Towards Decision Support for Participatory Democracy

  • David Rios Insua
  • Gregory E. Kersten
  • Jesus Rios
  • Carlos Grima
Part of the International Handbooks Information System book series (INFOSYS)


In many parts of the world there is growing demand for participation in public policy decision making. This demand could be satisfied by the design and deployment of Webbased group decision support systems to aid large groups of, possibly unsophisticated, users in participating in such decisions. After describing several mechanisms for participatory democracy, we provide a framework for decision support in this area and describe decision support functions that could be implemented in such a framework. We illustrate the ideas with a specific system to support participatory budget elaboration through the Web. Several practical issues are discussed along the way.


Decision Support Discussion Forum Participatory Process Direct Democracy Social Choice Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aikens, G.S., “A Personal History of Minnesota Electronic Democracy, 1994,” J Gov Inform, 25(1), 1998, 1-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J., Social Choice and Individual Values. New York. NY: Wiley, 1951.Google Scholar
  3. Baierle, T. and J. Cayford, Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. Barrat, J., “A Preliminary Question: Is E-voting Actually Useful for Our Democratic Institutions?,” in Krimmer, R. (ed.), Electronic Voting 2006. Bonn: GI-Edition, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. Brams, S. and P. Fishburn, “Voting Procedures,” in Arrow, K., Sen, A. and Suzumura, K (eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Volume 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002, pp. 173-206.Google Scholar
  6. Bray, J. and D. McLaughlin, “Getting to Ground: Democratic Renewal in Canada,” in Crossing Boundaries Papers. Ottawa: The Crossing Boundaries National Council, 2005.Google Scholar
  7. Caddy, J. and C. Vergez, “Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Carver, S., “Integrating Multi-criteria Evaluation with Geographical Information Systems,” Int J Geogr Inf Sci, 5, 1991, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carver, S., A. Evans, R. Kingston and I. Turton, “Public Participation, GIS, and Cyberdemocracy: Evaluating Online Spatial Decision Support Systems,” Environ Plann B, 28, 2001, 907-921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemen, R. and R. Winkler, “Unanimity and Compromise among Probability Forecasters,” Manage Sci, 36(7), 1990, 767-779.Google Scholar
  11. Crick, B., Democracy: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. CST, Policy through Dialogue: Informing Policies based on Science and Technology. London: Council for Science and Technology, 2005.Google Scholar
  13. Daft, R.L., R.H. Lengel and L.K. Trevino, “Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for Information Systems,” MIS Quart, 11(3), 1987, 355-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, Å. Grönlund and A. Larsson, “Public Decision Support – Using a DSS to Increase Democratic Transparency,” Int J Pub Inform Syst, 1, 2005, 3-25.Google Scholar
  15. Davies, T. and B.S. Noveck, Online Deliberation : Design, Research, and Practice. Chicago, IL: CSLI Publications/University of Chicago Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. de Moor, A. and M. Aakhus, “Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools,” Commun ACM, 49(3), 2006, 93-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dryzek, J.S., Discursive Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. Dryzek, J.S., “Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy,” Polit Theory, 29(5), 2001, 651-669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunn, W., Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. Elster, J., “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory,” in Elster, J. and Hylland, A. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997, pp. 103–32.Google Scholar
  21. Fjermestad, J. and S.R. Hiltz, “An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experiment Research: Methodology and Results,” J Manage Inform Syst, 15(3), 1989/1999, 7-149.Google Scholar
  22. French, S., “Group Consensus Probability Distributions: A Critical Survey,” Bayesian Stat, 2, 1985, 183-202.Google Scholar
  23. French, S., Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. Chichester: Wiley, 1986.Google Scholar
  24. French, S., “Modelling, Making Inferences and Making Decisions: The Roles of Sensitivity Analysis,” TOP, 11(2), 2003, 229-252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. French, S. and D. Rios Insua, Statistical Decision Theory. London: Arnold, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. French, S., D. Rios Insua and F. Rugeri, “E-Participation and Decision Analysis,” Technical Reports on Statistics and Decision Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Goodin, R.E., “Democratic Deliberation Within,” Philos Public Aff, 29(1), 2000, 81-109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon, T., N. Karacapilidis, H. Voss and A. Zauke, “Computer-mediated Cooperative Spatial Planning,” in Timmermans, H. (ed.), Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning. E & FN SPON, 1997, pp. 299-309.Google Scholar
  29. Gordon, T.F. and N. Karacapilidis, “The Zeno Argumentation Framework,” in Proceedings of the 6th Iinternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Melbourne, Australia: ACM, 1997, pp. 10-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gregory, R.S., B. Fischhoff and T. McDaniels, “Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations,” Decis Anal, 2(1), 2005, 4-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grima, C. and D. Rios Insua, “Designing a General Architecture to Support Egovernment,” Technical Reports on Statistics and Decision Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. Grönlund, Å., “DSS in a Local Government Context – How to Support Decisions Nobody Wants to Make?,” in Wimmer, M.A. (ed.), EGOV 2005 LNCS 3591. Berlin: Springer: 2005, pp. 69-80.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J., “Three Normative Models of Democracy,” Constellations, 1(1), 1994, 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. Hamalainen, M., S. Hashim, C.W. Holsapple, Y. Suh and A.B. Whinston, “Structured Discourse for Scientific Collaboration: A Framework for Scientific Collaboration Based on Structured Discourse Analysis,” J Organ Behav, 2(1), 1992, 1-26.Google Scholar
  36. Hämäläinen, R.P., “Decisionarium – Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions,” J Multi-Crit Decis Anal, 12, 2003, 101-110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hämäläinen, R.P., E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen and H. Ehtamo, “Evaluating a Framework for Multi-stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management,” Group Decis Negot, 10(4), 2001, 331-353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hitchcock, D., P. McBurney and S. Parsons, “A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues,” in Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. Holtzman, S., Intelligent Decision Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey, 2001.Google Scholar
  40. Irvin, R.A. and J. Stansbury, “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?,” Public Admin Rev, 64(1), 2004, 55-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jessup, L.M. and J.S. Valacich (eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1993.Google Scholar
  42. Karacapilidis N.I. and C.P. Pappis, “A Framework for Group Decision Making Support Systems: Combining AI Tools and OR techniques,” Eur J Oper Res, 103, 1997, 373-388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. New York, NY: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  44. Keeney, R.L. and D. von. Winterfeldt, “Eliciting Probabilities from Experts in Complex Technical Problems,” IEEE T Eng Manage, 38, 2001, 191-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelly, G.G. and R.P. Bostrom, “A Facilatator’s General Model for Managing Socio-emotional Issues in GSS Meeting Environments,” J Manage Inform Syst, 14(3), 1998, 23-44.Google Scholar
  46. Kingston, R., S. Carver, A. Evans and I. Turton, “Web-based Public Participation Geographical Information Systems: An Aid to Local Environmental Decision Making,” Comput Environ Urban, 24, 2000, 109-125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krimmer, R., “Electronic Voting,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Electronic Voting, Bonn, 2006.Google Scholar
  48. Lindblom C.E., “Muddling Through,” Public Admin Rev, 19(2), 1959, 79-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lourenço, R. and J.P. Costa “Incorporating Citizens’ Views in Local Policy Decision Making,” Decis Support Syst, 2005,In Press.Google Scholar
  50. Luce, D. and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
  51. Macintosh, A., A. Malina and S. Farrell, “Digital Democracy through Electronic Petitioning,” in McIver, W. and Elmagarmid, A.K. (eds.), Advances in Digital Government: Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 137-148.Google Scholar
  52. March, J.G., “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” Bell J Econ, 9(2), 1978, 587-608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McBurney, P. and S. Parsons, “Risk Agoras: Dialectical Argumentation for Scientific Reasoning,” in Boutilier, C. and Goldszmidt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2000, 371-373.Google Scholar
  54. McBurney, P. and S. Parsons, “Intelligent Systems to Support Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Regulation,” Inform Commun Tech Law, 10(1), 2001, 79-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McKelvey, R.D., “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control,” J Econ Theory, 12(3), 1976, 472-482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miranda, S. and R. Bostrom, “Meeting Facilitation: Process versus Content Interventions,” J Manage Inform Syst, 15(4), 1999, 89-114.Google Scholar
  57. Morris, P. A., “Combining Expert Judgments: A Bayesian Approach,” Manage Sci, 23(7), 1977, 679-693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mustajoki, J., R.P. Hämäläinen and M Marttunen, “Participatory Multicriteria Decision Support with Web-HIPRE: A Case of Lake Regulation Policy,” Environ Modell Softw, 19(6), 2004, 537-547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nash, J.F., “The Bargaining Problem,” Econometrica, 18, 1950, 155-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Norris, P., Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  61. Noveck, B.S., “The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking,” Emory Law J, 53(2), 2004, 433-519.Google Scholar
  62. Nurmi, H., Comparing Voting Systems. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1987.Google Scholar
  63. Ocker, R., J. Fjermestad, S.R. Hiltz and K. Johnson, “Effects of Four Modes of Group Communication on the Outcomes of Software Requirement Determination,” J Manage Inform Syst, 15(1), 1998, 99-118.Google Scholar
  64. Phillips, L.D., “A Theory of Requisite Decision Models,” Acta Psychol, 56, 1984, 29-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pickles, J., “Representations in an Electronic Age: Geography, GIS, and Democracy,” in Pickles, J. (eds), Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographical Information Systems. New York, NY: Guilford, 1995, 1-30.Google Scholar
  66. Radcliff, B. and E. Wingenbach, “Preference Aggregation, Functional Pathologies, and Democracy: A Social Choice Defense of Participatory Democracy,” J Polit, 62(4), 2000, 977-998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raiffa, H., Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  68. Rawls, J., Political Liberalism. The John Dewey Essays in Philosophy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  69. Renn, O., “The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management,” in MacDaniels, T.L. and Small, M.J. (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 289-366.Google Scholar
  70. Rios, J., D. Rios Insua, E. Fernandez and J.A. Rivero “Supporting Participatory Budget Formation through the Web,” in Böhlen, M., Gamper, J., Polasek, W., and Wimmer, M.A. (eds.), E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy, LNAI 3416. Berlin: Springer, 2005, pp.268-276.Google Scholar
  71. Rios, J. and D. Rios Insua, “PARBUD. A System for E-participatory Budget Elaboration,” Technical Reports, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2006.Google Scholar
  72. Rios, J. and D. Rios Insua, “A Framework for Participatory Budget Elaboration Support,” J Oper Res Soc, 2007, In Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rittel, H.W.J. and M.M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sci, 4(2), 1973, 155-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer, “A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,” Sci Technol Hum Val, 30(2), 2005, 251-290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rubio, J.A. and D. Rios Insua, “NegoML. An XML Schema for Negotiation Analysis Support,” Technical Reports, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 2007.Google Scholar
  76. Santos, B.S., “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a Redistributive Democracy,” Polit Soc, 26(4), 1998, 461-510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sartori, G., ?‘Qué es la Democracia? Taurus, 2002.Google Scholar
  78. Sillince, J.A. and M.H. Saeedi, “Computer-mediated Communication: Problems and Potentials of Argumentation Support Systems,” Decis Support Syst, 26(4), 1999, 287-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simon, H.A., “Rationality in Psychology and Economics,” J Bus, 59(4), 1986, 209-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Souza, C.U., “Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian Cities: Limits and Possibilities in Building Democratic Institutions,” Environ Urban, 13(1), 2001, 159-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Steffek, J., C. Kissling and P. Nanz, Civil Society Participation and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.Google Scholar
  82. Suh, K.S., “Impact of Communication Medium on Task Performance and Satisfaction: An Examination of Media-richness Theory,” Inform Manage, 35, 1999, 292-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sunstein, C.R., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  84. Thomson, W., “Cooperative Models of Bargaining,” in Aumann, R.J. and Hart, S. (eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, Volume 2, Chapter 35. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1994, pp. 1238-1277.Google Scholar
  85. Tung, L. and E. Turban, “A Proposed Research Framework for Distributed Group Support Systems,” Decis Support Syst, 23, 1998, 175-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Turoff, M. and S.R. Hiltz, “Distributed Group Support Systems,” MIS Quart, 17(4), 1993, 399-416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Uleri, P. and M. Gallagher, (eds.), The Referendum Experience in Europe. London: MacMillan Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  88. van Mill, D. “The Possibility of Rational Outcomes from Democratic Discourse and Procedures,” J Polit, 58(3), 1996, 734-752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Westen, T., “Can Technology Save Democracy?,” Nat Civ Rev, 82(2), 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Rios Insua
    • 1
  • Gregory E. Kersten
    • 2
  • Jesus Rios
    • 2
  • Carlos Grima
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Rey Juan Carlos and Royal Academy of SciencesMadridSpain
  2. 2.John Molson School of Business and InterNeg Research CentreConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Decision Engineering LabUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations