Measuring NGOs’ Active Participation in Municipal Decision Making in Turkiye

Year 2023, Volume: 32 Issue: 1, 35 - 56, 08.04.2023

Erdal Eroğlu , Gülçin Tunç , Mine Aydemir

https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2023.32.1180238

Abstract

This study develops a new scale for measuring the active participation relation between municipalities and NGOs. While citizen participation at the local level is a widely explored topic, a scale that aims to get NGO members’ perceptions about their level of participation and focuses on the budgeting process is not available. We carried out an extensive review of the participation and budgeting literature and considered the inputs obtained from this review in developing our two-dimensional and 6-item participation scale. ‘Participation mechanism’ and ‘participation process’ were determined as two dimensions. This was a decision made based on the existence of an emphasis on the interplay between the participation mechanisms used and the participation process actualized in the relevant literature. As existing scales for examining local participation are designed to get data from public officials, we hope that obtaining data from NGOs will enrich our understanding of the complex participatory relationship between citizens and the local administration.

Keywords

Scale development, Active participation, NGOs, Municipality, Validity, Reliability

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

120K148

Thanks

This study is supported as a project taking number 120K148 by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) 1001. We thank TÜBİTAK for its financial support.

Türkiye’de Belediyelerin Karar Alma Süreçlerine STK’ların Aktif Katılımının Ölçülmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, belediyeler ile STK’lar arasındaki aktif katılım ilişkisinin incelenmesinde kullanılacak yeni bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Yerel düzeyde vatandaş katılımı literatürde farklı yönleriyle ele alınmasına karşın STK üyelerinin belediye karar alma süreçlerine katılım düzeyleri hakkındaki algılarını bütçe sürecine odaklanarak ortaya koymayı hedefleyen bir ölçek mevcut değildir. Yazındaki bu boşluğu doldurmak yönünde, katılım ve bütçeleme süreçleriyle ilgili geniş bir kaynak taraması yapılmış ve bu tarama sonucunda elde edilen girdiler iki boyuttan ve altı maddeden oluşan yeni ölçeğin geliştirilmesinde kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin içerdiği iki boyut, “katılım mekanizmaları” ve “katılım süreci” olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu kararda, seçilen katılım mekanizmaları ile pratikte gerçekleşen katılım süreci arasındaki karşılıklı etkileşime yazında sıklıkla vurgu yapılması etkili olmuştur. Yerel düzeyde vatandaş katılımını tespit etmeye yönelik mevcut ölçeklerin büyük oranda kamudaki yöneticilerin algısını ölçmeye odaklanmış olması dolayısıyla STK’ların algısını elde etmeye yönelen bu çalışmanın vatandaşlar ve belediyeler arasındaki karmaşık katılım ilişkisinin anlaşılmasına katkı yapacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Ölçek geliştirme, Aktif katılım, STK’lar, Belediye, Geçerlilik, Güvenilirlik

Project Number

120K148

References

• Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Barnes, M., Newman, J. & Knops A, et al. (2003). Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation. Public Administration, 81(2): 379–99.
• Beaumont, J. & Nicholls, W. (2008). Plural governance, participation, and democracy in cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1): 87-94.
• Beckett, J. & King, C. S. (2002). The challenge to improve citizen participation in public budgeting: A discussion. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(3): 463-85.
• Berner, M. M., Amos, J. M. & Morse, R. S. (2011). What constitutes effective citizen participation in local government? Views from city stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1): 128-63.
• Brannan, T. John, P. & Stoker, G. (2006). Active citizenship and effective public services and programmes: How can we know what really works? Urban studies, 43(5-6): 993-1008.
• Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960-2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3): 447-88.
• Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11): 1179-96.
• Chandler, D. (2001). Active citizens and the therapeutic state: The role of democratic participation in local government reform. Policy & Politics, 29(1): 3-14.
• Cheema, G. S. (2011). Engaging civil society to promote democratic local governance: Emerging trends and policy implications in Asia. Working paper no 7, Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy (ICLD), Visby.
• Chen, X., Yu, H. & Yu, F. (2015). What is the optimal number of response alternatives for rating scales? From an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 3(2): 69–78.
• Chhotray, V. & Stoker, G. (2009) Governance Theory and Practice A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press.
• Chirenje, L. I., Giliba, R. A. & Musamba, E. B. (2013). Local communities’ participation in decisionmaking processes through planning and budgeting in African countries. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 11(1): 10-6.
• Chyung, S. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., et al. (2017). Evidence‐based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10): 15-23.
• Citrin, J. & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR and Wrightsman LS (eds) Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press, 465–532.
• Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309–19.
• Council of Europe (CoE). (2009). Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process. CONF/PLE (2009) CODE1, Conference of INGOs at its meeting on 1st October 2009, Available at https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/resources/docs/code-of-good-pratice-for-civil--participation-in-the-decision-making-process-en.pdf, (Accessed 21 April 2020).
• Cohen, J. & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondary associations and democratic governance. Politics and Society, 20(4): 393–472.
• Dean, R. J. (2018). Counter-governance: Citizen participation beyond collaboration. Politics and Governance, 6(1): 180–88.
• Devas, N. & Grant, U. (2003). Local government decision‐making—citizen participation and local accountability: Some evidence from Kenya and Uganda. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 23(4): 307-16.
• Ebdon, C. (2000). The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture. Public Productivity & Management Review 23(3): 383-393.
• Ebdon, C. (2002). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2): 273-294.
• Ebdon, C. & Franklin, A. L. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(1): 32-49.
• Ebdon, C. & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3): 437-47.
• Fischer, F. (2010). Participatory governance. Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance Working Paper No. 24, Jerusalem Forum on Regulation & Governance and Hebrew University.
• Fung, A. (2006). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Fung, A. & Wright, E. O. (2001) Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29(1): 5-41.
• Heinelt, H. (2013). Introduction: The role perception and behavior of municipal councilors in the changing context of local democracy. Local Government Studies, 39(5): 633-39.
• Heper, M. & Keyman, E. F. (1998). Double‐faced state: political patronage and the consolidation of democracy in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies, 34(4): 259-77.
• Ianniello, M. Iacuzzi, S. & Fedele, P., et al. (2019). Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: a systematic review. Public Management Review, 21(1): 21-46.
• Innes, J. E. & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4): 419–36.
• Irvin, R. A. & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1): 55-65.
• Jenkins, G. D. & Taber, T. D. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4): 392-98.
• Jessop, B. (2016). Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1): 8-32.
• Jordan, L. & Van Tuijl, P. (2006). Rights and responsibilities in the political landscape of NGO accountability: Introduction and overview. In: Jordan, L. & Van Tuijl, P. (eds) NGO Accountability Politics, Principles, and Innovations. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 3-20.
• Jurlina Alibegović, D. & Slijepčević, S. (2018). Attitudes towards citizen participation in the local decision-making process: A comparative analysis. Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 27(1): 155-175.
• King, C. S., Feltey, K. M. & O'Neill Susel, B. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4): 317-26.
• Kissling, C. & Steffek, J. (2008). CSOs and the Democratization of International Governance: Prospects and Problems. In: Steffek, J. Kissling, C. & Nanz, P. (eds) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance-A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 208-18.
• Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
• Krafchisk, W. (2005). Can Civil Society Add Value to Budget Decision-Making? A Description of the Rise of Civil Society Budget Work. In: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management (ed) Citizen Participation and Pro-poor Budgeting. New York: United Nations Publications, 57-78.
• Marien, S., Hooghe, M. & Quintelier, E. (2010). Inequalities in non-institutionalized forms of political participation: A multi-level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1): 187-213.
• Marquetti, A., Schonerwald da Silva, C. E. & Campbell, A. (2012). Participatory economic democracy in action: Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989–2004. Review of Radical Political Economics, 44(1): 62-81.
• Michels, A. & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies 36(4): 477-91.
• Novy. A. & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies, 42(11): 2023-2036.
• Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Citizens as Partners-OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making. Paris, OECD Publications Service.
• Orbista, C. (2012). NGOs Participation in Local Governance in the Philippines. MA Thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
• Orosz, J. F. (2002). Views from the field: Creating a place for authentic citizen participation in budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(3): 423-44.
• Pandeya, G. P. (2015). Does citizen participation in local government decision-making contribute to strengthening local planning and accountability systems? an empirical assessment of stakeholders' perceptions in Nepal. International Public Management Review, 16(1): 67-98.
• Paul, S. (2007). Civic participation in subnational budgeting. In: Shah, A. (ed) Participatory Budgeting. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, 31-48.
• Petrova, T. (2011). Citizen participation in local governance in Eastern Europe: Rediscovering a strength of civil society in the post-socialist world?. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(5): 757-87.
• Posner, P. WB (2004). Local democracy and the transformation of popular participation in Chile. Latin American Politics and Society, 46(3): 55-81.
• Rios, A. M., Bastida, F. & Benito, B. (2016). Budget transparency and legislative budgetary oversight: An international approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(5): 546-568.
• Rivenbark, W. C. & Kelly, J. M. (2006). Performance budgeting in municipal government. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1): 35-46.
• Røiseland, A. & Vabo, S. I. (2015). Interactive – or counteractive – governance? Lessons learned about citizen participation and political leadership, In: ECPR General Conference, Montreal, 26-29th August 2015.
• Sener, T. (2014). Civic and political participation of women and youth in Turkey: An examination of perspectives of public authorities and NGOs. Journal of Civil Society, 10(1): 69-81.
• Shah, A. & Shen, C. (2007). Citizen-centric performance budgeting at the local level. In: Shah A (ed) Local Budgeting. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, 151-178.
• Simmons, R. (2001). Questionnaires. In: N. Gilbert (ed) Researching Social Life. London: Sage Publications, 85-104.
• Simonsen, W. & Robbins, M. D. (2000). The influence of fiscal information on preferences for city services. The Social Science Journal, 37(2): 195-214.
• Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C. & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1): 164-178.
• Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2007). Introduction: Governance network research- Towards a second generation. In: Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 1-21.
• Steffek, J. & Nanz, P. (2008). Emergent Patterns of Civil Society Participation in Global and European Governance. In: Steffek, J., Kissling, C. & Nanz, P. (eds) Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance-A Cure for the Democratic Deficit?. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave MacMillan Press, 1-29.
• Swyngedouw, E. (1992). Territorial organization and the space/technology nexus. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 17(4): 417-33.
• Tsang, S., Royse, C. F. & Terkawi, A. S. (2017). Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 11(1): 80-9.
• Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4): 411-27.
• Veltmeyer, H. (2008). Civil society and local development. Interações Campo Grande, 9(2): 229-243.
• Weijters, B., Cabooter. E. & Schillewaert, N. (2010) The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International, Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3): 236–47.
• White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1): 6-15.
• Yabanci, B. (2019). Turkey’s tamed civil society: Containment and appropriation under a competitive authoritarian regime. Journal of Civil Society, 15(4): 285-306.
• Yang, K. (2005). Explaining citizen involvement efforts: SES, institutions, & managerial behavior, In: Public Management Research Association Conference. Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.6966&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 15 April 2020).
• Yang, K. & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2): 191-216.
• Yang, K. & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2): 249-264.
• Yang, K. & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?. Public Administration Review, 71(6): 880-92.
• Zhang, Y. & Liao, Y. (2011). Participatory budgeting in local government: Evidence from New Jersey municipalities. Public Performance and Management Review, 35(2): 281–302.
• Zhang, Y. & Yang, K. (2009). Citizen participation in the budget process: The effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2): 289-317.
• Zittel, T. & Fuchs, D. (2007). Introduction: Democratic reform and political participation. In: Zittel, T. & Fuchs, D. (eds) Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back In?. London and New York: Routledge, 1-5.