Citizen Participation with Government in Policy Development - Research Paper Example

Citizen Participation with Government in Policy Development Name Institution Name Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Aims and Objectives 5 Research Question 5 Literature Review 5 Citizen participation and its rationale and the role of civil society organizations 6 Models of cooperation between CSOs and public bodies 9 Citizen participation techniques 10 Contemporary thinking in the citizen participation arena 12 Social Constructivism Theory 13 Nature and Construction of knowledge 14 Types of constructivism theories 14 Methodology 15 Methods 16 Research/ Data Collection 17 Semi-structured interview questions 18 Data Management and Analysis 19 Research Limitations 20 Ethical Concerns 21 Contribution to Knowledge 21 Gantt Chart 22 References 23 Introduction Public participation is considered as a deliberative process by which the interested citizens, the government and civil society organizations take part in policy making prior to making any political decision (Carson and Gelber, 2001). It is a thoughtful discussion that is hinged on giving and taking of reasons for choices. For instance, public participation acknowledges the pluralism of objectives and values, which enables collaborative problem solving that, is aimed at achieving legitimate policies (Herriman 2011). In the same line of discussion, public participation is the highest order of public engagement; information is exchanged between the sponsors of the participation process and the participants (Cornwall 2008). It is also referred to as a political principle, which might also be recognized as a right. Public participation always seeks and facilitates the engagement of those interested or potentially affected by the political decision. In this regard and according to the principles of public participation, individuals who are affected by the decision have a right to be involved in the process of decision-making. For this reason, it is implied that the contribution of the public have massive influence on the decision. The United Arab Emirates has made tremendous gains in development since inception in 1971 (Menifield 2010). UAE is a federation of seven sates established in December 2, 1971, given the then historical animosity in the region; the federation had minimal survival chances. However, year after year, the UAE has progressively grown as a successful federal entity in the Arab world (Hurriez 2013). The success here is mainly attributed to the manner in which the government is structured; for instance, national policy, foreign policy, and the constitution are function of the federal government while sovereignty is left to individual emirate states (Nee 2013). Given the fact that the federation lacks competitive election system, the leaders are chosen among family members. The president is chosen by the Federal National Council (FNC). The leadership in the UAE, both at national and individual state levels is not elected and hence there are no restrictions on its capacity to govern (Hurriez 2013). Decisions here are made based on consensus whereby the ruling family takes into account tribal considerations together with other interests like powerful business families in the region. The problems are usually worked out behind doors. The region has no freedom for political organizations and/or en influential role for civic organizations in effecting the decision making process (Nee 2013). For instance, UAE’s constitution has no specific provisions for creating political organizations such as formalized parties or even non-governmental organizations. According to Article 33 of UAE’s constitution provides the right to assembly (Almezaini 2012). The political decision making process is a prerogative of the ruling families. However, individual members of the society can laud their grievances in the ruler’s meeting place but they have no direct influence on the final decision making process. Accordingly, with regard to both right of association and public assembly, the ultimate decision is the duty of the government (Nee 2013). This paper is a research proposal that seeks to determine the effectiveness of citizen participation in government policy development programs or initiatives and how it can be insured that this participation is effective as an input in the United Arab Emirates. For instance, the main focus will be identifying citizen participation, its purposes and approaches, and frameworks that are applied in other governments to insure effective citizen participation. Then a framework will be designed to measure the effectiveness of citizen participation in the UAE government. Citizen participation in public policy formulation in the UAE will be core subject of this research. Aims and Objectives The following are the aims and objectives: To identify citizen participation in public policy development in the UAE To determine the purpose of citizen participation in public policy development and the different approaches used To identify the different frameworks applied by other countries to insure effective citizen participation To design a framework that measure effectiveness of citizen participation in the UAE government Research Question How can citizen participation be an effective input in government services policies development? Literature Review According to the United Nations General Assembly Millennium Declaration, citizen participation is the resolve to work collectively for more inclusive political process, allowing genuine participation of all citizens in all countries and the right of the public to have access to information. There are different frameworks of public participation in the formulation of public policy (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Citizen participation in legislative processes is usually considered as a significant part of an overall institutional approach of cooperation between civil society organizations and the government due to the fact that laws together with other general regulations are the basic tools of lauding and implementing public policies. Various countries have adopted comprehensive citizen participation mechanisms like Hungary, Romania, UK, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, while in other countries citizen participation is regulated by custom law such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark (Rowe and Frewer 2004). Accordingly, in some countries, citizen participation is constitutionally addressed although in a moderately general manner (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). For instance, in Switzerland the constitution imposes general duty for citizens to be consulted by the government on a thinly defined scope of issues. Citizen participation and its rationale and the role of civil society organizations Citizen participation has been found to be a critical element in shaping and implementing public policies thus an essential factor for participatory democracy (Heller 2001). It is important to note that the basic duty of participatory democracy is not replacing representative democracy that is mainly hinged on separation of powers, free elections, and multi-part systems; however, it is used to supplement it thus making it better functioning (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Citizen participation in public policy formulation has the following functions or benefits: i. Provides a chance while at the same time creating a condition for citizens to be regularly involved in political life and not only participating during elections (Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, & UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2011) ii. Citizen participation creates a structure for the public to advocate for their rightful interests which eventually contributes to the creation of a society with vibrant democratic culture (Wilson 1995; Plein, Green and Williams 1998) iii. The work of public authorities is made more transparent and closer to their constituents iv. Contributes to the quality of the public policy adopted together with its smooth implementation; provides a situation where all stakeholders participate in the development of public policies process (Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, & UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2011). In addition, their legitimate interests will be deemed protected and thus the implementation cost for such policies will be cost effective due to the fact that they will be less inclined to courts and other remedies to safeguard their interests (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). The organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe suggested in the Public Hearings Manual that citizens are likely to embrace public policies especially when they are given an opportunity to participate in that policy development process. v. Citizen participation facilitate Civil Society Organizations (CSO) watchdog role in the adopted policies implementation (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Plein, Green and Williams 1998) The CSOs play two critical roles in public policy development process; they are a suitable institutional tool that influence and facilitate participation of citizens in public policy (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Through CSOs citizens are allowed to organize themselves, express themselves, and advocate for their lawful interests effectively together with making the whole participation process transparent (Lock 2000; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Secondly, CSOs are a rightful party to the public policy development process given the fact that human rights from which citizens’ participation rights are derived from is also extended to the CSOs including things such as freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to access information. Not only is the importance of citizen participation acknowledged at the national level but also at the international level. In this regard, different forms of consultations involving the Civil Society Organizations have been transformed into standard practice of intergovernmental organizations such as United Nations (UN), World Bank, Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU. The CoE’s recommendations on legal status of NGOs particularly in Europe demand that member states create an enabling institutional environment for citizen participation in formulation of public policy. Accordingly, the Conference of International NGOs also known as the voice of civil society with the CoE in 2009 adopted a code of good practice for civil participation in the process of decision making (CONF/PLE(2009)CODE1) (Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, & UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2011). This code provides an analytical approach as well as identifies actors together with consultation process steps that must be observed to facilitate interaction between CSOs, citizens and public authorities (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). The European White paper of 2001 on European Governance has various recommendations that are geared towards making functioning institutions in EU to be highly transparent, participatory, accountable, and effective. For instance, the European Commission proposed involvement of CSOs in the EU decision-making process in order to understand the important role the play in the current democracies together with the need to develop general principles and minimum standards for consultation with the Commission. The main goal of citizen participation is involvement in public decision-making. Chaskin and Garg (1997) established that increasing demand for involvement of the public wholly depends on the trust in government. Accordingly, the concern for participation emerges holistically in the context of imagined or real failure of government to appropriately address the competitive needs and demands of its citizens (Rippe and Schaber 1999; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). In essence, citizen participation is considered as the active involvement of citizens outside the electoral process in making those decisions that affect their lives. The Lisbon Treaty of the EU; Democratic Principles emphasizes the principle of representative and participatory democracy including the role of political parties and citizens in the function of the Union (Bruce, 2003). Given this understanding, EU institutions must engage in consultation and should always maintain open and transparent dialogue with citizens. Citizen participation is prominently featured in civil society policy document that some countries have developed. The National Strategy for the Creation of an enabling environment for civil society (2006 -2011) is one example that was adopted by the government of Croatia in 2006 and it states that Croatia is a vibrant, pluralistic society that is based on participatory democracy that allows citizens to play an active role in the political and social life. Furthermore, the strategy dictates that a vibrant civil society must have effective instruments essential in ensuring citizen participation either directly or through CSOs in all phases of public policy processes including its final implementation. Models of cooperation between CSOs and public bodies According to the handbook of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), citizen as partners: OECD Guide to Information, Consultation and public participation in Policy-making, there are three distinct levels of cooperation between public bodies and citizens: Information: this is a one way relationship whereby the information flows from the government to citizens (Harris-Roxas and Harris 2007). For instance, the citizens are informed by the government on the decisions and initiatives that it has made and when it is deemed fit. Similarly, citizens can access the information on their own initiative (Datta and Sen 2000; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). For example, citizens can access documents that are of public importance like official gazette and the government’s website or internet pages (Mindell, Boltong and Forde 2008). Consultation: this is where the government seeks feedback from the citizens especially during public policy shaping process (Weeks 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). This is a two way form of communication in which the government determines the participants to ensure that it receives relevant and sound feedback (Wright, Parry and Mathers 2005). Under consultation, the government makes sure that citizens are provided with relevant information in advance (Mohan and Stokke 2000). Comments on draft laws are an ideal example of consultation (Brody, Godschalk and Burby 2003). Active participation: this is a situation where there is a higher degree of a two-way relationship in which citizens actively participate in shaping the public policies through membership in working groups that are commissioned to prepare draft law (Blair 2000). Under active participation there is improved collaboration between the government, citizens and other social actors; however, it should be noted that the government is not striped of its ultimate responsibility of choosing and implementing a given policy (Cornwall 2008; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Citizen participation techniques There are varying levels of citizen participation according to Reynolds and Sean (1993) - participation rungs on a continuum (Mukherjee 1996). At the lower level of the continuum there are therapy and manipulation; this level is the degree of non-participation whereby those who are in power educate the larger public (Elliott and Williams 2008). This form of citizen participation is no democratic given the fact that information only flows from the government to the public; there is less citizen involvement (Cole et al. 2005; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Tokenism is second on the continuum and is a situation where are informed or placated; citizens are given an opportunity to participate and express their opinions together with their concerns. However, tokenism does not empower citizens and hence have less influence in the decision making process (Commonwealth Foundation, 1999). At the top of the continuum there is democracy whereby citizen participation techniques are based on the degree of citizen power that is exhibited through partnership, delegated power, and citizen control (Legacy 2012). Partnership in this regard allows citizens to negotiate as well as engage in trade-offs with the government (Fung 2006). Delegated power and citizen control on the hand empower the have-not citizens to have a say in decision making. Reynolds and Sean (2000) reviewed various ways to organize citizen participation techniques by recognizing the work by Heberlein (1976) who established that there are four functions of public participation including information, interactive assurance, and ritualistic. The informational function in this context is where the public receives and provides information (Barnes et al. 2003). The interactive function provides a two way sharing of information between the public and the government (Mahoney, Potter and Marsh, 2007). The assurance function context is where the government assures the citizens that their views and opinions have been heard (Winters 2001). The ritualistic function, public participation like public hearings, is used to meet the legal requirements (Innes and Booher, 2004; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Contemporary thinking in the citizen participation arena There are many contemporary perspectives with regard to citizen participation; however, one school of thought emerged with a proactive emphasis upon assets based approach (Creighton, 2005; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). This approach is characterized by its efforts, proactive together with structural orientation. Assets based approach examines both the factors that affect individual citizens and the capability of people to work together to develop better conditions which on the other hand links it to the collaborative focus. Smith and Beazley (2000) proposed three perspectives, which include participation, responsibility and changing conditions. According to Smith and Beazley, healthy communities rely on citizen participation and investment in local problem solving capacities; people have to take responsibilities upon themselves; and lastly, people must work together to create better local conditions that are essential min enhancing a sense of the common good as well as provide increased opportunities for individual growth. With regard to this, Smith and Beazley claim that the above discussed theories are the basis for creating a healthy democratic society, good interpersonal relationships and above all for effective community development. Contemporary citizen participation is hinged on the above principles as it focuses on building relationships, people involvement in the process, and utilizing fully the existing strengths, assets and capacities of community members. Assets based community development and prevention-oriented processes are essential in building healthier, more sustainable communities, and contribute to building communities with greater stocks of social capital. According to Fung and Wright (2001), social capital is an essential ingredient of a positive civic capacity. Social Constructivism Theory This theory state that knowledge is constructed rather than being created; the theory is mainly concerned with the nature of knowledge together with how it is created and hence it is not concerned with ontological issues (Dannenberg et al. 2006; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). The society exists both as subjective and an objective reality (Carroli and Armstrong 2011). Under this theoretical setting, knowledge is understood as beliefs in which people can have reasonable confidence (Neuman 2000). Social constructivism is not founded on relativist perspective and thus it is compatible with grounded theory methodology (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). This theory originated as an attempt to understand the nature of reality in approximately over thirty years ago (Bishop & Davis 2002). It has its roots in sociology and is largely associated with the post-modern era in qualitative research. The theory is also related to the idea about how observations are the accurate reflection of the world that is being observed. It is an anti-realist, relativist stance, its influence of social constructivism is a current issue in grounded theory, and thus the comprehension of its core concepts is essential in evaluating the impact on methodology (Robson 1993). Constructivism claim that each individual through his/her cognitive process mentally constructs the world of experience, social constructivism on the other hand focuses on social rather than individual focus (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). The theory has less interest in the cognitive processes, which accompany knowledge. Social constructivism can be traced back to the interpretivist approach to thinking; it should be noted that constructivism is different from interpretivism regardless of their common philosophical roots (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Nature and Construction of knowledge Knowledge and truth in the constructionist perspective is created and not discovered by the mind (Thompson, 1995). When concepts are constructed it is easier for one to believe rather than when they are discovered despite the fact that they correspond to something real in the world (Brody, Godschalk and Burby 2003). Blair (2000) observed that reality is socially defined but this reality is subjective to experience of everyday life, the way the world is understood and not to the objective experience of the natural world. Bucek and Smith (2000) notes that most of what is known and most of the knowing that is accomplished s concerned with working to make sense of what is to be human as opposed to scientific knowledge. In this regard, reality is defined by individuals or group of individuals. Knowledge is created by individual interactions within the society that is the centre of constractionism (Milner, Bailey and Deans 2003; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). The emergence of complex forms of knowledge, division of labour, and economic surplus result into expert knowledge that is developed by people who devote their time fully to their subject. Society is viewed to exist as both objective and subjective reality (Commonwealth Foundation, 1999). Objectivity is brought about by people interaction with the social world; the social world on the other hand influence people which then result into routinisation and habitualization. Types of constructivism theories There are two main types of constructivism: Social constructivism: this is the public bodies of knowledge are social constructs (Hamdi 2010). Here, knowledge relies on politics, power, values, status struggles, religion and economics to take its form. Psychological constructivism: these are a set of views regarding how people learn and how teachers should teach them (Herriman 2011; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). For instance, in this perspective, knowledge is not acquired and hence learners are obligated to create their own understanding (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). Methodology This research project investigating UAE citizen participation in public development will be conducted from 2014 to 2017. The researcher will use the inductive approach, which makes use of observations to come up with facts about the research problem. In this regard, the approach focuses on specific measures and detection of regularity, formulation of the hypothesis together with the development of theories and general assumptions (Menifield 2010). This approach is mainly used in qualitative research. The researcher proposes to use inductive approach whereby he will primarily use interviews to come up with facts in order to acquire broader and relevant data as well as providing a comprehensive understanding of the topic (Baiocchi 2001). The use of inductive approach will help the researcher to have a broader basis for understanding the search problem in order to come up with more reliable results. The overall research design will follow grounded theory whereby survey of public participation in public policy development in the seven emirates will be conducted (Sarkissan, Hurford and Wenman 2010). Survey strategy will be very instrumental, as it will empower the researcher to manage and/or have control over the research activity through the sampling techniques, which are very essential in accessing the research participants. Similarly, due to time constraints that are encountered during the research process, the survey strategy will give the researcher an efficient and quick way of obtaining qualitative data within the shortest time possible. In a nutshell, a descriptive qualitative study will be used (Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, & UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2011). Methods As established from the above, the researcher will use the survey strategy in this research activity; the data collection methods are inclined to collect qualitative data (Wates 2000). Given the above strategy that will be used in this study, the researcher will employ a qualitative data collection methodology (Quigley and Taylor 2003; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). For this matter, the data collection process will include both numeric and verbal instruments that will be divided into primary and secondary data (Bretas 1996). For instance, the researcher will use the following data collection methodologies: Document review: the researcher will conduct and extensive document review to be obtained from various sources that are directly or indirectly related to the research topic including books, internet websites, journals and other publicly available records in the seven emirates (Johnson and Wilson 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). Most specifically, the researcher will review minutes of public participation initiative meetings; committee terms of reference, planning documents, and local newspaper articles (Weeks 2000). Observation: this is the process of deriving an understanding of an activity or group of activities by watching (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Some activities such as community consultation will be observed (Douglas et al. 2001). The decision with regard to what should be observed will be based on the fact that expected data will provide significant contribution to survey (Smith 1984; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Semi structured interviews: this research instrument is essential in obtaining extensive and vast information about the research participants that is vital in establishing information about the research problem (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). The interview can either have open-ended or closed-ended (Abers 1998). In this particular research, the researcher will use both open-ended and closed-ended interview to obtain vast information with regard to citizen participation in public policy development in the UAE. The interviews will be conducted across all the seven emirates whereby interview guides will be developed to guide the semi-structured ethnographic individual interviews as well as the focus groups (Greig, Parry and Rimmington, 2004). Research/ Data Collection The researcher will target non-profit and non-governmental organizations working in the UAE (Bauer and Thomas 2006). From the above data collection methodologies, the researcher will use stratified sampling to recruit research participants. In this regard, the researcher will design a private link via Facebook; Citizen Participation in public policy development Facebook. This link will be restricted to non-profit and non-governmental organizations working in the UAE whereby only members of these organizations will be allowed to participate in the research activity. Similarly, it is only after subscribing to the link that one will be able to take part in the survey (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). Members of the site will be sent private messages requesting them to participate in the survey. On agreeing, the researcher will schedule interviews with each participant. The link will be designed in a manner that when the sample size is reached, the link automatically closes thus not allowing more people subscribing to the link. Semi-structured interview questions 1. Do you think UAE citizens take part in public policy development? Yes/No 2. If yes, could you state the different approaches used in citizen participation in public policy development 3. If no, what is the main reason to why citizens are not involved in public policy development? 4. What is the significance of citizen participation in public policy formulation? 5. Do you think citizen participation is effective in the UAE? 6. How can citizen involvement in public policy development be made effective in the UAE? 7. What are the effective approaches to citizen participation? 8. Which countries do you think have effective citizen participation in government policy development? 9. What approached do the above mentioned countries use? 10. Which approach do you recommend for the UAE in order for her to have effective citizen participation in public policy development? Why? Data Management and Analysis The researcher will use the QSR N5 software program in document review whereby the historical documents with regard to citizen participation in public policy development will be imported into to facilitate data analysis (Menifield 2010). Where not possible the documents will be reviewed manually using the coding template that the researcher will develop through the QSR N5 software. All the interviews, focus group and individual will be audio-taped and transcribed with both verbal and signed consent of the participants. Following the grounded theory tradition, data collection and analysis will take place concurrently (Menifield 2010). The on-going data analysis will be used to guide the evolution of individual interview guides, the interview guides will specifically be developed for focus groups together with the selection of key participants. Constant comparative method of analysis will be followed which involves review of transcripts and historical documents which essential in discovering the emergence of common themes over time. Research Limitations Like any other research process, the researcher will encounter the following stumbling blocks in the course of the study, which can be classified in three main categories: The researcher will find it hard controlling and managing participants to remain within the context of the research problem particularly when using unstructured open-ended interviews (Plein, Green and Williams 1998). The researcher will struggle to make sure that the conversation does not exceed the established theoretical framework. The research problem is wide and demand for massive dedication of the time resource that is limited to the researcher (Veltmeyer 1997; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). This includes selection of the topic, information gathering, data analysis and the final presentation of the findings. Citizen participation in government policy development is a broad topic and the three year time allocation is not enough for the researcher to fully conduct the research. The research is limited to the United Arab Emirates and thus the findings will not represent a holistic view of citizen participation in government policy formulation and how affects the community at large (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). Ethical Concerns The researcher will conduct the research morally trying as much as possible to ensure that research ethical codes of conduct are adhered to. In this perspective, the researcher will ensure that the participants are informed of the main objective the research and that their participation is voluntary prior to the research process (Batley 1999; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). In the same line, the respondents will be informed that confidentiality of their responses will not be compromised at any cost. For this matter, an individual’s response will never be disclosed to no one else (Souza 1996). Qualitative research will be treated with the highest discretion, the participants will be told in advance, what to expect in the interview, and interview recording will be only done on consent of the interviewee (Edralin 1996; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). The respondent’s responses will only be quoted in the research using pseudonyms. Accordingly, the interviewee will be at liberty to leave the interview at any time (McCartney et al. 2010). Significantly important, the researcher has full knowledge of intellectual property of other people’s work; all materials borrowed by the researcher from foreign sources will be fully cited in the list of references (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000). The researcher was also strict to ensure that honesty prevails by avoiding plagiarism at all costs. Contribution to Knowledge This research will provide a comprehensive understanding of citizen participation in government policy formulation (Oyugi 2000; Plein, Green and Williams 1998). Various experts have established that understanding citizen participation in government policy development has always been and still is a complex and expensive study (Cornwall and Gaventa 2000; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). This study will provide a wide range of information regarding citizen participation in government policy development particularly in the UAE. Given this understanding, this paper provides the following contributions to knowledge: 1. This paper provides government policy developers in the UAE with information regarding the importance of citizen participation in government policy development. Accordingly, UAE citizens will be able to understand their role in public policy development. 2. Using the findings of this research, the public policy developers in the UAE will be able to evaluate different approaches to citizen participation in government policy development and thus use the most effective ones. 3. Citizen participation in government policy development is a growing field; this study can be used for professional purposes where different researchers can refer to it in future to expand the understanding of the citizen participation concept and how it affects the government policy development. Gantt Chart The research will take three years; the first year, the researcher will conduct an intensive literature review / document analysis with regard to citizen participation in government policy development. In this regard, the researcher will review minutes of public participation initiative meetings; committee terms of reference, planning documents, and local newspaper articles. Designing semi-structured interview questions together with the main study will be done in the second year. After data collection, data analysis, report compilation together with its final presentation will be done in the third year see the Gantt chart below SN: Description of events Yr 0 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 1 Proposal of the research plan 2 Document Analysis 3 Data collection and Analysis 4 Report Compilation References Abers, R 1998, “From clientelism to cooperation: Local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil”, Politics and Society, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 511-537. Almezaini, K 2012, The UAE and Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid, Identities and Interests, London, Routledge Publishers Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, & UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures, 2011, Community engagement resources for local government: an annotated bibliography, Sydney, Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government. Baiocchi, G 2001, “Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory”, Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 43-72. Barnes, M, Newman J, Knops A, and Sullivan, H 2003, “Constituting ‘the public’ in public participation”, Public Administration, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 379-399. Batley, R 1999, Private sector involvement in the supply of public services, London, One World Action. Bauer, I and Thomas, K 2006, “An evaluation of community and corporate bias in assessment tools”, International Social Science Journal, vol. 58, no. 189, pp. 501-514. Bishop, P & Davis, G 2002, “Mapping public participation in policy choices”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 14-29. Blair, H 2000, “Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries”, World Development, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 21-39. Blair, H 2000, “Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries”, World Development, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 21-39. Bretas, P 1996, “Participative budgeting in Belo Horizonte: democratization and citizenship”, Environment and Urbanisation, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 213-222. Brody, SD, Godschalk, DR and Burby, RJ 2003, “Mandating citizen participation in plan making‐Six strategic planning choices”, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 245‐264. Bruce, LS 2003, Public Policy and Public Participation Engaging Citizens and Community in the Development of Public Policy, Prepared for Population and Public Health Branch, Atlantic Regional Office, Health Canada Bucek, J and Smith, B 2000, “New approaches to local democracy: direct democracy, participation and the 'third sector”, Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 3-16. Carroli, L and Armstrong, JJ 2011, Survey report: South East Queensland community attitudes to consultation and engagement, Brisbane, Harbinger Consultants Carson, L and Gelber, K 2001 Ideas for Community Consultation: A discussion on principles and procedures for making consultation work. A report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Sydney: NSW Government Chaskin, R J and Garg, S 1997, “The issue of governance in neighbourhood-based initiatives”, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 631-661. Cole, B L, Shimkhada R, Fielding JE, Kominski G, and Morgenstern, H 2005, “Methodologies for realizing the potential of health impact assessment”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 382-389. Commonwealth Foundation, 1999, Citizens and governance: civil society in the new millennium, London, The Commonwealth Foundation. Cornwall, A 2008, “Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices”, Community Development Journal, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 269‐283. Cornwall, A 2008, “Unpacking 'Participation': models, meanings and practices”, Community Development Journal, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 269-283. Cornwall, A and Gaventa, J 2000, “From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy”, IDS Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 50-62. Creighton, JL 2005, The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement, San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass. Dannenberg, AL, Bhatia R, Cole BL, Dora C, Fielding JE, Kraft K and Tilson, HH 2006, “Growing the field of health impact assessment in the United States: an agenda for research and practice”, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 262-270. Datta, P and Sen, PB 2000, “Participatory Rural Governance in India”, Indian Institute of Public Administration, vol. XLVI, no. 1, pp. 38-49. Douglas, MJ, Conway L, Gorman D, Gavin S, and Hanlon, P 2001, “Developing principles for health impact assessment”, Journal of Public Health Medicine, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 148-154. Edralin, JS 1996, “The New Local Governance and Capacity-Building: A Strategic Approach – examples from Africa, Asia and Latin America”, Regional Development Studies, vol. 3, pp. 109-149. Elliott, E and Williams, G 2008, “Developing public sociology through health impact assessment”, Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1101-1116. Fung, A 2006, “Varieties of participation in Complex Governance”, Public Administration Review-Washington DC, vol. 66, pp. 66-75 Fung, A and Wright, EO 2001, “Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance”, Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 5-41. Greig, S, Parry N and Rimmington, B 2004, “Promoting sustainable regeneration: Learning from a case study in participatory HIA”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 255-267. Hamdi, N 2010, The place maker’s guide to building community, London, Earthscan. Harris-Roxas, BF and Harris, PJ 2007, “Learning by doing: the value of case studies of health impact assessment”, New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 9-10, pp. 161-163. Heller, P 2001, “Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralisation in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre”, Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 131-163. Herriman, J 2011, Local government and community engagement in Australia: Working Paper No. 5 Sydney: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology Sydney. Herriman, J 2011, Local government and community engagement in Australia - Working Paper No 5 Sydney: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology Sydney. Hurriez, S 2013, Folklore and Folklife in the United Arab Emirates, London, Routledge Publishers Innes, JE and Booher, DE 2004, “Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century”, Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 419-436. Johnson, H and Wilson, G 2000, “Biting the bullet: Civil society, social learning and the transformation of local governance”, World Development, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1891-1906. Legacy, C 2012, “Achieving Legitimacy through Deliberative Plan‐Making Processes—Lessons for Metropolitan Strategic Planning”, Planning Theory & Practice, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 71‐87 Lock, K 2000, “Health impact assessment”, British Medical Journal, vol. 320, no. 7246, pp. 1395-1398. Mahoney, ME, Potter JL and Marsh, RS 2007, “Community participation in HIA: Discords in teleology and terminology”, Critical Public Health, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 229-241. McCartney, G, Palmer S, Winterbottom J, Jones R, Kendall R, and Booker, D 2010 “A health impact assessment of the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow”, Public Health, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 444-451. Menifield, C 2010, Comparative Public Budgeting: A Global Perspective, London, Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Milner, S, Bailey C, and Deans, J 2003, “‘Fit for purpose’ health impact assessment: a realistic way forward”, Public Health, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 295-300. Mindell, JS, Boltong A, and Forde, I 2008, “A review of health impact assessment frameworks”, Public Health, vol. 122, no. 11, pp. 1177-1187. Mohan, G and Stokke, K 2000, “Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism”, Third World Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 247-268. Mukherjee, A 1996, Report on Peoples' Participation in the Process of Decentralised Planning in India, New Delhi, Government of India. Nee, P 2013, Key Facts on the United Arab Emirates: Essential Information on the United Arab Emirates, London, The Internationalist Neuman, WL, 2000, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, USA, Allyn and Bacon. Oyugi, WO 2000, “Decentralisation for good governance and development: Concepts and Issues”, Regional Development Dialogue, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 3-25. Plein, LC, Green, KE and Williams, DG 1998, “Organic planning: A new approach to public participation in local governance”, Social Science Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 509-523. Quigley, RJ and Taylor, LC 2003, “Evaluation as a key part of health impact assessment: the English experience”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 415-419. Reynolds, B and Sean, H, 1993, Power, Participation and Exclusion, Conference of Major Religious Superiors (CMRS), Dublin, Macmillan Publishers. Reynolds, B and Sean, H, 2000, Participation and Democracy, Opportunities and Challenges, Conference of Major Religious Superiors (CMRS), Dublin: Macmillan Publishers. Rippe, KP and Schaber, P 1999, “Democracy and environmental decision-making”, Environmental Values, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 75-88. Robson, C 1993, Real world research:A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Rowe, G and Frewer, L J 2004, Evaluating public participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 29, pp. 512-556. Sarkissan, W, Hurford, D and Wenman, C 2010, Creative community planning: Transformative engagement methods for working at the edge, London: Earthscan Smith, LG 1984, “Public participation in policy making: the state-of-the-art in Canada”, Geoforum, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 253-259. Smith, M and Beazley, M 2000, “Progressive Regimes, Partnerships and the Involvement of Local Communities: a Framework for Evaluation”, Public Administration, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 855-878. Souza, C 1996 “Redemocratisation and Decentralisation in Brazil: The Strength of the Member States”, Development and Change, vol. 27, pp. 529-555. Thompson, J 1995, “Participatory Approaches in Government Bureaucracies: Facilitating a Process of Institutional Change”, World Development, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1521-1547. Veltmeyer, H 1997, “Decentralisation as the Institutional Basis for Community-Based Participatory Development: The Latin America Experience”, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 303-325. Wates, N 2000, Community planning handbook, Earthscan, London. Weeks, EC 2000, “The practice of deliberative democracy: Results from four large-scale trials”, Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 360-372. Wilson, JQ 1995, Political organizations, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Winters, LY 2001, “A prospective health impact assessment of the international astronomy and space exploration centre”, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 433-441. Wright, J, Parry, J and Mathers, J 2005 “Participation in health impact assessment: objectives, methods and core values”, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 58-63. Read More