Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:37:49.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Diversity of Public Participation Tools: Complementing or Competing With One Another?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2012

Laurence Bherer  and
Sandra Breux
Laurence Bherer*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Sandra Breux*
Affiliation:
INRS-UCS
*
Laurence Bherer, Department of Political Science, University of Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-Ville Montréal QC, H3C 3J7, [email protected]
Sandra Breux, Institut national de la recherche scientifique-Centre Urbanisation, Culture et Société, 385 Sherbrooke st., Montréal, Qc, H2X 1E3, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The objective of this article is to understand the relations of complementarity and competition between participation mechanisms, a topic that has as yet attracted little empirical investigation, although there is discussion on this issue in the public participation literature. We study the cases of Montreal and Quebec City, where, since the amalgamations in 2002, a public assembly/referendum process has been added to the participation tools already in place in the two cities (public hearings and neighbourhood councils). What can we learn from these two cases about the impact on public participation of the diversification of tools? To explore this subject, we have chosen to use a policy instrument framework to analyze three factors that affect the interactions between policy instruments: the design of the participation tools, the meaning that the actors give to these instruments, and the institutional context in which they are implemented.

Résumé. L'objectif de cet article est de comprendre les relations de complémentarité et de compétition entre les dispositifs de participation publique, un thème peu traité empiriquement, même s'il y a des discussions sur cet enjeu dans la documentation sur la participation publique. Notre enquête porte sur le cas de Montréal et de Québec où, depuis les fusions municipales de 2002, un processus d'assemblée publique/référendum a été ajouté aux outils de participation déjà en place (audiences publiques et conseils de quartier). Qu'est-ce que ces deux cas peuvent nous apprendre sur les effets de la multiplication des dispositifs participatifs sur la pratique de la participation publique? Pour explorer ce sujet, nous analysons 3 facteurs qui influencent les interactions entre les instruments de politiques publiques : le design des dispositifs participatifs, la compréhension que les acteurs ont de ces instruments et le contexte institutionnel dans lequel ils sont mis en œuvre.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 379 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, William, Lon, Addams and Davis, Brian. 2005. “Critical Factors for Enhancing Municipal Public Hearings.” Public Administration Review 65 (4): 490–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bherer, Laurence. 2006. “Le cheminement du projet de conseil de quartier à Québec (1965–2003) : un outil pour contrer l'apolitisme municipal?” Politiques et sociétés 25 (1): 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, Lisa, Nabatchi, Tina and O'Leary, Rosemary. 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration Review 65 (5): 547–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Patrick and Davis, Glen. 2002. “Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 61 (1): 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressers, Hans and O'Toole, Laurence J. Jr. 2005. “Instrument Selection and Implementation in a Networked Context.” In Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, ed. Eliadis, Pearl, Hill, Margaret M. and Howlett, Michael. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Collin, Jean-Pierre and Robertson, Mélanie. 2005. “The Borough System of Consolidated Montreal: Revisiting Governance in a Composite Metropolis.” Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (3): 307–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2003. “Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review, December: 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, Archon and Wright, Erik Olin. 2001. “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance.” Politics & Society 29 (1): 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giroux, Lorne. 2000. “Le réglement de zonage selon la Loi sur l'aménagement et l'urbanisme.” Revue de droit de l'Université de Sherbrooke 31: 77–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunningham, Neil and Sinclair, Darren. 1999. “Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection.” Law & Policy 21 (1): 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamel, Pierre. 2009. Ville et débat public: Agir en démocratie. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2009. “Deliberative Governance in Context of Power.” Policy & Society 28 (3): 173–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Carolyn M. and Carson, Lyn. 2008. “Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy.” Policy Science 41: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, Yilin and Brewer, Gene. 2010. “Substitution and Supplementation between Co-Functional Policy Instruments: Evidence from State Budget Stabilization Practices.” Public Administration Review November/December: 914–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, Michael. 2001. “Managing the ‘Hollow State’: Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance.” Public Administration of Canada 43 (4): 412–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, Michael. 2011. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher and Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. “Disagreement and Consensus: The Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation.” Journal of Public Deliberation 1 (1): 348–64.Google Scholar
Lando, Tom. 2003. “The Public Hearing Process: A Tool for Citizen Participation or a Path toward Citizen Alienation?” National Civic Review 92 (1): 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Ute and Laidley, Jennefer. 2008. “Old Mega-Projects Newly Packaged? Waterfront Redevelopment in Toronto.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (4): 786–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Peters, B. Guy. 1989. “Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts.” Journal of Public Policy 9 (1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Graham P. 2009. “Public and User Participation in Public Service Delivery: Tensions in Policy and Practice.” Sociology Compass 3 (2): 310–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonjon, Magali. 2005. “Professionnels de la participation : savoir gérer son image militante.” Politix 70: 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. 2010. “Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment: Purposes, Implications, and Lessons for Public Policy Making.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (1) : 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office de consultation publique de Montréal (OCPM). 2005. Rapport annuel, 2004. Ville de Montréal: OCPM.Google Scholar
Patsias, Caroline, Latendresse, Anne and Bherer, Laurence. Forthcoming. “Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the Light of Empowered Participatory Governance.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 2002. “The Politics of Tool Choice.” In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. Salomon, Lester M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierre, Jon. 2009. “Reinventing Governance, Reinventing Democracy?” Policy & Politics 37 (4): 591–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J.. 2005. “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.” Science Technology & Human Values 30 (2): 251–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Graham. 2005. Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations From Around the World. UK Power Inquiry.Google Scholar
Trépanier, Marie-Odile and Alain, Martin. 2008. “Planification territoriale, pratiques démocratiques et arrondissements dans la nouvelle ville de Montréal.” In Renouveler l'aménagement et l'urbanisme: Planification territoriale, débat public et développement durable, ed. Gauthier, Mario, Gariépy, Michel and Trépanier, Marie-Odile. Montréal: Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar