SJPA How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen

25(1) Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants

and Non-Participants
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela*
Abstract
Anni Jäntti, In this study, we scrutinise how municipalities can enhance citizen participation as arenas
Faculty of Management and for local democracy. We combine the aspects of institutional structures with citizens’
Business, Tampere expectations and viewpoints by analysing citizens’ views on the barriers to and catalysts
University, Finland
[email protected] for participation. We outline the possibilities and map the role of municipalities in
enhancing citizen participation. This qualitative study utilises empirical data consisting of
Kaisa Kurkela, 160 essays written by university students. In their essays, students reflect on their roles as
Faculty of Management and participants and think about possible obstacles to participation. The data is analysed using
Business, Tampere
University, Finland inductive qualitative content analysis. In the analysis, three categories were identified to
[email protected] illustrate and interpret the societal, personal and instrumental-processual factors that
affect citizens’ willingness and abilities to participate at the local level. Municipalities
can easily address the instrumental-processual factors, whereas affecting societal and
personal factors is more difficult. The role of municipalities in enhancing citizen
participation is thus restricted, yet important.

Introduction
Keywords: This study aims to produce new knowledge on the role of municipalities as the
citizen participation, locus of local democracy. We focus on how municipalities can enhance local
local government,
municipalities, democracy by creating and supporting the possibilities residents have to
public administration participate in and influence local decision-making processes. The research
entails building on previous research and analysing university students'
experiences and views on citizen participation at the local level. Our purpose is
thus to understand different kinds of factors that are related to citizen
participation. Reflecting on these experiences and views on the possibilities of
local government enables us to explore how municipalities can enhance citizen
participation. The two research questions are:
1. Which factors are related to residents’ willingness to engage in
citizen participation?
And, based on these factors:
2. How can municipalities enhance citizen participation?
We observe citizen participation from a wide institutional perspective as the
possibilities that citizens have to participate in public discussion and decision-
making (see e.g., Birch 2002, 80). It is more than simply the delegation of power
in an election (Nabatchi & Amsler 2014). From a practical and local viewpoint,
Nabatchi and Amsler (2014, 655) describe citizen participation as “both in-
person and online methods for bringing people together to address issues of
importance”. The institutional perspective of participation concentrates on the
design of citizen participation in institutions, such as municipalities (Smith
2009). In principle, it excludes citizen-oriented participation such as boycotts
and protests. Even though the institutional perspective has been criticised for
Scandinavian Journal of
Public Administration qwe
25(1): 23 - 42 *Anni Jäntti (Ph.D) is a post-doctoral research fellow at Tampere University. Her research focuses
© Anni Jäntti, Kaisa Kurkela
on local government reforms, the role and tasks of municipalities, local self-government and citizen
and School of Public
Administration 2021 participation.
ISSN: 2001-7405 Kaisa Kurkela (MSc) is a doctoral candidate at Tampere University. Her research focuses on issues
e-ISSN: 2001-7413 of citizen participation at the local level and the institutionalisation of citizen participation.
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

viewing the value of participation mainly as instrumental, Smith (2009) argues

that it makes it possible to observe abstract and ideal-based democratic values in
practice because institutions are often arenas for multiple democratic actions.
This study does not regard institutional forms of participation as more valuable
than non-institutional forms. However, the institutional perspective is logical and
justified, since the idea is to describe the role of municipalities as arenas for
citizen participation and their possibilities to enable participation. The non-
institutional forms of citizen participation, such as protests and do-it-yourself
participation, take place in civil society where municipalities have little to say.
Initiatives to develop citizen participation illustrate the idea of new public
governance (NPG), which, in short, entails collaboration between actors inside
and outside the organisation, new tools for including different stakeholders and
multiple forms of accountability. In addition, it highlights networks and
partnerships (Torfing & Triatafillou 2013; Osborne 2010). These initiatives to
engage people in public sector action can be seen as a consequence of
dissatisfaction and decreasing trust towards traditional forms of representative
democracy in Western countries, manifesting as lower election turnout both in
local and national elections and, for example, a rise in populism (see Gherghina
2017). However, digitalisation and new channels of digital interaction can also
create possibilities.
Increasing trust and inclusiveness are among the main arguments for
enhancing citizen participation at the local level. Participation may increase
citizens’ trust towards municipalities, public sector governance, public decision-
makers and the decision-making processes (see e.g., Welch 2012; Irvin &
Stansbury 2004). In addition, citizen participation may improve decision-making
by broadening its knowledge base. The role of residents in a smart-city context,
for example, is thus focal (Castelnovo et al. 2016). From the viewpoint of
inclusiveness, participation means reaching those who are traditionally excluded
from the government processes so they can participate in these processes (see
e.g., Arnstein 1969).
The question of structures is connected to institutional design that is needed
to facilitate collaboration between different actors, to overcome bureaucratic
silos and to enable cross-sector cooperation and interaction between
municipalities and their residents (Torfing et al. 2019). The structures are also
connected to the efficiency of participation in the decision-making processes
(Font et al. 2018; Fung 2006) and understanding the command chains and
traditional roles of different actors in a new light (Pedersen &Johannsen. 2016).
In citizen participation research, citizen viewpoint often emphasises the
meaning of learning and developing skills of active citizenship (see e.g.,
Pateman 1970). Also, the focus is often on the genuine possibilities of citizens to
produce information and influence in decision-making processes, which have
traditionally been the exclusive remit of civil servants and experts (Irvin &
Stansbury 2004). The aim of inclusiveness is discussed in several studies
showing that not all groups are heard equally, with discussion potentially
dominated by well-off people or strong interest groups (see e.g., Fiorina 1999a;
Fung 2004, 6; Fung 2006; Irvin & Stansbury 2004; Michels & de Graaf 2017).
Citizen participation is frequently studied from the viewpoint of institutional
structures that enable participation. Citizens’ expectations and viewpoints are
24
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

also studied (see e.g., Lowndes, Pratchett & Stoker 2001; Smith & McDonough
2001; Christensen, Karjalainen & Lundell 2016). In this study, we aim to
combine these aspects and fill the gap between them. We analyse citizens’ views
on the barriers and catalysts for participation and outline the possibilities and the
role of municipalities in enhancing citizen participation.
Using empirical qualitative data, in this article we focus on analysing
perceptions and views in relation to citizen participation. We are interested in
discovering how accessible and of interest municipalities seem to be as a
platform for participation, and what aspects are related to citizens’ willingness
and possibilities to participate at the local level. In shedding light on these
factors, we aim to outline the possibilities and the role of municipalities in
enhancing citizen participation.
We start the paper by placing citizen participation in the context of local
government, describing its meaning and function. This is followed by an
overview of the Finnish local government system, including citizen participation.
We then present the methodology of the study by describing our data and its
analysis methods. We subsequently present the results of our analysis. The paper
concludes by discussing the findings and drawing conclusions on the role of
municipalities in enhancing citizen participation. Finally, we suggest areas of
future research for this topic.

Citizen Participation at the Local Level

Local government, as the primary locus of local democracy, has a key role in
devising opportunities to participate in and influence local decision-making.
Local democracy offers residents the possibility of expressing their views about
the decisions that affect their immediate environment. Local institutions of
democracy are the most accessible locations to practice and develop political
skills. The meaning of local participation is thus also to reinforce active
democratic citizenship (see e.g., Pratchett 2004; Stoker 2004). Local citizen
participation affects not only the local level but also the overall democratic
culture in society (Weir & Beetham 1999, 243).
From the viewpoint of participatory democracy, citizen engagement is
argued to have three very focal functions. First, educative function means the
development of civic skills through participation (e.g., Pateman 1970; Michels &
de Graaf 2010). Second, participation has a function of integration, so it may
increase the feeling of belonging to a community and, further, also a feeling of
responsibility for public decisions (Cook & Morgan 1971; Michels & de Graaf
2010). Third, participation has a function of increasing legitimacy by creating
more acceptable solutions (Cook & Morgan 1971; Michels & de Graaf 2010).
Greater legitimacy for decisions and decision-making is an important incentive
for citizen participation at the local level.
From the perspective of local government, more inclusive citizen
participation is argued with the challenges and inadequacy of representative
democracy (see e.g., Christensen et al. 2016). Also, some argue that participation
may increase the quality, acceptability and legitimacy of decisions and decision-
making (see e.g., Fung 2015). In addition, citizen participation may increase
25
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

citizens’ feeling of responsibility, engagement and trust towards government and

participation and even prevent deadlocked situations and protests (Nabatchi &
Amsler 2014; Head, 2007; Michels & de Graaf, 2010). Trust is not insignificant
with citizen participation, as high trust towards the government tends to have a
positive impact on citizen participation (Lee & Schacter 2019). However, citizen
participation can be enhanced for wrong reasons: For example, occasionally,
new channels are introduced simply because of professional discussion, where
participation is a trendy and current issue (Kübler et. al 2019).
Legitimacy is stressed, because often the possibilities to participate are not
equal. Often the participants are well-educated and politically active people with
enough resources (Cooper, Bryer & Meek, 2006; Turnhout et al. 2010; Yang &
Pandey, 2011; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Michels & de Graaf, 2017) or who
belong to strong interest groups (Fiorina, 1999; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). The
key question is how to make citizen participation inclusive by engaging people
from different age groups and different socio-economic backgrounds. From the
viewpoint of inclusion, the concern often is that the hard-to-reach groups are
excluded from the public discussion, which is dominated by well-of people. (see
e.g. Fung 2004, 2006).
Especially the participation of children and young people is often
underlined. It is a question of well-being of young people and future democracy
and also, there is a concern of low participation level among younger citizens
(see e.g. Bäcklund et. al. 2014; Bakker & De Vreese 2011). From
administration’s viewpoint it is often a question of getting their voices heard
(Stenvall 2018). The discussion highlights the role of children and young people
as equal citizens with participation rights (see e.g. Hart 2009).
Also, from the viewpoint of trust and satisfaction, the question of real
possibilities to influence is focal. Therefore, it is important that participation is
linked to organisational processes and has an influence on final decisions, at
least to some extent (Font et al. 2018; Fung 2006). This highlights the
importance of the thorough designing of participatory processes. If the proposals
of citizens are not heard and citizen participation does not affect the policies and
practices, it may frustrate the participants and also decrease citizens’ trust
towards local government (see e.g., Arnstein 1969). It may also weaken the
legitimacy of local decision-making and governance (see e.g., Font et al.). Along
with good process planning, attention should thus be paid to the truthfulness of
real possibilities to influence (Arnstein 1969) and whether the expectations of
citizens would meet the reality (Julian et al. 1997; Michels & de Graaf, 2017).

Citizen Participation in Finnish Local Government

The Finnish local government system was created in 1865 as the first law about
local government in Finland was enacted. Finland has a one-tier local
government: municipalities are the only local self-governmental organisations.
From the very beginning of the history of Finnish local government, the guiding
principles have been independence from the state and local democracy (Aaltonen
1934, 228–229).
In Finland, municipalities have a strong position in society, which is typical
for Nordic welfare states. Municipalities are responsible for arranging most
26
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

public services based on legislation and local self-government. Municipalities

also form a grand proportion of public expenditure (see also e.g., Page &
Goldsmith 1987; Lidström 1998; Rose & Ståhlberg 2005; Loughlin, Hendriks &
Lidström 2011, Vakkala, Jäntti & Sinervo 2020.)
Besides having a representative democracy, Finnish municipalities have
increased the diverse ways of participatory democracy during the last decades.
Municipalities offer thus many possibilities for residents to participate in and
influence local decision-making, which is also a legal obligation for
municipalities (Local Government Act 410/2015). Besides obligatory
participation methods, municipalities have increasingly introduced new
democratic innovations, such as participatory budgeting voluntarily.
As we have described, the local government is the venue where the ideals of
democracy and participation are materialised. Municipalities play a key role in
creating structures and possibilities for participation and nurture a culture of
participation. By doing so, municipalities may have a positive impact on trust
towards local government, decisions may gain greater legitimacy and
participation processes may become more inclusive with real possibilities to
influence the outcome. To see what kinds of possibilities municipalities have in
this sense, there needs to be an understanding of the viewpoints and standpoints
of citizens about the motivation to participate at the local level. This study aims
to shed light on these issues by analysing the viewpoints of university students.

Methods
This qualitative study utilises empirical data consisting of 160 essays (appr. 160
pages altogether) written by university students. In their essays, students reflect
their role as participants and think about possible obstacles for participation. The
data was collected in the autumn of 2018 at Tampere University, Finland, as a
part of an introductory course on local and regional governance. As part of the
course tasks, students were asked to write a one-page essay describing their
participation history and the ways they have participated in and influenced their
local government activities and/or decision-making. They were also asked to
reflect on possible obstacles and incentives to participation by describing their
reasons for participation or non-participation.
The essay task was one of the six course tasks that were a prerequisite for
passing the course. The purpose of the tasks was to stimulate learning by
encouraging students to ponder the issues on a personal level and to scrutinise
their own views and experiences. The tasks were designed so that they did not
require any previous knowledge and it was made clear that there were no wrong
answers to the questions. This can be seen on the data where most of the
respondents ponder their citizen participation experiences and views on a very
personal and open manner reflecting their experienced strengths and weaknesses
and knowledge on citizen participation possibilities. The tasks had to be
submitted but they did not affect the course grade that was determined solely by
the exam result. Students were asked for permission to use anonymised essays as
research data and they had the possibility to refuse the research use. 6 % of the
students prohibited the research use.
27
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Data collection was solely focused on the essays as we wanted to gain a

deeper understanding of how local government is seen in terms of citizen
participation. Thus, we collected no background data. In retrospect, it would
have been useful to also collect some information on the respondents, such as
age and sex in order to shed light on the versatility of the respondents. The aim
of this qualitative study is not to present a representative sample of residents nor
of students, but instead to gain understanding on the different dimensions that
are related to the experiences and views concerning citizen participation. Even
though the data consists of essays written on a university course, the writers do
not form a homogenous group of students. Most of the students who wrote the
essays are quite young but the data show that among them there are also many
adult students in versatile life situations. Some of them have already previous
degrees and working life experience for already dozens of years. In addition, the
data are produced by not only local government students but by students from
almost all faculties in Tampere University attended the course. Even though
many of the respondents currently live in Tampere city region, it can be found in
the data that the respondents originally come from all over Finland. As majority
of them were first year students at the time and thus many had just recently
moved to Tampere city region, the data show they built their essays on
experiences concerning mainly their former home municipalities and some
compared the differences they had noticed between their former and current
home municipalities.
In the data, participation was interpreted in a broad sense: both participatory
and representative democracy methods as well as institutional and non-
institutional methods were mentioned, such as initiatives, petitions, hearings,
participatory budgeting, voting and referenda but also e.g., demonstrations and
volunteering. We limited our analysis to institutional participation because of the
focus of this study, in which we aim to gain deeper understanding about the
possibilities of the municipalities in enhancing participation (this is described
more accurately in the introduction of this article).
Based on previous research, it is known that participation is more common
among those who have higher education level (see e.g., Irvin & Stansbury 2004,
Michels & de Graaf 2010). It can thus be assumed that university students would
be well aware of participation possibilities and that they would be actively
participating. However, the data showed interestingly great differences in how
familiar participation was to students and how widely they were aware of and
had used different channels to participate in and influence their local
government. This raises questions on why citizen participation at the local level
does not seem to be so familiar and attractive even to citizens that could be
assumed to be aware of their participation possibilities.
What makes this data particularly interesting and rich is that through this
data collection, it was possible to reach not only those who actively participate
but also the so-called non-participants who do not participate at all. To gain
qualitative data like this is usually extremely difficult. Data that reaches also
non-participants can be usually retrieved through surveys and is mainly
quantitative, but we could collect qualitative, narrative data that can help to
determine different aspects of and reasoning behind participation and non-
participation. Using this kind of rich data can face some challenges. For
28
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

example, it might be challenging to capture the richness and large variety of

views. Therefore, it was focal to understand the qualitative inductive content
analysis as a research method and to plan and conduct the analysis carefully. The
data were analysed using inductive, qualitative content analysis by focusing on
recognising structures and practices that either enhance or hinder citizen
participation (see also Ravensbergen & VanderPlaat, 2009; de Graaf, Van Hulst
& Michels, 2015; Fung, 2015, Pedersen & Johannsen, 2016).
To strengthen the reliability of the analysis, researcher triangulation was
used in the study. The analysis was started by reading the data carefully. After
that the data were coded by marking and naming the parts of the data that
contained text on the barriers to or catalysts for citizen participation. In the
analysis process the coding was conducted independently by two researchers so
that one researcher looked for barriers to participation while the other researcher
looked for factors that seemed to increase participation (see Krippendorff 2013).
Atlas.ti-software was used for the coding. Barriers and enhancing factors were
observed, because the aim was to take into account and understand the positive
and negative factors affecting participation. This double-analysis also was
helpful to strengthen the quality and reliability of the analysis. After this first
phase of the actual analysis there were 536 quotations linked to 63 codes.
After the coding the barriers and incentives were classified into seven sub-
categories and, finally, into main categories (see figure 1). In the analysis, three
main categories were identified to illustrate and interpret the factors that affect
citizens’ willingness and ability to participate at the local level. The categories
are: 1) societal, 2) personal and 3) instrumental-processual factors. The
categories (discussed in detail in the next section) are intertwined so that the
factors all affect the willingness and ability of a resident to participate in local
government decision-making and action.

Results
In the analysis, we created three main categories that illustrate the factors
affecting citizen participation at the local level. The categories show that
willingness and ability to participate at the local level are affected by both
societal, personal and instrumental-processual factors (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Factors affecting residents’ willingness and ability to participate.

29
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Societal factors
The first category from the data is societal factors. These factors are connected
to the overall societal climate, trust and satisfaction towards the political system.
The societal factors affecting citizen participation are also familiar from previous
research (see also Lee & Schachter 2019; Alford 2001; Christensen et. al. 2016).
These factors are complex and wide, and municipalities have only limited
possibilities to influence these.

Societal climate for citizen participation

In this data, the societal climate for participation means the general support,
culture and encouragement for participation both at a societal and at the local
level. It is also connected to the ideals of democracy and democratic governance.
The right to participate and the intrinsic value of democracy seem to be
highly appreciated by many. The appreciation can be seen also as leading to
responsibility towards the democratic system and society. This is especially
clearly connected to the responsibility to vote during elections.
Citizen participation can increase the trust towards society and democracy,
but it can also affect personal wellbeing and empowerment, as seen in this
comment:
“Citizen participation increases trust towards society and
towards democracy. Probably it is like a wheel because
participation creates positive effects on your own quality of
life and to democracy, which increases participation also in
other themes.”
At the local level, the encouraging climate is more than only particular
channels of participation. According to the data, it can be described as a culture,
which aims to involve citizens, also the passive ones, into decision-making by
listening to their opinions and by supporting citizen-driven initiatives.
However, the societal climate for citizen participation can be hostile, which
can make participating off-putting. A hostile climate may affect citizens’
willingness to participate in public discussions and decision-making. Some
people feel it is easier to remain silent as they do not want to expose themselves
to public critique or harassment. In public discussions citizens may feel
discouraged to speak out, because of hostile climate. The climate, which affects
whether people participate or not is seen important from this viewpoint.
“Another reason, why I am not a particularly active
participant is that when issues or phenomena become
politized or part of public discussion, the discussion can be
quite robust and can even slander people with different
views. Myself, I feel that I don’t want to take part in this kind
of action.”
Trust towards the political system
The trust people have or not have towards the political system can either
promote or hinder participation. In this data, satisfaction is connected mostly to a
decrease in participation. This is due to overall satisfaction in the municipality
and its services. If a person’s experience of public services is good, there is no
30
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

need for change nor is there a need to complain or to participate and influence
the system. The trust can also be systemic, so the representative democracy
system is seen being as reliable and functioning well enough.
“I would just like to live my life in peace and be able to trust,
that all the municipal services that I need, would be available
for me and that local decision-makers would make good
decisions.”
Mistrust of the system and political culture and decision-makers might also
hinder participation. The trust might be low because of doubts about decision-
makers. For example, there can be doubts around the misuse of power or the
inability to make good decisions. Decision-making can be seen as driven more
by decision-makers’ own interests than by citizens’ interests.
There may also be mistrust regarding the possibility to exert influence
through participation. There are concerns about whether the decisions-makers
even have enough power or whether citizen participation is effective. This
mistrust can grow, for example, from a person’s family background or their
living environment, as seen in this comment:
“I have grown up in an environment where the confidence in
one’s possibilities to influence issues of own life is not big.
There are opinions, but there is hardly any faith that stating
your opinion would lead somewhere.”
Some doubt that all groups are equally listened to. The decision-making is
seen as the dominion of elites. The prosperous and people with good capacities
to participate are seen to have better possibilities to express their opinions and to
participate. Local decision-making can be seen as run by those who are active
year after year and sometimes, the voices of the least advantaged and those with
weaker skills and less capacity to participate are not heard. This set-up might
hinder the willingness to participate and so does the financial situation of
residents. Citizen participation can seem exclusive even though one of its aims is
to increase inclusiveness, reflected in this statement:
“I also believe that financial situation affects participation -- if
you need to count how many bus rides you can take in a
month, there might not be possibilities to do many things,
even if you were interested.”
Political culture, also at the local level, can be seen in a negative light,
including populism, quarrels and concentrating on meaningless issues.
Participating in local-level politics can be seen as an activity of the few same
people, year after year. All this decreases trust in local government and can
deteriorate its legitimacy.

Personal factors
Another category is personal factors. This consists of individuals’ experienced
competences, resources and preferences, which affect their ability and
willingness to participate in and influence local government decision-making.
31
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Competences
The ability and willingness to participate seem strongly connected to
individuals’ experienced competences. Support, encouragement and role models
- or lack of them - play a big role in affecting whether people feel they are able
and willing to participate. If, for instance, parents, family or friends are active in
politics, the whole system and practices of public participation are already
familiar, which seems to make it easier to also participate.
“I think that the factor that has enhanced my participation
activity the most comes from my home and from my nearest
ones. It is the atmosphere that encourages to independent
thinking and is also open for different views.”
Non-participation too can be inherited. With no example of participating in
societal discussions and without support and encouragement, the interest to
participate in political processes can be lacking while positive examples of active
citizenship can stimulate participation. This is reflected in the following
statement:
“I think I’m not a very active participant, and I think my family
background has affected my behaviour. My parents don’t
vote in elections, and also in other ways, they are not active
citizens at the state or at local level.”
In addition, some people consider their personality traits as hindering or
enhancing their participation. Introversion or shyness are examples of such traits
seen to complicate participation, while people who consider themselves to be
extrovert, open and social persons see these traits well suited for many
participation methods. Self-confidence seems also to play an important role in
willingness to participate, as illustrated here:
“One of the barriers is my slightly isolating personality, which
makes participation more difficult.”
These experienced competencies derive from many sources combining
personal factors with societal but also instrumental-processual factors. Thus,
categorising them as personal factors is a somewhat simplified interpretation,
and it needs to be stressed that both societal and instrumental-processual acts
have a great effect on people’s willingness and abilities to participate in public
decision-making.

Personal resources
Besides the competences described, personal factors also include personal
resources. From our data, these resources consist of time, knowledge and
experienced expertise. Participation can be time-consuming, and many feel that
participation requires a lot of knowledge. Said one student:
“Lack of time reduces my participation because besides
studying at the university I also work and, in addition, I have
my hobbies, and I want to spend time with my friends and
family.”

32
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

In the data, we found that time pressure is one factor that affects citizen
participation. The hectic life and its manifold demands, such as work, studies,
family and hobbies, take a lot of time and leave little room for active citizen
participation.
Some of the participation methods are also seen as requiring a lot of effort
from citizens. Citizen participation is seen as requiring special knowledge and
expertise. On the one hand, there needs to be knowledge about different
possibilities and channels of participation and on the other hand, there needs to
be knowledge and expertise in the issues that are in the decision-making
processes, as seen here:
“I feel that to participate, I should have enough knowledge
about the issue so I could participate. I have always been
interested in societal issues and decision-making, but I have
thought that participation requires more knowledge and
understanding of the issues.”
Personal resources are also connected to both societal and instrumental-
processual factors. For example, hesitation to participate because of a perceived
lack of knowledge can derive from the societal climate and experienced
requirements. It is important to develop simple and easy participation methods
and to communicate sufficiently and clearly about the possibilities.

Preferences
Finally, personal factors include individual preferences. For some people, citizen
participation is an interesting hobby or even a passion or way of life, while
others prefer to spend their spare time in other ways.
“I can’t even think of my life without influencing different
issues with different methods.”
Some topical, important issues may also activate participation making it
more important temporarily. Overall, participation is a question of personal
interests and the acts of participation require at least some interest either in the
issues or in participation as such, leading one student to say:
“I have never been very interested in participating or
influencing.”
Also, the experienced sense of community and attachment to a home
municipality can influence a person’s willingness to participate, while a lack of
community and attachment may hinder participation (see also Mannarini et. al.
2009). Rootlessness or feeling of being an outsider or not at home in the local
community can lead to a situation where the municipality feels distant. This can
hinder participation, reflected in this statement:
“Some kind of rootlessness and living in many municipalities
during my life so far has caused that I have difficulties to
attach myself to any municipality where I would consider
voting and seeing influencing as important.”

33
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Again, preferences and interests are also connected to societal and

instrumental-processual factors, as local governments can influence participation
by making it interesting and effective and by giving power to the people in the
issues important to them. However, it is also obvious that not everyone will
participate or be interested in participating.

Instrumental-processual factors
Citizen participation is also influenced by the instruments available for enabling
participation and by participation processes. These factors are concrete, and
municipalities have good possibilities to influence them (see also Eckerd &
Heidelberg 2020). These factors are connected to participation channels and their
quality.

Participation channels
According to our data, residents appreciate proper information regarding their
participation possibilities, user-friendly and easy-to-find as well as easy-to-
access participation channels. Different kinds of methods for participation are
needed, with the possibility of both online participation and in-person
participation. One student said:
“Participation decreases also if it is made too difficult or too
time-consuming.”
In other words, participation channels should be easily available, quick and
simple to use with minimum effort. These kinds of wishes are often connected to
possibilities of digitalisation and online participation. For example, voting,
mobile applications, social media, surveys and giving feedback are connected to
these easy-to-use channels. Easily accessible Internet platforms can help activate
more people, including formerly passive citizens or younger people as one
student mentioned:
“Easiness and quickness encourage me to participate in
more versatile ways.”
Even though quick and simple internet-based opportunities are appreciated,
there is a desire for face-to-face participation and open dialogue, for example,
the interaction between citizens and civil servants. There are certain
requirements for the quality of this interaction, however. Wide, respectful and
deliberative dialogue can increase the understanding between different actor
groups. Platforms such as workshops, citizen juries and open discussion fora
were mentioned as examples.
The critique can be directed to the lack of proper participation platforms or
lack of information regarding different possibilities. The existing platforms are
old fashioned and not suitable for quick participation. Citizen participation and
finding the channels take time and require concentration on issues that are being
decided, which may feel laborious. Also, the blur picture of the matters and the
channels of participation can make participation difficult.

34
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

Effectivity of participation
To enhance citizen participation, the data emphasises the importance of real
possibilities to influence. If citizens are not aware of the effects of their
involvement (see also Arnstein 1969; Font et. al 2017; Mannarini et. al. 2009),
participation is not motivating but, instead, it might be frustrating.
In the data, trust towards the system, and more precisely towards the
possibilities to influence, is an important incentive for participation. Also, seeing
the concrete results of the participation processes and how the opinions of
citizens are processed is a stimulating factor. Seeing the results of one’s
involvement can be very motivating and can enhance further participation and
therefore informing participants about the participation process and its outcomes
is vital.
“I would find it very encouraging if the results of residents’
involvement would be highlighted. For example, when
municipality publishes a certain decision, the influence of
residents should be brought out. The residents would feel
then that they are being listened to and this would
encourage them to influence in the future as well.”
The critique towards poor possibilities to influence is connected to the
passivity of the municipality to organise participation. Also, mistrust concerning
the effectivity of citizen participation and its possibilities to change the situation
can lead to an unwillingness to participate. For example, citizens might feel they
are not listened to:
“It feels that the final decisions are made somewhere else
and that the possibilities to influence are minimal for a
normal resident.”
The critique can also be addressed to an overall passivity of a municipality
and its slow and rigid processes. The activity of municipalities is understood in
this data as a support for citizens’ own activities: proper, diverse, effective
platforms of participation, openness and active informing about current affairs
and possibilities to participate and influence. Also, there is a wish for a more
open discussion of important political issues in the municipality.
Citizen participation is expected also to be personally meaningful. This is
connected to the feeling of being heard and appreciated, feeling of satisfaction
and meaningfulness and overall empowerment.

Discussion and Conclusions

In this study, we focused on citizen participation at the local level. The first
question of the study was which factors are related to residents’ willingness for
citizen participation. Our data show that both societal, personal and
instrumental-processual factors affect residents’ willingness and possibilities to
participate.
First, our study showed multiple appealing forms and channels of
participation. Municipalities do have opportunities to enhance citizen
35
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

participation in various ways. Creating and developing easy-to-access and easy-

to-use participation methods and channels that are effective aids in an increase in
participation. Easy participation channels such as interactive mobile
applications, map-based surveys or neighbourhood workshops can be useful in
increasing participation. Also, wider forms of participation, such as participatory
budgeting and citizen juries are often seen as rewarding channels of
participation. At their best, the channels can develop the culture of participation
in the municipality but also in society. Participation at the local level can, for
example, educate residents about democratic participation and enhance the
culture of citizen engagement within the organisation (Pateman 1970; Michels &
de Graaf 2010). These instrumental-processual factors are those that
municipalities can easily effect on. However, this alone is not enough as there
are also societal and personal factors affecting participation possibilities and
willingness.
Second, according to our study personal factors do also greatly affect
citizens’ possibilities and willingness to participate. People may feel they are not
competent enough for participating or they do not have enough resources, such
as time and money to participate (see also Hibbing & Theiss-Morse 2002). In
addition, this is a question of preferences. Participation may not be one priority
or interest, but people instead prefer to spend their time otherwise. Affecting
these factors is not very easy for municipalities. However, municipalities have
some possibilities to tackle these challenges by developing such participation
methods that are easy and quick to use and do not require specific skills or
knowledge.
Third, our study showed, that societal factors also effect on willingness to
participate. Societal climate might be supportive or discouraging for
participation. In addition, if the level of trust towards a political system is low, it
may negatively affect the willingness to participate. A big issue is also the socio-
economic factors behind participation possibilities (see e.g., Callahan 2007;
Docherty, Goodlad & Paddison 2001). For example, participation is more
common among those well off when looking at differences in income or
education level (see e.g., Irvin & Stansbury 2004, Michels & de Graaf 2010).
Thus, these factors are a broad societal question that municipalities alone cannot
take care of which highlights the need for inter-governmental cooperation is
needed to tackle these challenges. However partly, municipalities can affect
these factors e.g. by focusing on building trust between residents and local
government.
To sum up, based on our study, we argue, that citizen participation cannot be
treated as a solely processual-instrumental issue as fundamentally it is not about
mechanisms but a broader societal question that is also affected by personal
factors. A systemic, holistic view is thus needed to understand the whole of
citizen participation.
The second question of this study focused on how municipalities can
enhance citizen participation. Our results show that municipalities can promote
citizen participation by developing participation channels, but this is only a small
part of the whole sphere of citizen participation. Municipalities have an
important but restricted role in citizen participation, as they alone cannot take on
this task. Municipalities have only limited possibilities for affecting societal and
36
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

personal factors. However, some of these factors can be partly tackled by

developing participation channels and processes that are easy-to-access, easy-to-
use, inclusive and effective.
Results of our study highlight that participation is a broader, societal
question than simply a question of participation methods and channels. The
experiences and views concerning citizen participation are combined with
personal and societal factors whereas municipality specific instrumental-
processual factors are only a small part affecting these experiences (see also
Eckerd & Heidelberg 2020). Many social policy questions play a role, including
education, socio-economic status and family background. Thus, enhancing
citizen participation requires a broad outlook and intra- and inter-governmental
cooperation between different actors in society.
Even though it is known that participation is more common among those
who have higher education level (see e.g., Irvin & Stansbury 2004, Michels & de
Graaf 2010), our study shows that also higher education students are not very
aware of different citizen participation possibilities at local level and some of
them are very insecure about their capacity to participate. This raises an
important question on how aware e.g. citizens with lower education level or
people from marginalised groups are of these possibilities and how capable they
feel themselves of participating. Thus, this highlights the need to focus on the
inclusivity and accessibility of citizen participation. A lot needs still to be done
in municipalities to make them more easily approachable when even the
advantaged do not feel themselves capable of participating.
According to our observations, one of the main questions in enhancing
citizen participation is how to tackle inequalities in society to support equal
possibilities for citizen participation. What is also vital is to mould the mindsets,
attitudes and culture in public sector organisations and more broadly in the
society to support citizen participation.
One of our key findings from this study is the importance of trust as a cross-
cutting factor affecting citizen participation at many levels. Trust relates to local
participation processes and instruments and local decision-making and
governance. Besides, trust is also a broader question related to the society and
governance system. Well-functioning, easy-to-use participation methods and
channels and effective and inclusive participation processes can increase trust
towards local government and its decision-making. This can also lead to higher
trust towards society in general. Also, social policy actions can help in
increasing societal and systemic trust which can enhance citizen participation
(see e.g., Alford 2001, Lee & Schacter 2019).
Participation channels can thus be seen not only as instrumental methods but
also as broader mechanisms that can strengthen both trust, local democracy and
local government legitimacy in the long term. However, this requires good
quality channels and processes as malfunctioning processes can instead weaken
citizens’ trust towards local government and its decision-making (e.g.,
Mannarini, Fedi & Trippetti 2010).
Instrumental-processual factors, such as various democratic innovations can
partly improve societal and personal possibilities for citizen participation. Easy-
to-access and easy-to-use participation methods can help reach wider audiences
37
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

to participate and attract also those groups that usually are excluded or more
silent in the decision-making processes. However, there is also a risk that
democratic innovations can be too difficult for users or that they may seem to
require special skills or knowledge. This may, in turn, lead to a situation where
people are left out of the participation processes and participation can become
even more exclusive, strengthening the voices of those who already have good
possibilities to participate and influence (see e.g., Fung 2015; Wilkinson, Briggs,
Salt, Vines & Flynn 2019).
Even though the role of municipalities in enhancing citizen participation is
restricted, it is important, and municipalities can enhance citizen participation in
many ways as we have described. The importance of municipalities in enhancing
citizen participation is connected to the task repertoire of municipalities and their
role in public service distribution. For instance, in Finland, where municipalities
arrange most public services, there are plenty of opportunities for encounters
between the residents and local government organisations. In service situations
such as in libraries, health care or schools, municipalities can provide service-
users with possibilities to have their say about the services important to their
lives. In this sense, municipalities can serve as user interfaces for citizen
participation through the service system. Municipalities thus have an important
role not only in providing participation possibilities but also in what kind of
image comprises public participation and its effectivity in society.

Future research
This study has focused on local government possibilities to enhance citizen
participation. The data used in this study creates some restrictions that are good
to remember. First, the data is collected in Finland only. The Finnish local
government system differs from that of many other countries as it illustrates a
one-tier local government system in a Nordic welfare state context. Second, the
informants behind the data are university students, which makes the data
somewhat restricted. However, it can be seen from the data that the informants
have diverse backgrounds regarding age, sex or socio-economic factors. Even
though university students are a group that might already be quite aware of
participation possibilities the data shows that many are still unaware, insecure
and consider their abilities inadequate to participate. Being qualitative by its
nature, this study does not show the frequencies of the factors affecting
participation willingness.
Being aware of these restrictions, this study has produced new knowledge
and understanding of the factors that affect participation. In addition, this study
has produced new knowledge on the restricted role that municipalities have in
enhancing citizen participation.
Even though there is a great deal of studies that observe the citizen view (see
e.g Michels & De Graaf 2010; Mannarini et. al. 2010) the research concerning
citizen participation would benefit from more qualitative studies that scrutinise a
more heterogenous and larger groups, covering people from different education
levels, age groups and socio-economic backgrounds and also observing the
views of non-participants. Previous research on this topic is mainly quantitative.
Through qualitative approach it would be possible to gain more understanding
on the topic we have raised in this article. However, this could also be done
38
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

quantitatively by utilising the understanding gained in this study and

operationalising this to a survey that could help discover how common different
factors are, and which variables affect views about participation. This would
help in understanding the frequency and intensity of the phenomenon and help
municipalities to develop participation channels and processes. Comparative,
international research on the issue would also be needed to find differences
between countries and cultures.

References
Aaltonen, E. (1934) Paikallinen itsehallinto ennen kunnallislaitoksen syntyä. In
Suolahti, G., Voionmaa, V., Aaltonen, E., Renvall, P., Kuusanmäki, L.,
Waris, H. & Jutikkala, E. (eds.) Suomen kulttuurihistoria II. Jyväskylä:
Gummerus.
Alford, J. R. (2001). We’re all in this together: The decline of trust in
Government, 1958–1996. In J. R. Hibbing & E. Theiss-Morse (Eds.), What
is it about Government that Americans dislike? Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 28–46.
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Bakker, T. P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young
people, Internet use, and political participation. Communication research,
38(4), 451-470.
Bäcklund, P., Kallio, K. P., & Häkli, J. (2014). Residents, customers or citizens?
Tracing the idea of youthful participation in the context of administrative
reforms in Finnish public administration. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3),
311-327.
Birch, A. H. (2002), Concepts & Theories of Modern Democracy. London &
New York: Routledge.
Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: questions of diversity, equity and
fairness. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 13(1), 53-68.
Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G. & Savoldelli, A. (2016) Smart Cities Governance:
The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy
Making. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 724–739.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315611103
Christensen, H. S., Karjalainen, M. & Lundell, K. (2016). Democratic
innovations to the rescue? Political trust and attitudes toward democratic
innovations in Southwest Finland. International Journal of Public
Administration, 39(5), 404-416.
Cook T. E. & Morgan P.M. (ed.) (1971) Participation democracy. San Francisco:
Canfield Press.
Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A. & Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen‐centered collaborative
public management. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 76-88.
Docherty, I., Goodlad, R. & Paddison, R. (2001). Civic Culture, Community and
Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38(12),
2225–2250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087144
39
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Eckerd, A., & Heidelberg, R. L. (2020). Administering Public Participation. The

American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 133-147.
Finnish Local Government Act 410/2015.
Fiorina, Morris P. (1999). Extreme voices: A dark side of civic engagement. In
Skocpol, Theda & Fiorina, Morris P (ed.) Civic Engagement in American
Democracy, 405-413. New York, Washington, D.C; Brookings Institution
Press.
Font, J., Graham S., Galais. C. & Alarcon, P. (2017). Cherry-picking
participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes.
European Journal of Political Research, 57 (3):615–636.
Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public
Administration Review, 66 (1), 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00667.x
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of
citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4),
513-522.
Gherghina, S. (2017). Direct democracy and subjective regime legitimacy in
Europe, Democratization, 24:4, 613-631, DOI:
10.1080/13510347.2016.1196355Irvin, R. A. & Stansbury, J. (2004).
Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public
Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
de Graaf, L. J., van Hulst, M. J., & Michels, A. (2015). Enhancing participation
in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. Local Government Studies, 41(1),
44-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2014.908771
Hart, S. (2009). The ‘problem’with youth: young people, citizenship and the
community. Citizenship studies, 13(6), 641-657.
Head, Brian W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms?
Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth Democracy: Americans’
Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge University Press.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is
it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
Julian, D. A., Reischl, T. M., Carrick, R. V. & Katrenich, C. (1997). Citizen
participation—lessons from a local United Way planning process. Journal of
the American planning association, 63(3), 345-355.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Commentary: A dissenting view on so-called
paradoxes of reliability coefficients. Annals of the International
Communication Association, 36(1), 481-499.
Kübler, D., Rochat, P. E., Woo, S. Y. & van der Heiden, N. (2019). Strengthen
governability rather than deepen democracy: why local governments
introduce participatory governance. International Review of Administrative
Sciences,1-18.

40
 How Municipalities Can Enhance Citizen Participation? – Exploring the Views of Participants and Non-
Participants

Lee, Y. & Schachter, H. L. (2019). Exploring the relationship between trust in

government and citizen participation. International Journal of Public
Administration, 42(5), 405–416.
Lidström, A. (2003) Kommunsystem i Europa. Malmö: Liber.
Loughlin, J., Hendriks, F. & Lidström, A. (2011) Introduction: Subnational
Democracy in Europe: Changing Backgrounds and Theoretical Models. In
Loughlin, J., Hendriks, F. & Lidström, A. (eds.) Local and Regional
Democracy in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1–23.
Lowndes, V., L. Pratchett & G. Stoker. (2001) Trends in Public Participation:
Part 2 – Citizens’ Perspectives. Public Administration 79 (2): 445–455.
Mannarini, T., Fedi, A. & Trippetti, S. (2010) Public involvement: How to
encourage citizen participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology 20: 262–74.
Michels, A. & de Graaf, L. (2010) Examining citizen participation: Local
participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies,
36(4), 477-491.
Michels, A. & de Graaf, L. (2017) Examining citizen participation: local
participatory policymaking and democracy revisited. Local Government
Studies, 43(6), 875-881.
Nabatchi, T. & Amsler, L. B. (2014) Direct public engagement in local
government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(4_suppl),
63S-88S.
Osborne, S. (2010). The (new) public governance: A suitable case for
treatment? Introduction to S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance?
Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance,
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 1–16
Page, E. & Goldsmith, M. (eds.) (1987) Central-local government relations: a
comparative analysis of West European unitary states. London: Sage.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University
Press.
Pedersen, K. H. & Johannsen, L. (2016). Where and How You Sit: How Civil
Servants View Citizens’ Participation. Administration & Society, 48(1),
104-129.
Pratchett, L. (2004). Local autonomy, local democracy and the ‘new localism’.
Political Studies, 52, 358– 375.
Ravensbergen, F. & VanderPlaat, M. (2009). Barriers to Citizen Participation:
The Missing Voices of People Living with Low Income. Community
Development Journal, 45 (4).
Rose, L. & Ståhlberg, K. (2005) The Nordic Countries: still the ”promised
land”? In Denters, B. & Rose, L. (eds.) (2005) Comparing Local
Governance. Trends and Developments. New York: Macmillan, 83–99.
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen
participation. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. D. & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation:
Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources,
14(3), 239-249.
41
Anni Jäntti and Kaisa Kurkela

Stenvall, E. (2018). Yhteiskunnallinen osallisuus ja toimijuus: Lasten

osallistuminen, kansalaisuus ja poliittisuus arjen käytäntöinä. Acta
Universitatis Tamperensis 2407. Tampere: Tampere University Press
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E. & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector
into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward.
Administration & Society, 51(5), 795-825
Torfing, Jacob & Triantafillou, Peter. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new
public governance as a political-administrative system. International Review
of Public Administration, 18(2), 9–25.
Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S. & Aarts, N. (2010). How participation creates
citizens: Participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and
Society, 15 (4).
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New
Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vakkala, H., Jäntti, A. & Sinervo, L. -M. (2020) Redefining Local Self-
Government – Finnish Municipalities seeking their Essence. In Bergström,
T., Franzke, J., Kuhlmann, S. & Wayenberg, E. (eds.) (2020) (forthcoming)
The Future of Local Self-Government. European Trends in Autonomy,
Innovations and Central-Local Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weir, S. & Beetham, D. (1998). PART 2: The Core Executive: Chapter 9:
Government Below the Centre. In Political Power & Democratic Control in
Britain (pp. 225–260). Taylor & Francis Ltd / Books.
Welch, E. W. (2012). The relationship between transparent and participative
government: A study of local governments in the United States.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 93–115.
Wilkinson, C., Briggs, J., Salt, K., Vines, J. & Flynn, E. (2019) In participatory
budgeting we trust? Fairness, tactics and (in)accessibility in participatory
governance, Local Government Studies, 45:6, 1001-1020, DOI:
10.1080/03003930.2019.1606798.
Yang, K. & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen
participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public
Administration Review, 71(6), 880-892.

42