Contextual Factors that Affect Outcomes of Citizen Engagement

by Nick Charney

---

Earlier this week I was doing some research on citizen engagement (See: The Problem with Engagement) and came across a  massive 189-page PDF entitled Strategic framework for mainstreaming citizen engagement in World Bank Group operations: engaging with citizens for improved results. If you can spare the time I highly recommend reading what you can of it, it covers off important citizen engagement factors such as country context, government ownership, and the importance of clarity of objectives.

If you can't dedicate the time to read the whole document you ought to at least look over the three tables below that I pulled directly there from. They cover off (1) the contextual factors that affect outcomes of citizen engagement; (2) additional contextual factors that affect outcomes of citizen engagement in various areas (e.g. service delivery); and (3) overview of citizen engagement approaches and mechanisms.

I've also got the tables saved in a separate word document that you can grab if you are so interested.

Cheers

Contextual Factors that Affect Outcomes of Citizen Engagement Initiatives
Demand-side factors
Willingness	The degree to which the development issue addressed by citizen engagement initiatives is of interest to all citizens or an identifiable target group of citizens. Willingness to engage with the state based on factors such as intrinsic motivation, perception of government willingness to engage, belief in the efficacy of participation, or cost(s) of inaction. Nature of past state-citizen engagement and outcomes achieved. History and risk of elite capture.
Capacity	Access to timely, credible, comprehensive, relevant, and easy-to-understand information. Sufficient awareness and understanding of the issue to engage with the government effectively. Capabilities (economic, human, social, political, technical) to engage in the “upstream” (policy formulation) as well as “downstream” (implementation) stages of the engagement process. Strong, broad-based, and recognized leadership to engage on the development issue. Authority, credibility, and legitimacy of CSOs. Capacity to network within and across state-society. Capacity of individuals and groups/organizations for collective action, including excluded and marginalized sections of society.
Supply-side factors
Willingness	Willingness of state functionaries (elected officials/bureaucratic staff/service providers) to (a) engage with citizens, and (b) respond to citizens’ feedback (as determined by interests, ideology, incentives, and reward(s)/cost(s) of action/inaction). Strength of individual champions within the state. Level of political competition and whether it creates incentives for reforms and accountability. Perception of the capability of mobilizing citizens and other stakeholders. Degree of sanctions triggered by engagement mechanisms (if any). Effective horizontal accountability institutions (e.g., judiciary, legislative, and other oversight authorities) or well-known legal accountability mechanisms that promote the responsiveness of public officials to citizens’ concerns and priorities. Politics of patronage.
Capacity	Generation of and access to timely, credible, comprehensive, and useful information on issues that are important to citizens. Mandate, knowledge, plan/strategy to address the issues. Capacity to gather, aggregate, and respond to citizen feedback (e.g., organizational, technical, and political competencies).
Sociopolitical, economic, legal, and other factors
Context and processes	History of civic participation, including existence and history of well-known, open, accessible, credible, and institutionalized citizen-state interface platform(s). Existence of interlocutors/mobilizers with strong leadership, adequate capacity, and credibility (with citizens and state actors) to mobilize both citizens and state officials and facilitate citizen-state interaction. Degree of decentralization.

Additional Contextual Factors Affecting Citizen Engagement Outcomes in Various Areas
Outcome area	Factors
Public service delivery	Service characteristics, such as availability of information on and complexity of the service provided. Influence of citizen feedback on the outcomes of service provision vis-à-vis such factors as capacity of service providers. Accessibility/quality of services affiliated with ideologies and values (e.g., water, sanitation). Concerns about service provision in such areas can emerge into socially and politically salient issues. Institutional capacity, mandate, and incentives to respond to citizen feedback. Existence/effectiveness of oversight mechanisms to ensure responsiveness to citizen feedback. Cultural and social factors that affect decision-making processes (e.g., gender, wealth, ethnicity, and education). Risks of providing feedback or engaging with service providers (e.g., retribution by the service personnel on whom citizens depend) Limited or no choice of service providers (e.g., in geographically remote areas).
Public financial management	Existence of legal frameworks that require or facilitate opportunities for CE in budget processes. Stage of budget process and timing of citizen input: early CE during budget preparation (vs. execution) increases opportunities for impact. Government structure: governments with existing participatory processes are more likely to be open to a broader range of CE approaches. Perceived legitimacy of citizen input: citizen input that is collective/representative may lead to greater government responsiveness in budget processes than individual input.
Governance	Organizational culture of public institutions. (e.g., clarity and effectiveness of policies, procedures, and monitoring and control systems). Form of corruption: extortive corruption practices are more likely than collusive corruption practices to motivate citizen action. Cultural values such as gift-giving or nepotism. Mandate and strength of oversight institutions, including legislature, judiciary, supreme audit institutions, and anticorruption agencies. Independence and proactivity of media. Degree of decentralization, effectiveness of local institutions, and extent of central government oversight.
Natural resource management	Resource value: high resource value/economic dependence provides fewer incentives for devolution of authority to local communities. Costs/benefits for relevant stakeholders; e.g., agreement on revenue sharing could help to motivate community engagement. Community characteristics, such as high inequality, likelihood of elite capture, limited information flows, or low capacity. Legal framework and reporting requirements on access to and ownership, allocation, and control of natural resources. Central government support for local management of natural resources, and capacity to negotiate favorable concessions and legal agreements. Existence/efficacy of the private sector’s attempts to understand and address the needs of local communities.
Social inclusion and empowerment	Community characteristics such as transparency of decision-making rules, identification of the poor, and degree of equality. Community capacity to implement projects and utilize CE mechanisms effectively. Existence of measures to prevent elite capture (such as contested election of local leaders). Social norms and incentives for the inclusion of women and other vulnerable and marginalized groups. Commitment of state actors to decentralization and empowerment of local governments and communities.

Overview of Citizen Engagement Approaches and Mechanisms
CE activity	Mechanisms	Government participation required	Citizen participation required	Technical complexity and skills required	Time	Cost
Consultation	Public hearings	Medium	Low	Medium	Low	Low
	Focus group discussions	Weak	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
	Advisory body/committee	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium	Low
Grievance Redress	Formal GRMs	Weak	Low	Medium	Low	Low
	Citizens’ jury	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low
Collecting, recording, and reporting on inputs from citizens	Public hearings	Medium	Low	Medium	Low	Low
	Focus group discussions	Weak	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium
	Citizen satisfaction surveys	Medium	High	High	High	High
	Community scorecard	Medium	Medium	High	High	High
	Citizen report card	Strong	High	Medium	High	High
Collaboration in decision-making	Citizen/user membership in decision-making bodies	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
	Integrity pacts	Strong	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Participatory planning	Medium	Medium	High	High	High
	Participatory budgeting	Strong	Medium	High	High	High
	Citizens’ jury	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Low
Citizen-led monitoring and evaluation or oversight	Procurement monitoring	Strong	High	High	Medium	Medium
	Public expenditure tracking	Strong	High	Medium	High	High
	Community scorecard	Medium	Medium	High	High	High
	Social audit	Medium	High	High	High	High
	Citizen report card	Strong	High	Medium	High	High
	Citizen satisfaction surveys	Medium	High	High	High	High
Empowering citizens with resources and authority over their use	Participatory planning	Medium	Medium	High	High	High
	Community management	Strong	High	High	High	Medium
	Community contracting	Strong	High	High	High	Medium
	Participatory monitoring	Medium	High	High	Medium	Medium
Building citizen capacity for engagement	Budget literacy campaigns	Weak	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Public reporting of revenues and expenditures	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low
Information dissemination/ demystification	Information campaigns	Weak	Low	Low	Medium	Medium
	Citizens’ charters	Strong	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Citizen service centers	Strong	Low	Low	Medium	Medium
	Budget transparency	Strong	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Public reporting of revenues and expenditures	Medium	Low	Low	Low	Low
	Budget literacy campaigns	Weak	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
	Independent budget analysis	Weak	High	Low	High	Medium
	Citizens’ budget	Strong	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium