Yuri Misnikov, Independent e-gov Expert, Board member of the Estonian e- Governance Academy E-Participation: Empowering People through Information

Transcription

1 Yuri Misnikov, Independent e-gov Expert, Board member of the Estonian e- Governance Academy E-Participation: Empowering People through Information Communication Technologies UNDESA High-Level Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, July 2013

2 1. Conceptual Framework - approaches to e-participation - models & stages of e-participation - demonstration cases 2. Assessment Framework - assessing e-participation technology - assessing policies & modalities - structure of METEP

3 INTENT? We want to measure and evaluate e- participation WHY? We want to better understand the status of ICTenabled participatory practices in different socio-economic contexts RATIONAL? We believe that the use of ICTs can empower citizens for more effective participation in public life and especially in policy making

4 METEP is a diagnostics tool (guide) for measuring and evaluating e-participation

5 GOAL? The ultimate objective of METEP is to promote and strengthen government capacities to engage citizens in public policy and decision-making processes by using e-participation technologies and good governance practices in order to assist developing countries to successfully implement policies, programmes and projects related the development goals in the economic, social and environmental area

6 SOURCE? The Concept Paper entitled Developing capacity for participatory governance through e-participation: engaging citizens in policy and decisionmaking processes using ICTs prepared by the UNDESA s Division for Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM)

7 Participation offline... Yes, but with a difference a relationship based on partnership with government in which citizens actively engage in defining the process and content of policy-making. It acknowledges equal standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and shaping the policy dialogue although the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation rests with government (OECD, 2001)

8 METHODS (not just these) - Referenda/voting - Public hearings/enquiries - Public opinion surveys - Negotiated rule-making - Consensus conference - Citizens jury/panel - Citizen/public advisory committees - Focus groups

9 WEAKNESS (except voting): -- small scale -- focus on consultations -STRENGTH: -- impact on decisions following consultations (referenda/voting, negotiated rule-making, consensus meetings)

10 DIFFERENCE IS HUGE (potentially) New technology-aided possibilities to improve government policies and institutions! - to make them participatory, inclusive, deliberative by connecting citizens with one another and with their elected representatives through public deliberation STILL A NOVEL CONCEPT

11 E-METHODS (not just these) - e-campaigning, including e- Petitioning Community building/ Collaborative e- environments - e-consultation - Online deliberation - Information provision online - e-polling - e-voting

12 COMMANDING PRINCIPLES - Commitment - Rights - Clarity - Time - Evaluation - Objectivity (of information provision) - Resources - Co-ordination - Accountability - Active citizenship

13 WHAT TO DO (OECD says)? For Active Citizenship >>> Openness, Inclusiveness to overcome citizens doubts For Evaluation >>> Develop effective evaluation tools to measure impacts Evaluating the quality of open and inclusive policy making processes and their impacts is a new frontier for most governments. Countries need to pool their efforts to develop appropriate evaluation frameworks, tools and training (OECD, 2009)

14 ALSO Leverage participative web application scope of e-tools is wider than the tools themselves, but no automatic success Adopt your own principles to support e- participation practice at design, implementation, evaluation stage no universal for all solutions, but learn from others Identify barriers for public engagement and lower them by increasing participation base, e.g. Including underprivileged

15 PROCESSES & PRACTICES

16 PROCESS-BASED APPROACH 3 main stages of e-participation 1. e-information provision of information on the Internet 2. e-consultation organizing public consultations online 2. e-decision-making evolving citizens directly in decision processes

17 PROGRESSING MATURITY E- CONSULT E- POLICY E- INFO

18 LEVEL-BASED MODEL TO HIGHLIGHT POLICY-MAKING AS THE PINACCLE OF E- PARTICIPATION e-decision/policy making stage e-consultation stage e-information provision stage

19 STAGES of engaging citizens via governmentto-citizen, citizen-to-citizen and citizen-to-government interactions, with the ultimate objective to take decisions that include people s interest

20 PROCESS AS A PRACTICE, ACTION In real life stages co-exist/overlap Stages are practices, specific types of participatory action undertaken either as a succession of steps or in parallel e-information and e-consultations are important on their own right, having distinctive public value

21 OTHER MODELS ARE SIMILAR using ICTs to a varied degree Inform-Consult-Empower: 3-tired model 1 - e-enabling via informing 2 - e-engaging via consulting 3 - e-empowering via active participation to influence policy agenda (but not necessarily directly participate in their making)

22 OTHER MODELS ARE SIMILAR using ICTs to a varied degree 5-tired model of IAPP 1- Information provision via fact sheets, web sites, open houses 2 - Consultation via public comment, focus groups, surveys, public meetings 3 - Involving the public via workshops, deliberative polling 4 - Collaboration via citizen advisory committees, consensus-building, participatory decision making 5 - Empowerment via citizens juries, ballots, delegated decisions

23 5 MAIN STAGES OF POLICY-MAKING (Macintosh, 2004) Policy monitoring: evaluation & feedback Policy agenda setting: problems Policy implementation : activities Policy analysis: justification Policy development: acceptability & action plan

24

25 METEP s Assessment Goals 1 - Help identify and eliminate barriers for participatory policy making 2 - Help create and exploit effective public engagement e-tools that are accepted by citizens 3 - Help develop capacities for evaluating e-participation progress for best practice exchange and continuous learning

26 ASSESSING PERSPECTIVES (Macintosh & Whyte, 2006) Political to assess how effective is engaging citizens via ICT tools for policy improvement Technical to assess whether engagement e- tools help engage citizens effectively and whether target audiences can use them Social to assess the level of satisfaction of citizens with their use of ICT tools and e- participaiton experience including the assessment of social/exclusion barriers

27 ASSESSING PRIORITY AREAS (Emerging trends according to UNDESA e- Participation WG, 2012) - Open government/data & transparency - Social media - Mobility (mobile technologies/devises) and - Dedicated e-participation resources (portals/platforms)

28 ASSESSING E-FEATURES (OECD) Content e.g. choice of languages, simplicity Format e.g. choice of large fonts, availability of audio-recorded information Channel e.g. choice of non-traditional channels, including using intermediaries to reach target groups

29 ASSESSMENT FORMULA Technology e-features Engagement technologies Participatory action & stage: e-information, e- Consultation, e-policy

30 ASSESSING RELEVANCE CRITERIA (UNDESA) Legal Frameworks relevance of legal & regulatory base for e-participation Organizational Frameworks relevance of institutional organization for e-participation Channels/Modalities assessing how e- engagement technologies are contextualised to maximise their social and cultural benefits Outreach assessing how key stakeholders are involved and their needs addressed

31 METEP S PROPOSED DIAGRAM Political Block A - e-participation policy domains A1: Legal frameworks Social Block B -Type of e-participation actions A2: Organisational frameworks B1: e-decisionmaking Technical Block C - e-participation technologies of public engagement A3: Modalities & channels A4: Outreach measures B2: e-consultation B3: e- Information C1: Open data & government C2: Social media C3: Moiblity C4:Other (e.g. dedicated platforms)

32 METEP S AT A GLANCE

33 METEP S AT A GLANCE Availability/ access to engagement e- tools Use of e-tools to generate public input

34 STRUCTURE OF METEP INDICATORS

35 METEP SOURCES/LEVELS OF INFORMATION Official statistics/reports for at national/local and institutional levels Expert assessment at national/local, institutional, tool and case/initiative level Self-assessment questionnaires for senior/mid level public managers at institutional, tool and case/initiative levels = main info gathering instrument

36 Self-Assessment Questionnaire 10 General Question + 25 Specific + more detailed questions by e- participaiton policy domains into which e-participation stages and engagement technologies are integrated

37 SAMPLE OF A GENERAL QUESTIONS General Question A3.1.1: One or more public engagement tools contained in the list that follows have been deployed by your agency in support of e-participation activities at central/national or local(regional)/municipal level (If the answer is YES, please provide details as specified below):

38 SAMPLE OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Under General Question A3.1.1: - Citizen e-juries/ Citizen advisory e-committees/ People s e- assemblies/ Town hall e-meetings/ e-briefings Internet discussion forums - e-collaborative Environments/ Crowd-sourcing/ e- Brainstorming - Public e-consultations/ Expert e-panels e-interviews/ e-focus groups meetings/ e-consensus meetings Web meetings/web seminars/ e-seminars - e-mediation/e- Facilitation - e-petitioning/ e-campaigning - e-community building/e-mobilization - e-polling/ e-deliberative opinion polls - e-voting/ e-referenda - Policy e-modelling/ e-visioning - Open data/open government portals/ dedicated web sites

39 SAMPLE OF DETAILED QUESTIONS Under General Question A3.1.1: 1. Indicate the number of the selected e-tools and give the year when the tools have been launched: 2. Assign one or more types of e-participation actions that the selected tools have been used to support (for each selected tool): 3. Specify, if applicable, one or more corresponding phase(s) of policy-making life cycle: 4. Indicate relevant engagement technologies against each selected e-tool: 5. Indicate which administrative level national or local or both the deployed tools cover:

40 Thank you!