Public participation has become common in spatial planning. Earlier studies on participation result in all kinds of design principles, mechanisms, conditions and steps for successful participation. The assumption is that a good design of the participation process will lead to successful participation, in which conflict is avoided or limited (Bobbio, 2019; Mosterd, 2003). In this way conflict is mentioned as a negative outcome which results from a poorly implemented participation process. In some recent studies, conflict in participation is studied more in depth (e.g. Cuppen, 2018; Pesch et al. 2017; Verloo, 2018, Wolf & Van Dooren, 2018). In these studies, the authors mention the value of conflict; it is part of a vital democracy and could lead to better decisions. However, sometimes conflicts did not lead to better decisions, but to disappointment, distrust and even polarization. In our empirical studies, we found indications that this kind of conflict did not arise because of citizens’ interests or because of the precise design and implementation of the participation process. The poor design and implementation of the overall planning process seems to be at the root of it.

This study starts from the hypothesis that conflict in participation processes is almost always self-induced, by poor design of the planning process. We tested this hypothesis in four Dutch water management cases in which conflicts arise: two dike reinforcements along the rivers, a plan for ground water sources for drinking water, and a dike reinforcement along small watercourses. By comparing these cases, we found that the governmental planning procedures in combination with their multi-level responsibilities led to a process design in which participants felt overlooked and ignored. The choice for the planning procedure as dominant principle for process design created a false start for the participation and from that point, conflict seemed unavoidable. This was further strengthened by the dominant governmental logic about local interests, in which the public interest was framed as dominant and the local consequences received little attention. From these results, we describe how governments and citizens could design planning processes, with room for participation including conflict, that lead to better public decisions.

References

Bobbio, L. (2019) Designing effective public participation, Policy and Society, 38(1): 41-57.

Cuppen, E. (2018) The value of social conflicts: Critiquing invited participation in energy projects, Energy Research & Social Science, 38: 28-32.

Mostert, E. (2003) The challenge of public participation, Water Policy, 5: 179-197.

Pesch, U., A. Correljé, E. Cuppen, and B. Taebi (2017) Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects, Energy Policy, 109: 825-834.

Verloo, N. (2018) Social-spatial narrative: A framework to analyze the democratic opportunity of conflict, Political Geography, 62: 137-148.

Wolf, E.E.A. and W. van Dooren (2018) Conflict reconsidered: The boomerang effect of depoliticization in the policy process, Public Administration, 96(2): 286-301.

How to solve the dilemma of insufficient participation of community residents is a common problem faced by Chinese and western grassroots governance at present. With the acceleration of urbanization process, more and more Chinese cities are entering the important stage of the “intension” development of stock renewal governance. However, due to the lack of awareness and ability of Chinese community residents to participate in community public affairs, it can not only provide the interna l power and long-term mechanism of operation maintenance and continuous renewal for the community, but also greatly restrict the realization of the goals of community autonomy and community co-governance. Under the governance concept of “Big Society”, the United Kingdom, through the community empowerment movement, takes neighborhood planning as a policy tool, stimulates the self-organizing function and community spirit of communities, cultivates the subjective consciousness of community residents, promotes the creation of community, and has important research reference value for solving the dilemma of community participation in China. In this paper, literature research and comparative research methods are used to analyze the background of neighborhood planning. Decentralization of government power, the two-way planning mode formed by the interaction between top-down and bottom-up, and the public awareness of community residents' participation in community affairs strengthened by community culture gene and information technology jointly open a time window for the transformation of the British planning system. Secondly, starting from the three elements of institutional integration, individual activation and organizational intervention, this paper discusses the empowerment mechanism of different dimensions in the neighborhood planning policy based on different perspectives of macro, micro and medium. First, institutional integration reshapes the power structure between the state and society through three aspects: legal basis, resource support and mechanism guarantee. Second, individuals activate community identity based on neighborhood interaction, voluntary activities and charitable donations, and guide community residents to participate in political community; Thirdly, organizational intervention strengthens community capacity building through the progressive embedding of social organizations at the national and community levels. In practice, regardless of the differences in institutional system and development background, the empowerment mechanism of British neighborhood planning can provide the following enlightenment for Chinese community participation from the level of specific paths: First, to strengthen the foundation of top-down system by clarifying the scope of community participation rights and scientific supply of supporting resources; Second, to strengthen the bottom-up subject consciousness by strengthening the cultural foundation, strengthening the community social capital and shaping the active citizens; Third, from the two perspectives of enriching the level and function of community social organizations and optimizing the setting up of the environment, to build a bridge of top-down integration of organizations.

Emergencies and disasters create hardships for citizens and governments. Recent crises such as COVID-19 have highlighted the importance of citizens’ behaviors during emergencies. However, for governments, engaging citizens during emergencies is challenging. We compare the antecedents of emergency-oriented civic engagement for two groups who live in the same country under the same laws: Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Using a survey distributed to a representative sample of these groups during COVID-19, we examine differences between the two groups and more specific relationships between emergency-oriented civic engagement, interpersonal trust, risk cognition, and fear of emergencies for each group. Results reveal significant differences between the groups. Interpersonal trust and risk cognition are major antecedents of emergency-oriented civic engagement among Jews, whereas fear of emergencies is a major antecedent among Arabs. We conclude that attempts to engage citizens during emergencies should consider ethnic differences in these efforts.

Civil society provides a crucial role in governance systems advocating for marginalised people. The introduction of markets for welfare services, and an increased focus on personal budgets have shaped the idea of welfare service users as consumers in a market. In turn, this has created new demands for their civil society representatives in civil society to participate in regulatory governance in order to satisfy ex-ante accountability requirements to consult with people potentially affected. This introduces challenges into regulatory spaces to create inclusive and participatory practices that include beneficiaries as well as service providers. Welfare market regulation has been characterised in the public discourse as under-resourced, lacking ‘teeth’ and showing signs of industry capture.

This empirical paper uses submissions and interviews with CSO leaders to explore the concept of “representation-craft” in civil society. Representation-craft is defined as the ways civil society organisations identify, gather, and shape the voices of the people they represent. The study observes the role of civil society organisations in the representation of beneficiaries in two key welfare markets in Australia – aged care and disability.

Both sectors have been the subject of recent high-profile public inquiries (Royal Commissions). Both inquiries were established to address a perceived failure to protect vulnerable consumers, and the issue of beneficiary representation has been the subject of extensive examination. Across both cases, 104 civil society organisations (CSOs) representing beneficiaries have made public submissions outlining both their perceptions of ‘the problem’ and the role of representation and participatory governance.

Analysing submission and interview data, the study shows that the idea of representation-craft has salience for CSOs, but that there are significant barriers to developing resilient mechanisms to consistently bring the voice of welfare beneficiaries to governance spaces. This paper identifies that supporting marginalised constituents to become active citizens, not just consumers is an important practice of representation-craft. It shows that some CSOs have developed mechanisms that enhance the capacity of their constituents, and this in turn has the potential to create stronger connections between constituents, CSOs and governance.

By bringing a participatory governance analytical lens, this original research focuses on the connection between representation and the democratising aspects of public sector governance. The paper shows that regulatory governance has potential to realise democratic aspirations, and to be an effective mechanism to support inclusive practices, but that this aspiration needs active design and implementation to be effective and sustained. It brings a participatory governance perspective to regulation, arguing that the market governance constructs informing the regulatory governance literature leave a normative gap in relation the role of intermediaries representing beneficiaries.