Increasing Citizen Voice and Government Responsiveness: What Does Success Really Look Like, and Who Decides?

"[D]o the key elements for change come from the processes of participation generated by the use of ICTs? Or do they lie as preconditions that must already be in place, arising from other political dynamics and not connected to the ICT-enabled process, to allow the latter to work in transformative ways? The evidence from the research reviewed for this report points more towards the latter..."

Making All Voices Count was a grant-making programme supporting "tech for accountable governance initiatives". Research supported by this initiative suggests that different actors can seek very different goals - some stated, some not - from the same information and communication technology (ICT)-enabled interventions. Based on findings from research supported by Making All Voices Count, this report explores varying visions of success for ICT for governance projects and their implications in three fields where ICTs are being used, at least in theory, to encourage and channel citizen voice into government and governance processes, and to improve government responsiveness in return. These three fields are: participatory policy- and strategy-making; participatory budgeting; and citizen feedback to improve service delivery.

This programme learning report proposes two dimensions for framing variations in visions of success for ICT-enabled governance interventions:

1. The kind of change in governance systems that is being sought. There are several distinct kinds of change, which range across:
   • functional change - improving existing governance systems, especially service delivery, in ways that frame citizens as relating to governance processes as "users", where their role is mostly limited to giving feedback on how well service delivery is working
   • instrumental change - also focused on improving existing governance systems, but framing citizens as "choosers" of services and priorities, and thus expecting them to give more input than "users" (though often limited to choosing from the presented options only)
   • transformative change - changing governance systems themselves, i.e., the relationships, processes, and rules, by seeing citizens as relating to governance processes as "makers and shapers", i.e., not just choosing from what is offered, but changing the rules, setting the agenda, and even changing the balance of power
   • no change - not seeking any change in reality, whatever the rhetoric might be - aiming instead to "game" the process for gains that include legitimacy, resources, or profile.
2. The vision of the ideal state-citizen relationship. This may include positions on a range of spectra, including:
   • the kind of state sought, particularly the kind and level of participatory democracy and whom this should benefit - from direct democracy, representational democracy, and patronage systems to no democracy / autocracy - either for public good or personal gain
   • the ideal size of the state, ranging from large to minimalist
   • the desired stability of actor groups and decision-making structures, from static, often institutionalised groups and processes expected to continue over long time frames, to fluid, ever-changing networks expected to arise and dissolve as issues and contexts change.

Applying the categories outlined above, overall, in terms of the kind of change in governance systems sought, much of the rhetoric touts the use of ICTs as inherently transformative. However, findings suggest that it has mostly been deployed in functional, instrumental, and no change ways. That said, the possibility of ICT-enabled transformative change appears somewhat higher when citizens have more direct control over outcomes, and more online and offline processes are mixed and used in ways that foster collective, rather than individualised, inputs, deliberation, and answerability.

In terms of the vision of the state-citizen relationship, the findings show great variation in outcomes sought regarding the kinds and levels of participatory democracy, whom this should benefit, the ideal size of the state, and the desired stability of actor groups and decision-making structures.

Looking through the lenses of each of the three fields of analysis:

• In terms of participatory policy- and strategy-making, the report looks at three examples with markedly contrasting outcomes, taken from the multi-country Voice and Chatter study of ICT-mediated citizen engagement: the 'Decidem Barcelona' open city government developments in Spain, and two national policy-making processes from Brazil. Sample insight from discussion of the Brazilian initiatives: "however online processes are initially framed, they may not be the key decision-making fora, or determine the ultimate results. Here, the key factors determining whether policy developed online reflected citizen input and was acted upon were still the agendas and unity of civil society and, even more importantly, the agendas and commitment of powerful actors within and outside government."
• In terms of participatory budgeting, here is a sample insight: "With donor and NGO [non-governmental organisation] attention being redirected away from participatory budgeting, now that that has been codified in policy, future impact seems to rely on the level of genuine commitment - of governments and of citizens - to real participatory processes and impacts. It does not appear that technology 'creates' this willingness or commitment. So where will the driver for this come from in [the] future?"
• In terms of citizen feedback to improve service delivery, the reader learns, among other things, that "[i]t appears that pre-existing levels of government willingness to respond are key in terms of achieving a functional impact from voice feedback platforms, i.e. tangible improvements to service delivery."

The evidence indicates that the use of ICTs may have the potential to support change, including transformative change, but only when the political goals of key actors are pre-structured to support this. The choice of ICTs does matter to the effectiveness of this support, as does the way in which they are used. But overall, ICTs do not appear to be inherently generative of change. They are, rather, reflective, enabling, or amplifying of existing political agendas and levels of commitment.

The recommendations of this report suggest the need for:

• Much more robust analysis and realism about the different change agendas and visions of success of all the actors and those who hold sway over them - the stated and the unstated.
• Increased attention, where genuine commitment to strengthening citizen voice and government responsiveness exists, to more transformative - or at least more instrumental - aims and approaches - e.g., by involving citizens in the design of processes, as well as their implementation; by building spaces for less prescribed inputs from citizens; by giving citizens more direct control over resources and outcomes; and by building direct answerability from governments into a mix of online and offline spaces.
• Realisation that caution is needed, where pre-existing government willingness and commitment are in doubt, with regard to any theory of change where the use of ICT to channel citizen feedback or voice is expected to nudge, let alone create, greater or more sustained commitment and willingness from government.
• Recognition of the fact that, to work well, citizen voice-government responsiveness interventions require mutual understanding, trust, and ongoing negotiation between the key actors. "The scale of investment in the online and offline time, spaces and processes needed to achieve this may be on par with, if not more than, that spent on any online tool or platform development and implementation. Such investments may need to be heavy up front, well before ICT design, and they are likely to need to continue throughout implementation as actors change and the context evolves."