1352 Section: E-Democracy I Category: Forms of Participatory E-Democracy
Promoting Citizen Participation via Digital
Government
Chee Wei Phang
National University of Singapore, Singapore
Atreyi Kankanhalli
National University of Singapore, Singapore
INTRODUCTION
The advent of digital government unveils new
opportuni ties in how government can address citizens'
needs and requirements in innovative ways. One of the
growing citizens' demands toward government today is
the partici pation in policy making. This is reflected in
a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Develop ment (OECD) (2001) report entitled Citiz ens
as Partners, which concludes that "governments are
under pressure to adopt a new approach to policy mak
ing - one which places greater emphasis on citizen
involvement both upstream and downstream to
decision-making" (p. 71). Digital gove rnment ,
enabled by information and commu nication
technology (ICT), may help government in ad dressing
such needs of citizens through network-based ICT
applications.
ICT, particularly the Internet, may enhance citizen
participation in several ways: By offering capabilities
that transcend time and space limitations, ICT has the
poten tial to overcome barriers oflarge-scale citizen
participa tion . One of these barriers is the difficulty to
achieve the desired level of face-to-face interaction
during off-line participation (e.g., public meeting)
(Adams, 2004). In off line participation, citizens need to
take turns to voice their opinions within a limited time
frame. This often results in poor deliberation, a situation
where the consequences of various policy options and
views of others are not weighed carefully and
sufficiently (Mathews, 1994). The mass communication
and information exchange capabilities afforded by the
Internet may be especially useful in enhancing
participation of citizens in policy deliberation. Despite
the potential ofICT to enhance participation,
it is vital to motivate citizens to participate. It is ironic
that,
while citizens increasingly demand for more
participation, studies reveal that citizen participation has
been declin ing in recent years (e.g., Lyons & Alexander,
2000). The paradox suggests that there is a need to
investigate the factors that can lead to participation of
citizens in policy making . Toward this end, we begin
with a review of extant
Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. , distributing in print or ele ctroni c forms without written permis si on of [GI is prohibited.
literature from may support participation. political
science to identify pertinent theo ries that may help
explain citizen participati on. As citizen participation via
digital government is enabled by ICT, we also explore
pertinent ICT features that
BACKGROUND
Citizen participation has long been one of the major
research themes in political science. Several theoretical
perspectives have been devised to elucidate antecedents
of citizen participation in the offline context. Among the
three widely employed perspectives are socioeconomic
theories, rational choice theories, and social capital theo
ries. We will discuss these theories in turn, and attempt
to illuminate the links among them .
Socioeconomic Theories
Socioeconomic theories are at root a sociological account
of citizen participation (Parry, Moyser, & Day, 1992).
This theoretical strand attempts to explain participation
in terms of the individual's socioeconomic characteristics
that shape his or her attitude toward participation. These
characteristics include the individual's age, education
level, and financial status. The socioeconomic theories
(e.g., Verba & Nie, 1972) hold that individuals who are
older, better educated, and wealthier are more likely to
participate than those who are younger, less educated ,
and poorer. The logic is that an indiv idua l ' s
advantaged socioeconomic characteristics would shape
his favorable civic attitudes toward participation (Verba
& Nie, 1972). While initial thinking along this
perspective held that individuals with advantaged
socioeconomic characteris tics are more likely to
participate, subsequent research questioned such
propositions and the mechanisms be hind the effects of
socioeconomic factors (Verba , Schlozman, & Brady,
1995) . Past studies have also shown that the general rise
in education level does not necessar-
Promoting Citizen Participation via Digital Government

ily lead to increased electoral participation (e.g., Lyons

& to one ' s political efficacy. In contrast to the socioeco
Alexander, 2000). These limitations have led to refine p
participate . Add itiona ll y, the perceived benefits from participation are
ments in socioeconomic theories in terms of including a closely tied
more comprehensive set of participation factors and the
mechanisms linking individual's socioeconomic charac
teristics to participation.
Along this vein, Verba, Schlozman, and Brady
(1995) developed the civic voluntarism model, which
aims to specify "in detail how socio-economic position
is linked to political activity" (p. 19). Cited as the most
widely employed participation theory (Seyd, Whiteley,
& Pattie, 2001), the model considers resources,
motivations, and mobilization as antecedents of
participation. Resources that include time, money, and
civic skills bridge the individual's socioeconomic
characteristics to their par ticipation. In other words,
individuals with better socio economic characteristics
are more likely to participate because they possess the
resources to do so. Motiva tions are conceptualized as
individual and group incen tives as well as a sense of
political efficacy (Verba et al., 1995). Individual
incentives include the ability to influ ence specific
policies that an individual would like to see
implemented, whereas group incentives include an
individual's identification with a group (e.g., political
party). Last, mobilization refers to the extent to which
individuals are influenced by people around them to
participate. Citizens may be persuaded by their friends
or family members to, say, sign a petition or join a
political party . Civic voluntarism model has been found
to be considerably robust in explaining differenttypes of
politi cal participation (e.g., voting, contacting
authorities, and attending political meetings) (e.g.,
Pattie, Seyd, & Whiteley, 2003; Verba,
Schlozman,&Brady, 1995). How ever, a limitation of
the model is that it does not specify clearly the political
institutions that may shape citizen participation
(Rubenson, 2000). For instance, it may be useful to
know whether existing political institutions support the
formation of civic associations that generate
mobilization, or whether there is an education system in
place that promotes civic skills inculcation.

Rational Choice Theories

Rational choice theories of participation see citizen par

ticipation as a rational activity to maximize benefits and
minimize costs of participation (e.g., Olson, 1 965).
They propose that individuals are by nature
economically ratio nal actors, who base their decision to
participate on cost benefit calculation (Pattie, Seyd, &
Whiteley, 2003). Ben efits from participation include the
ability to influence policy outcomes, whereas costs
include the effort and financial resources required to

1353
 Promoting Citizen Participation via Digital Government
nomic perspective, rational choice whole to bring about desired social change, whereas
theories consider the broad civic expressive incentives are grounded in a sense of loyalty
orientation of individuals of minor and affection to the group. Finally, social norms-derived
importance when compared to the incentives refer to the influence of other people on the
benefits and costs of participation. individual's willingness to participate, and are similar to
Rational choice theories have been the concept of mobilization in the civic voluntarism
criticized for not being able to explain model. The drawback of the general incentive model is
electoral participation. In an election that it does not consider the socioeconomic
where many actors are involved, the characteristics of an individual (e.g., education received)
likely influence that an individual has that shape the individual's civic attitude and skills
on the outcome, and thus the potential toward politics. An other limitation of the model is its
benefit, is extremely small. Considering lack of consideration of the influence of political
the cost required to vote (e.g., time and institutions on citizen participa tion.
effort), a truly rational actor may
choose not to vote . However, we do
see people participat ing in elections.
Explanations have been offered in
terms of the sufficiently low cost of
voting (e.g., Verba, Schlozman, &
Brady, 1995) that renders rational cost
benefit calculation unnecessary
(Aldrich, 1993). This suggests that
rational choice theories may be more
appro priate for situations of
participation where high potential
benefits and costs are in volved.
Arguing that the benefits for
participation are too narrowly
conceptualized in traditional rational
choice theories, Seyd and Whiteley
(2002) developed a general incentives
model that incorporates incentives
related to altruistic concerns and social
norms. The resulting gen eral
incentives model encompasses five
incentive types for participation:
collective, selective, group, expressive,
and social norms-derived incentives.
Collective incen tives are derived from
policy goals that are available for all to
enjoy regardless of whether one
participates (e.g., tax reduction) . This
is in contrast to selective incentives that
are restricted to participants, which
include the grati fication obtained
during the participating process (e.g.,
enjoying interactions with others) and
the privatized outcomes from
participation (e.g., political career ad
vancement). Selective incentives also
include ideological incentives
prompted by similar beliefs shared by
members in a group. Group incentives
and expressive incentives are related to
individuals' attachment to a group (e.g.,
political party). Group incentives have
to do with indi viduals' perception
about the efficacy of the group as a

1354
Social Capital Theories the benefits that one may obtain from

Social capital theories (Coleman, 1988) are adapted to

explain citizen participation from a social network
perspec tive. This line of theories examines how network
of ties and its features influence citizen participation. This
signifies a departure from socioeconomic theories and
rational choice theories whose focus is on individual-level
antecedents of participation. One of the most widely cited
works from this perspective is Putnam's (1993) study of
Italian regional government.
The core concept of the theory, that is, social capital,
refers to the connections among individuals that form
networks of civic engagement, and the resulting norms of
reciprocity and trust arising from the networks (Putnam ,
1993). Social capital is intimately rooted in the associa
tional life that exists within a community. Associational
life is an outcome of civie engagement , or people's
connection with the life of their community (Putnam,
1993). Instances ofassociation life are having membership
in hobby groups , neighborhood amenities, and charitable
organizations. The main premise of this perspective is that
a community with a rich associational life has a distinct
advantage over a community with an impoverished
associational life. As Putnam (1993) explains , "Civic
associations contribute to the effectivene ss and stability
of democratic government
... both because of their 'internal' effects on individual
members and because of their ' externa l ' effects on the
wider poli cy. Interna lly , associations instill in their
mem bers habits of co-operation, solidarity and public
spiritedness.... Exte rnally ... a dense network of
second ary associations both embodies and contributes
to effec tive social collaboration" (pp. 89-90). Features
of social capital (norms ofreciprocity and trust) also "
reduce incen tives to defect, reduce uncerta i nty, and
provide models for future co-operat io n" (Putnam, 1993,
p. 177). The existence of social capital, thus, may
provide an environment favor able for citizen
participation.
Thesocial capital line of theories applied toward
citizen participation has been criticized to suffer from
tautological problems (e.g., Milne r, 2002). It has been
argued that the main factor posited to contribut e to social
capital produc tion, that is, associational life, is also
considered to be the socially desirable outcome of social
capital. However, it should be noted that the associational
life that contributes to social capital is nonpolitical in
nature (e.g., citizen's taking part in hobby groups),
whereas the favorable out come is the poli tica l
participation of citizens (e.g., voting). Since the direction
of causality is from nonpolitical to political social capita l,
it does not constitute a serious tautological problem.
Another criticism is that the theory does not consider the
influence of individual's motives on participation (e.g.,
participation) . Even in the
presence of social capital ,
individuals' intention to participate
may be undermined if there is no
attractive benefit to do so. Therefo
re, a combination of the different
theoretical perspectives is likely to
address the limitations of a single
perspective.
are vital to achieving policy deliberation. Connectivity ,
on the other hand, helps enable two-way communication
be tween participants. ICT such as online forums and
online chat record text messages posted in structured
format along with the message poster. This allows
individuals to easily identify other participants with
similar goals and interests by directly observing their
messages posted and respondin g to them .

ICT and Citizen Participation TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW

Political scientist Benjamin An in-depth assessment of the off-line participation

Barber (1998) claims that the theories reveals the commonalities that they share as
most important question for future well as their complementary relationships, in that each of
democracy is the meeting ofICT the theories is strong in certain aspects but lacking in
and democracy. JCT may support others. An attempt at synthesi zi ng the theories led to the
infor mation and communication identification of three classes of factors pertinent to
aspects that are both impor tant to citizen partici pat ion : mot iv atio ns, resources, and social
citizen participat ion. Citizens
need variou s types of information
in order to take active part in
democratic processes (Wolfinger
& Rosenstone, 1980). Through
comm unication , citizens can
broaden their understand ing ofa
political issue by exchanging in fo
rmation, vie ws, and feelings
with other citizens (Gross , 2002) .
Two ICT features may be
particularly pertinent in
supporting the information and
communication aspects of citi zen
participation: communality and
connectivity. Communality refers
to the availability of a commonly
accessible pool of information
enabled by JCT (e.g ., online
forum) to all participants (Fulk,
Flanagin , Kalman , Monge, &
Ryan, 1996). Connectivity is the
ability ofICT that enables
individuals who share common
goals and interests to easily
communicate with each other
(Fulk et al., 1996 ; Kumar &
Benbasat , 2002). Previous
literature has indicated
connectivity and communality as
two fea tures ofICT that are
germane in the context of
collective action (Fulk et al., 1996
). Communality helps to build up
repositories of information that
facilitate participant ' s access to
relevant information. It also
supports informa tion exchange
activities among participants that
 Environm enta l-

i..
t%
j
I
In

;
f.f.,l
n
Factors nertinent to citizen narticination via dfr.!ital

C itizen Participation via Dig ital Government

Figure J . Framework of factors pertinent to citizen participation via digital government

p

capital. The review of the theories also points to the associations , exposes citizens to more political cues and opportunities
need to consider political institutions. Figure 1 depicts (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). This makes them more likely targets of
our framework that integrates factors pertinent to mob ili zation to partici pate (individual-level factor) (Figure I: link II).
citizen participation via digital government. Further,
Additionally, the framework also includes features of
lCT as enablers and facilitators ofcitizen participation .
At the individual le vel, citizen participation may
be determined by whether there are motivations for
individu als to participate . These motivations are
derived from the general incentives model and civic
voluntarism model , and include collective, selective ,
group, expressive , mo bilization /social norms-derived
i ncentives , and a sense of political efficacy. Another
class of individual-level ante cedents to citizen
participation is the resources pos sessed by individuals
to participate . These factors are derived from the civic
voluntarism model and consist of time, money , and
civic skills. Beyond the individual-level factors, social
capital and political institutions may also play a part in
influencing citizen participation via digital
government. Both classes of factors function at the
envi ronmental level. Social capital consists of
networks of civic engagement, and norms
ofreciprocity and trust that exist in the comm unity ,
whereas political institutions serve as the settings
where political participation takes place.
The individual-level, social capita l, and political insti
tutions factors operate together to influence
participation (Figure 1: links I, II, III). Political
institutions that are supportive of civic association
formation may encourage the development of strong
networks of civic engagement (Figure 1: link I). A
community with strong networks of civic engagement
, where citizens actively participate in civic
political institutions with an education
system in place that promotes the
shaping of individua l ' s organizational
and communications abilities may also
help develop citizen's civic skills
(another individual-level factor) (Ruben
son, 2000) (Figure 1: link Ill ).

FUTURE
TRENDS
AND
CONCLU
SION

This article provides readers an

integrative framework of factors that
are pertinent to citizen participation via
digital government. Features of ICT
that may be particularly relevant to
participation are also highlighted. The
result ing framework (Figure I) implies
that future efforts to promote citizen
participation viadigital government
should adopt a more holistic approach
that takes into consider ation the joint
effects of individual-level factors
(motiva tions, resources),
environmental-level factors (social
capi tal, political insti tutions) , and
ICT features on citizen participation .
Accord ing ly, implementation
strategies should be crafted in such a
way that the different factors are
carefully designed to attain citizen
participation in a coherent manner,
while exploiting the relevant features of
ICT.
Some efforts are already headed in this direction. One
notable example is community
electronic networks, which provide
citizens of a community (e.g., town ,
region) ac cess to technologies
(Internet, electronic mail, etc.), gov
ernment information and contact of
government officials, community
services, and community-oriented
discussion (Sullivan, Borgida, Jackson,
Riedel, Oxendine, & Gang l, 2002). A
well-known example of a community
electronic network is Santa Monica's
Public Electronic Network (PEN),
which aims to promote citizens ' access
to tech nologies and foster a sense of
community within Santa
Monica . ln terms of political institutions , community networks: Political visions, technological opportunities, and social
electronic networks signify government's commitment to
support and encourage civic activities with the help of
ICT. Community electronic networks may also help in
the development of social capital (Blanchard & Horan,
1998) through providing citizens an additional channel to
inter act with other members in the community .
Community electronic networks can be integrated
into digital government efforts to create favorable
conditions for citizen participation. Based on our
framework (Figure I), future efforts should exploit the
positive impacts of community electronic networks (e.g.,
signification of sup portive political institutions to
citizens and increased social capital) by linking them
more closely to the indi vidual-level antecedents of
participation. For instance, the community electronic
network can serve as a platform to inculcate civic skills
and generate mobilization of par ticipation to citizens.
lCT that offer connectivity and communality features
(e.g., online forums) should be more fully tapped on to
provide citizens with easier access to participation
information and improve two-way communi cation for
policy deliberation (Kumar & Vragov, 2005). Further,
formal procedures for incorporating citizen's input into
policy outcomes should be established to enhance
attractiveness of participation incentives for citizens.
Overall, our work serves to inform both theory and
practice of how citizen participation via digital gov
ernment can be enhanced.

REFERENCES
Adams , B. (2004). Public meetings and the democratic
process. Public Administration Review, 64(1 ), 43-54.

Aldrich, J. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout.

Ameri can Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 246-
278.

Barber, B. (1998). Aplace for us: How to make society

civil and democracy strong. New York: Hill and Wang .
B lanch ard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Social capital and
virtual communities. Social Science Computer Review,
16(3),293-307.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of
human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94(Supple ment), 95-120.

Fulk, J. , Flanagin , A. J., Ka lman , M. E., Monge, P. R., &

Ryan, T. (1996 ). Connective and communal public goods
in interactive communication systems. Communication
Theory, 6(1), 60-87 .
Gross, T. (2002). E-democracy and community
reality. ln A. Gronlund (Ed.),
Electronic government: Design
, applications, and
management (pp. 249-266) .
Heryshey , PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Kumar, N., & Benbasat , I.
(2002). Para-social presence and
communication capabilities of a
Web site. e-Service Jour nal,
1(3), 5-25.
Kumar, N., & Vragov,R. (2005,
August 11-14). The citizen
participation continuum: Where
does the US stand? Pro ceedings
of Americas Conference on
Information Sys tems, Omaha,
NE (pp. 1984-1990).
behavior in Britain. Political Studies, 51(3), 443-468.
Putnam, R.D. (1993).Makingdemocracy work . Princeton
, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosens tone , S. J., & Hansen , J. M. (1993). Mobilization,
participation , and democracy in America. New York :
Macmillan.
Rubenson, D. (2000, April 10-13). Participation and poli
tics: Social capital, civic voluntarism, and institutional
context. Proceedings of the Political Studies Associa
tion-UK 50th Annual Conference, London, UK.
Seyd, P., & White le y, P. (2002). New Labor 's grass
roots: The transformation of the Labor Party
membership . Lon don: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyons, W., & Alexander, R.

(2000). A tale of two elector ates:
Generational replacement and the
decline of voting in presidential
elections. Journal of Politics ,
62( 4 ), 1014- 1034.
Mathews, D. (1994). Politics for
people: Finding a re sponsible
public voice. Chicago:
University of Jllinois Press .

Milner, H. (2002). Civic

literacy: How informed citizens
make democracy work.
Hanover, NH: University ofNew
England Press.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of

collective action: Public goods
and the theory of groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Develop ment
(OECD) (2001 ). Citizens as
partners, information,
consultation and public
participation in policy-mak ing.
Paris : Author.

Parry, G., Moyser , G., & Day, N.

(1992). Political partici pation
and democracy in Britain. New
York : Cambridge University
Press.

Pattie, C., Seyd, P., & White le y,

P. (2003). Citizen and civic
engagement: Attitudes and
Seyd , P., Whiteley, P., & Pattie, C. (200 I). Citizenship
in Connectivity: Ability ofICT that enables individuals
Britain : Attitudes and behavior. The Political Quarterly , who share common goals and interest s to easily commu p
72(sl), 141- 148. nicate with each other.

Sulliv an, J. L., Borgida, E., Jackson, M. S., Riedel, E. ,
Oxendine , A., & Gangl, A. (2002) . Social capital and
electronic networks : For profits vs. for community ap
proaches. AmericanBehavioral Scientist , 45(5), 868-
886.
Verba , S., & Nie, N. (1972) . Participation in Amer ica:
Political democracy and social equality. New York :
Harper and Row.
Verba, S., Schlo z man , K ., & B rady, H. (1995) . Voice
and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politic s.
Cam bridge , MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (19 80). Who vot
es?
New Have n, CT: Yale University Press.
KEY TERMS
Civic Skill: Individual's organi zational and commu
nications abilities that can facilitate his or her political
activities.
Collective Incentives: Incentives derived from
policy goals that are available for all to enjoy regardless
of whether one participate s.
Expressive Incentives: Incentive s that are grounded
in individual ' s sense of loyalty and affection to a group .
Group Incentives: Incentives prompted by indi vidual
' s perception about the efficacy of a group as a whole to
bring about desired social change .
Political Efficacy: Individual's perception that
politi cal change is possible, and that the individual
citizen can play a part in bringing about this change .
Political Institutions: The settings where political
participation takes place.
Selective Incentives: Incentives restricted to partici
pants that include gratification obtained during the par
ticipating process , privatized outcomes from participa tio
n, and ideological i ncenti ves prompted by similar be liefs
shared by members in a group.
Social Capital: Relational resources having to do
with connections among individuals that form networks
of civic engagement , and the resulting norms of
reciprocity and trust arising from the networks.
Social Norms-Derived Incentives: Incentives for in
dividual to conform to the influence of other people to
particip ate.

Communality: The availability ofa commonly acces

sibl e pool of information enabled by JCT to all partici
pants .