Online Engagement from the Grassroots: Reflecting on over a Decade of ePetitioning Experience in Europe and the UK

Chapter

Abstract

Extensive debate on Internet and formal politics has concentrated on whether authorities should focus their efforts on high-volume activities such as petitioning or crowdsourcing. Those engagement tools seem to be consistent with the ambition of many networked citizens to influence policymaking through ad hoc and mostly single-issue movements. Therefore, certain interesting questions emerge: can authorities organise their engagement activities to respond and act upon this call? Can citizens indeed influence policymaking in a few clicks? This chapter draws together material from different uses of ePetitioning tools in Europe, mainly focusing on the integrated UK experience at national and local level. The analysis suggests that those initiatives can provide valuable feedback to authorities and be effectively complemented by other forms of deeper engagement. Yet, political organisations should pay close attention on how the public views such exercises and be prepared to support participants in different ways and on a regular basis.

Keywords

Local Authority Discussion Forum Procedural Fairness Road Price Engagement Tool 
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.

References

  1. Best SJ, Krueger BS (2005) Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation. Polit Behav 27:183–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blair T (2008) The e-Petition shows that my government is listening. Homepage of guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/18/uk.transport. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  3. Bristol City Council (2011). Bristol petitions. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council-and-democracy/consultations/petitions/. Accessed 15 May 2011
  4. Cabinet Office (2011). Big Society—overview. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/big-society-overview. Accessed 15 May 2011
  5. Carman C (2010) The process is the reality: perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Polit Stud 58:731–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Communities and Local Government (2008) Local petitions and calls for action consultation: government response. Homepage of department for communities and local government. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/906840.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2011
  7. Cruickshank P, Smith C (2011a) EuroPetition monitoring and evaluation report. EuroPetition projectGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruickshank P, Smith C (2011b) Understanding the e-Petitioner. Transforming Government People Process Policy 5(4):319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dutton WH (2009) The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks. Prometheus 27:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutton WH, Eynon R (2009) Networked individuals and institutions: a cross-sector comparative perspective on patterns and strategies in government and research. Inform Soc 25:198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutton W, Helsper EJ (2007) The internet in Britain: 2007. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutton WH, Helsper EJ, Gerber MM (2009) The internet in Britain: 2009. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrett RK (2006) Protest in an information society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Inform Commun Soc 9:202–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilton S (2006) Developing local e-democracy in Bristol: from information to consultation to participation and beyond. Aslib Proc 58:416–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. House of Commons (2011) Proposals for debating petitions and for a public reading stage for bills. Homepage of House of Commons. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05884.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2011
  16. Jungherr A, Jürgens P (2010) The political click: political participation through e-Petitions in Germany. Pol Internet 2:131–165Google Scholar
  17. Karpf D (2010) Online political mobilization from the advocacy group’s perspective: looking beyond clicktivism. Pol Internet 2:7–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krueger BS (2006) A comparison of conventional and internet political mobilization. Am Polit Res 34:759–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindner R, Riehm U (2009) Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary e-Petition systems in comparative perspective. eJournal eDemocracy Open Government 1:1–11Google Scholar
  20. Lindner R, Riehm U (2011) Broadening participation through e-Petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Pol Internet 3:1–23Google Scholar
  21. Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act (2009), Homepage of office of public sector information. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090020_en_1. Accessed 15 Sep 2011
  22. Localism Bill (2010) Localism Bill starts a new era of people power. Homepage of communities and local government. http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/1794971. Accessed 29 Dec 2010
  23. Macintosh A (2004) Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement in the policy process. In: Caddy J, Vergez C (eds) Promise and problems of edemocracy: challenges of online citizen engagement. OECD, Paris, pp 19–142Google Scholar
  24. Macintosh A, Malina A, Farrell S (2002) Digital democracy through electronic petitioning. In: McIver WJ, Elmagarmid AK (eds) Advances in digital government. Springer, New York, pp 137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahrer H, Krimmer R (2005) Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the middleman paradox. Inform Syst J 15:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller L (2009) E-petitions at Westminster: the way forward for democracy? Parliam Aff 62:162–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Misuraca G, Broster D, Centeno C, Punie Y, Lampathaki F, Charalabidis Y, Askounis D, Osimo D, Skuta K, Bicking M (2011) Envisioning digital Europe 2030: scenarios for ICT in future governance and policy modelling. European Commission, JRC, SpainGoogle Scholar
  28. mySociety (2011) mySociety. http://www.mysociety.org/about/. Accessed 15 May 2011
  29. National Assembly for Wales (2011) Petitioning: bringing your issues to light, National Assembly for Wales, Petitions CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  30. Local e-Democracy National Project (2005) Barriers to e-democracy: local government experiences and responsesGoogle Scholar
  31. Navarria G (2010) The internet and representative democracy: a doomed marriage? Internet, policy and politics 2010: an impact assessment. St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Panagiotopoulos P, Al-Debei MM (2010) Engaging with citizens online: understanding the role of ePetitioning in local government democracy. Internet, politics, policy, 2010: an impact assessment. St. Anne’s College, University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Panagiotopoulos P, Moody C, Elliman T (2011a) An overview assessment of ePetitioning tools in the English Local Government. In: Tambouris E, Macintosh A, de Bruijn H (eds) 3rd international conference on eParticipation, LNCS 6847, pp 204–215Google Scholar
  34. Panagiotopoulos P, Sams S, Elliman T, Fitzgerald G (2011b) Do social networking groups support online petitions? Transforming Government People Process Policy 5:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Panagiotopoulos P, Al-Debei MM, Fitzgeral G, Elliman T (in press) A business model thinking perspective for ICTs in public engagement, Gov. Inf. Q.Google Scholar
  36. Rose J, Saebo O (2010) Designing deliberation systems. Inform Soc 26:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saebo O, Rose J, Flak LS (2008) The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an emerging research area. Govern Inform Q 25:400–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scottish Parliament (2011) The Scottish Parliament ePetitions. http://epetitions.scottishparliament.uk/. Accessed 15 May 2011
  39. Seaton J (2005) The Scottish parliament and e-democracy. Aslib Proc 57:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shulman SW (2009) The case against mass e-mails: perverse incentives and low quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Pol Internet 1:111–145Google Scholar
  41. Skunkwork (2011) E-petitions revised proposal for Directgov, Skunkwork HM GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  42. Whyte A, Renton A, Macintosh A (2005a) eDemocracy from the top down: an evaluation of eDemocracy activities initiated by councils and government. Bristol City Council for The Local eDemocracy National Project, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  43. Whyte A, Renton A, Macintosh A (2005b) e-Petitioning in Kingston and Bristol: evaluation of e-petitioning in the local e-democracy national project. Napier University, EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and ComputingBrunel UniversityWest LondonUK

Personalised recommendations