"Participation" by citizens, users, clientele, customers, and workers in public and private institutions has become an important theme in American society over the past 30 years. It is manifested in participatory research and education programs, participatory democracy in local governments, participatory management of businesses and public services, and participatory planning of public space. The following four basic claims regarding the need for citizen participation in the management of public programs are presented to provide a conceptual understanding of participatory programs. This analysis was abstracted from, Participation, by Ann Richardson, Routledge & Kegan Paul Publishers, Melbourne, Australia, 1983.

    Why participation? The following presents an argument for and against participation and an analysis of each point.

1.    Participation is Due Process
        Argument: This argument is based on the right of the consumer to choose. In the public services it is often argued that those who will be most impacted by decisions have a basic right to influence the outcome of those decisions. A spin on this argument suggests that those paying for the services, not those receiving the services have the right to influence the outcome.

        Counter argument: Arguments against this case are based on practicality, efficiency, and the choice of which group has the right to impact decisions.

        Analysis: This is a "process" argument that is based on ideology, rather than utility or measurable results. It is grounded in an understanding of democratic society.

2.    Participation for Individual Development
        Argument: This argument suggests that participation is an essential part in human development. There are four claims often made along these lines:

        A.    Participation enhances dignity and self-respect.
        B.    Participation improves an individual's self-confidence and ability to cope with new problems.
        C.    Participation allows an individual to learn about themselves.
        D.    Participation allows people to express themselves.

        Counter argument: Some people question the relative value of personal development compared with potential cost. It can be asked if it is really in an individual's long-term best interest to participate when public experts are available, competent, and already efficiently making decisions for individuals.

        Analysis: This argument is often used by those who "prefer" participation, based on ideology. There is little empirical evidence that participation is required for personal growth. Yet it seems reasonable to expect that participation in social situations is a valuable contributor to individual development.

3.    Participation Builds Commitment
    Argument: An argument is often made that people who join in making decisions will become stakeholders in the implementation of those decisions. Participants have an increased sense of obligation and ownership of the public service institution. This will make public agency policy decisions more acceptable to the public.

    Counter argument: Critics agree that participants become stakeholders, but argue that this is a form of social control or manipulation which maintains the status quo. Participants have to "buy into" the present system to participate.

    Counter-counter argument: Some social activists suggest that participation can empower people to get involved in social change from the "inside".

    Analysis: The argument that suggests that participation increases sense of ownership assumes that consumers personal interests were not served prior to involvement, and that following involvement their needs will be served. The counter argument assumes that consumers will behave passively when faced with service provider "experts". The counter-counter argument suggests that the current system has intrinsic value and simply requires evolutionary change. None of these assumptions is inherently true for all cases.

4.    Participation Can Impact Policy
        The most common claim for participation is that it will affect policy decisions made by public organizations. It is thought that participation can improve mutual understanding (of both service providers and consumers), and thus improve the quality of the decision-making process. There are two parts to this argument:

        Argument A: Participation results in improved management efficiency. Consumers of services provide new information to decision-makers about complex problems, thereby improving the quality of the policy decisions.

        Counter argument A: Some would claim that participation decreases management efficiency by delaying the decision-making process, thus increasing costs.

        Argument B: Participation improves the quality of decisions by shifting the emphasis to the consumer perspective. This results in a shift in "balance of power" from the service provider toward the consumer.

        Counter argument B: There are three reasons used to explain why a shift in the "balance of power" toward the consumer does not necessarily improve decision quality:

        a.    Consumers of a particular service are a minority of those affected by decisions, especially where they are not paying for the service.
        b.    Participation won't improve decisions because truly "representative" consumers can't be found.
        c.    Participants become "informed" through involvement and therefore are no longer "representative" of the larger consumer group (they become "favored").
        Analysis: The argument which suggests participation will improve decision-making, assumes consumers and service providers have common interests. Adherents of the second argument assumes consumers and service providers have different interests and therefore a power struggle is likely to occur. It is unlikely that either is entirely in effect for any one participatory program. Consumers and providers of services will probably have some interests in common and others which they hold alone.

                                            John M. Gerber, 1991