphi method as early warning. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (9), 1557–1564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011. 07.014. Van De Walle, S., Bouckaert, G., 2003. Public Service Performance and trust In government: the problem of causality. Int. J. Public Adm. 26 (8–9), 891–913. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352. Vogt, S., Haas, A., 2015. The future of public participation in Germany: empirical analyses of administration experts’ assessments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 98, 157–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.013. Vogt, S., Förster, B., Kabst, R., 2014. Social Media and e-participation. Int. J. Public Adm. Digit. Age 1 (3), 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.2014070105.

73

Walther, F., Vogt, S., Kabst, R., 2016. A strategic foresight about Future Public Service developments from the citizens’ perspective. Int. J. Public Adm. Digit. Age 3 (1), 19–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJPADA.2016010102. Weber, H.I., Vogt, S., Eberz-Weber, L.-M., Steinmetz, H., Wagner, S.A., Walther, F., Weber, P., Kabst, R., 2015. Participatory budgeting. Int. J. Public Adm. Digit. Age 2 (2), 33–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijpada.2015040103. Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., Renn, O., 1995. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 15 (5), 443–463. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E. Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R., 2001. What is a good public participation process? five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manag. 27 (3), 435–450. Wolman, H., 1986. Innovation in local Government and Fiscal austerity. J. Public Policy 6 (02), 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006474. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2015. Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Gov. Inf. Q. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.005. Sascha Alexander Wagner is founder and Chief Executive Officer of the eOpinio GmbH. He is also an external doctoral student at the faculty of Human resource management, medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurship, Justus-Liebig-University in Gießen. His research work is focused on the evaluation of web 2.0 and online based communication instruments, their chances and opportunities for public participation projects and its legal boundaries in Germany and the EU. Sebastian Vogt is founder and Chief Executive Officer of the eOpinio GmbH and affiliated researcher at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Paderborn, Germany. He holds a doctoral degree in economic sciences, a Diploma in economic sciences and a Bachelor in Business Administration from JLU Giessen University (GER). His main research interests include e-government (especially e-participation), corporate foresight and innovation management. Rüdiger Kabst is Professor and Chair of International Business at the Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, University of Paderborn/Germany. His main research interests include International Management, Human Resource Management, Entrepreneurship as well as eGovernment and eParticipation. He was a visiting research scholar at the University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign, at the University of California/Berkeley, and at EWHAUniversity in Seoul/South Korea. His research has been published in journals like Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies, International Business Review, Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Review or Journal of Managerial Psychology.