Participatory policy process design: Lessons learned from three European regions

Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 117-139

  Colombo, Clelia ^a   Kunstelj, Mateja ^b   Molinari, Francesco ^c   Todorovski, Ljupco ^b  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953055047     PISSN: 19448953     EISSN: 19448961     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19448953.2011.550811     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. A. V. Anttiroiko, 'Building strong e-democracy-the role of technology in developing democracy for the information age', ACM Communications, 46(9), September 2003.
2. A. Macintosh, 'Characterizing e-Participation in policy-making', in Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004, available at:,http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/pro ceedings/hicss/2004/2056/05/205650117a.pdf. (accessed April 2008).
3. E. Tambouris, N. Liotas and K. Tarabanis, 'A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools', in Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007;
4. E. Tambouris, N. Liotas, D. Kaliviotis and K. Tarabanis, 'A framework for scoping eParticipation', in Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, 2007.
5. E. Kalampokis, E. Tambouris and K. Tarabanis, 'A domain model for eParticipation', in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services, 2008.
6. G. Aichholzer and H. Westholm, 'Evaluating eParticipation projects: practical examples and outline of an evaluation framework', European Journal of ePractice, No. 7, March 2009. Available at:,http://www.epractice.eu. (accessed 14 December 2009).
7. M. Bicking and M. Wimmer, 'Evaluation framework to assess eParticipation projects in Europe', in E. Tambouris and A. Macintosh (eds), Proceedings of the ePART2009 Conference, Trauner Verlag, Linz, 2009, pp. 67-75.
8. Tambouris et al., 'A framework for scoping eParticipation', op. cit.
9. Tambouris et al., 'A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools', op. cit.
10. Anttiroiko, op. cit.
11. Macintosh, op. cit.
12. J. Rose, A. Grönlund and K. V. Andersen, 'Introduction', in A. Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose and A °. Grönlund (eds), Understanding eParticipation. Contemporary PhD eParticipation Research in Europe, Ö rebro University Library, 2007. Available at:,http://www.demo-net.org. accessed December 2009).
13. Ø. Sæbø, J. Rose and L. S. Flak, 'The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an emerging research area', Government Information Quarterly, 25, 2008, pp. 400-428.
14. A 'workflow model' is an established concept from management sciences. It is related to the study of the operational aspects of an activity of work: how are the tasks structured, how are they carried out, which is their correlative order, how are they synchronized, how flows the information that holds the tasks and how the fulfilment of the tasks is followed up (N. Russell, A. H. M. Hofstede, W. M. P. van der Aalst and N. Mulyar, Workflow Control-Flow Patterns: A Revised View, BPM Center Report, 2006).
15. C. Colombo, M. Kunstelj, F. Molinari and L. Todorovski, 'Workflow modeling for participatory policy design: lessons from three European regions', in E. Tambouris and A. Macintosh (eds), Proceedings of the ePART2009 Conference, Trauner Verlag, Linz, 2009, pp. 101-111.
16. Tambouris et al., 'A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools', op. cit
17. Tambouris et al., A framework for scoping eParticipation, op. cit.
18. Kalampokis et al., op. cit.
19. Aichholzer and Westholm, op. cit.
20. Bicking and Wimmer, op. cit.
21. Colombo et al., op. cit.
22. Macintosh, op. cit.
23. R. E. Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pittman, Boston, MA, 1984.
24. T. Winograd and F. Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston, MA, 1987.
25. Anttiroiko, op. cit.
26. Macintosh, op. cit.
27. Macintosh, op. cit.
28. Freeman, op. cit.
29. ActionWorks, 'ActionWorks, the Action Technologies business process analysis and redesign methodology, and the Business Interaction Model', Action Technologies Inc., 2008, available at:,http://www.actiontech.com. (accessed 5 June 2008).
30. Winograd and Flores, op. cit.
31. Colombo et al., op. cit.
32. Strictly speaking, some regional activities with the SNP can be seen as out of the scope of the original instance of the IDEAL-EU workflow, since their objectives are different. But they nonetheless position themselves at later stages of the public decision-making process than policy creation, which we take as evidence of a wider potential of the IDEAL-EU workflow model than initially expected.
33. http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/.
34. http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/index_en.htm.
35. Actually, as shown in the previous section Public decision-making process, the SNP role has become prominent in the IDEAL-EU project, also for monitoring purposes and as an independent platform for issue discussion and prioritization.
36. R. A. W. Rhodes, 'The new governance: governing without government', Political Studies, 44, 1996, pp. 652-667.
37. B. Ackerman and J. S. Fishkin, Deliberation Day, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2004
38. J. Fishkin, The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1995.
39. R. Krimmer, 'Case study-based development of an eParticipation process model', in A. Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose and A°. Grönlund (eds), Understanding eParticipation. Contemporary PhD eParticipation Research in Europe, Ö rebro University Library, 2007, available at:,http://www.demo-net.org. (accessed December 2009).
40. H. A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational. Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting, JohnWiley, New York, 1957;
41. J. G. March, 'Bounded rationality, ambiguity and the engineering of choice', The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2), 1978, pp. 587-608.
42. Freeman, op. cit.
43. C. E. Lindblom, ';The science of "muddling through"', Public Administration Review, 19(2), 1959, pp. 79-88.
44. P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, ';The iron cage revisited. Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields', American Sociological Review, April 1983, pp. 147-160.
45. M. D. Cohen, J. G. March and J. P. Olsen, ';A garbage can model of organizational choice', Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1972, pp. 1-25.
46. D. Stone, Policy Paradox, the Art of Political Decision Making, W. W. Norton, New York, 2001.
47. D. Georgakopoulos, M. Hornick and A. Sheth, ';An overview of workflow management: from process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure', Distributed and Parallel Databases, 3, 1995, pp. 119-153.
48. Tambouris et al., 'A framework for scoping eParticipation', op. cit.