Abstract
For advocates of participation, citizen involvement in government decision making is synonymous with (1) democratization of choices involving resource allocation, (2) decentralization of service systems management, (3) deprofessionalization of bureaucratic judgments that affect the lives of residents, and (4) demystification of design and investment decisions.1 These code words are, at the same time, anathema to a great many elected officials. Indeed, many public officials feel that only professionalization of service administration, centralization of bureaucratic structures (to ensure coordination and a clear “chain of command”), and implementation of the most sophisticated computer hardware for cost accounting and performance monitoring can enhance the ability of government to respond effectively to the needs of residents. This divergence of views accounts for much of the difficulty that has plagued citizen participation efforts in the United States in recent years.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Some examples of the writings of such advocates include Ivan Mich’s Deschooling Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1970)
Saul Alinsky, Reveille for Radicals (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946)
and Milton Kotier, Neighborhood Government (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).
These difficulties are described more fully in the Advisory Commission on Intergovernment Relations’ Citizen Participation in the American Federal System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979); and Daniel Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding (New York: Free Press, 1969).
For a general summary, see Stuart Langton, Citizen Participation in America (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1979).
See footnote 2. These experiments are also summarized in a number of books, including Richard Cole, Citizen Participation and the Urban Policy Process (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1974)
Peter Marris and Martin Rein, The Dilemmas of Social Reform (London: Routledge, 1967); and
Lawrence Johnson and Associates, Inc., Citizen Participation in Community Development (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978).
See Stuart Langton, ed., Citizen Participation Perspectives—Proceedings of the National Conference on Citizen Participation (Medford, Mass.: Tufts University Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship and Public Affairs, 1979), especially “Participation from the Citizen Perspective” by David Cohen et al., pp. 63-71.
Lawrence Susskind, “Public Participation and Consumer Sovereignty in an Era of Cutback Planning,” in Edward Hanton et al., eds. New Directions for the Mature Metropolis (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1980).
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (New York: Random House, 1971); the Center for Community Change is a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., that provides technical assistance to urban and rural community groups throughout the United States.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Susskind, L., Elliott, M. (1983). Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction. In: Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction. Environment, Development, and Public Policy. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0360-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0360-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0362-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0360-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive