This study was co-authored by Jon Mellon, Tiago C. Peixoto and Fredrik M. Sjoberg.

Report name

The Haves and the Have Nots : Civic Technologies and the Pathways to Government Responsiveness

Who wrote this report?

The study was co-authored by Jon Mellon, Tiago C. Peixoto and Fredrik M. Sjoberg, as part of activities supported by the World Bank’s Community of Practice on Citizen Engagement.

Best quote

Designers of civic tech platforms should spend time considering how their design decisions influence the choices and outcomes of the political processes they are enabling.

Key takeaways:

  • The socio-economic profile of participants may predict only in part who benefits from that process. The assumption that inequalities in participation will always lead to the same inequalities in outcomes is not borne out in practice.
  • To assess how inclusive participation processes are, researchers and practitioners must examine not only the demographics of participants, but also all other stages of participation and the resulting policy response.
  • It is important to consider how civic tech platforms–and citizen engagement processes in general–can function as political institutions that encourage certain types of behaviour while discouraging others.

What’s in this report?

As civic life moves online, and differences in access to technology persist, scholars and observers have often questioned whether this will exacerbate political inequalities. This concern assumes that unequal participation inevitably leads to unequal outcomes: if online participants are unrepresentative of the population, then participation outcomes will benefit groups who participate and disadvantage those who do not – sometimes at the peril of “empowering the already empowered”. But is that assumption borne out in practice? This study put this question to the test, presenting some counterintuitive findings.

The study examines different civic tech models: online petitioning across 132 countries, digital participatory budgeting in Brazil, constitutional crowdsourcing in Iceland, and online citizen reporting in the UK. These are rare cases where the data available allows us to trace the full participation chain through:

  1. the existing digital divide
  2. the demographic profile of participants
  3. the types of demands made through the platform
  4. the policy outcomes

The findings show that the link between the demographics of who participates and who benefits from the participation process, is not as straightforward as commonly assumed. In every case, and because of the civic tech platforms’ institutional features and the surrounding political process, the assumed links in the participation chain broke down.

The study concludes with a discussion that offers insights for both the design and evaluation of citizen engagement processes.

Why should you read this report?

The study challenges typical assumptions on what leads to inequality in civic tech processes. It offers an analytical framework that can be used to better design and assess civic tech efforts, as well as other modalities of citizen engagement.

Who is this report for?

Government officials, researchers, civil society and private sector actors involved with the design, implementation, and evaluation of citizen engagement processes.

đź”— Read the full report here. đź”—

đź‘‹ You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)

Make sure to share your own thoughts with the author by leaving a comment below