Such participation is effected in multiple ways and at various levels, from informal local and community settings, through incorporated entities, NGOs and peak bodies, to such key institutions as legislatures, the courts and the public service.ĭemocracies are socially and culturally distinctive, developing traditions, conventions and structures that reflect the values and habits of their citizens. Public servants, social media and online engagementĪppendix 1: Case studies of citizen engagementĪppendix 2: Core Values for Public ParticipationĪppendix 3: Key themes in public participationĪppendix 4: OECD guidelines for online citizen engagementĪppendix 5: OECD Guiding principles for open and inclusive policymakingįundamental to any consideration of citizen engagement in policymaking and the design of public services is the recognition that the citizens in a democracy have both rights and duties, and that democratic governance provides opportunities for citizens to participate actively in shaping their world. The public servant as broker, facilitator, coordinator ‘Dilemmas of engagement’ and other considerations Why engagement matters for Australian governmentsĬo-production and co-design: in pursuit of ‘deep’ engagement What does engagement entail, and why does it matter? Reformist public servants’ ethical perspectivesĪn international perspective on citizen participationĪustralian Public Service reform: a brief history The deliberative / participatory democratic perspective Ministers and agency heads have a major leadership responsibility here.Ī philosophical framework for citizen engagement and participation Most especially, effective engagement by a citizen-centric public service requires political support for the genuine devolution of power and decision-making to frontline public servants and professionals-and to the citizens and stakeholders with whom they engage.These are tall orders, especially if citizens are disengaged and certain groups within the population are marginalised. It demands of citizens an orientation to the public good, a willingness to actively engage, and the capabilities needed to participate and deliberate well. It demands of public servants new skills as enablers, negotiators and collaborators. But genuine engagement in the ‘co-production’ of policy and services requires major shifts in the culture and operations of government agencies.

There have been some notable achievements, in both advanced and developing countries, and there is abundant public policy literature advocating thoroughgoing collaboration.

In many democracies, citizen participation in policymaking and service design has been debated or attempted, but too infrequently realised.

Such an approach honours the fundamental principle of a democratic state-that power is to be exercised through, and resides in, its citizens. Over the past decade, this view has been reframed to regard the public as ‘citizens’, whose agency matters and whose right to participate directly or indirectly in decisions that affect them should be actively facilitated. This New Public Management invoked entrepreneurialism, outputs and metrics, the cutting of red tape, and a view of the public as ‘consumers’. The APS has been involved in ongoing reform since the 1976 Coombs Royal Commission from which emerged a whole-of-government approach to public administration.The Australian Government’s report Ahead of the Game-the 2010 ‘blueprint’ for the reform of the Australian Public Service (APS)-is cast in this light. Concepts such ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ have emerged to describe this systematic pursuit of sustained collaboration between government agencies, non-government organisations, communities and individual citizens. The aim is to develop policies and design services that respond to individuals’ needs and are relevant to their circumstances. he theory and practice of public administration is increasingly concerned with placing the citizen at the centre of policymakers’ considerations, not just as target, but also as agent.

Hard west four evangelists