Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Courtney Breese

This 2013 report from the IBM Center for The Business of Government is based on five case studies of e-rulemaking experiments to better engage the public, and offers advice on how agencies can increase the quantity and quality of public participation. By authors Cynthia R.Farina and Mary J.Newhart with CeRI (the Cornell eRulemaking Initiative).

From Center Executive Director Dan Chenok’s announcement:

This report provides important insights in how governments can improve the rulemaking process by taking full advantage of Rulemaking 2.0 technology, building on the progress made by the U.S. Government’s longstanding Regulations.Gov initiative. The report’s findings and recommendations are based on five experiments with Rulemaking 2.0 conducted by CeRI researchers, four in partnership with the Department of Transportation and one with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

While geared specifically to achieving better public participation in rulemaking, the concepts, findings, and recommendations contained in the report are applicable to all government agencies interested in enhancing public participation in a variety of processes. The report offers advice on how government organizations can increase both the quantity and quality of public participation from specific groups of citizens, including missing stakeholders, unaffiliated experts, and the general public.

The report describes three barriers to effective participation in rulemaking: lack of awareness, low participation literacy, and information overload. While the report focuses on rulemaking, these barriers also hinder public participation in other arenas. The report offers three strategies to overcome such barriers:

Outreach to alert and engage potential new participants
Converting newcomers into effective commenters
Making substantive rulemaking information accessible

This report makes an excellent companion piece to two previous IBM Center reports. In 2011, the Center published Assessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans, by Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Joe Goldman, and David Stern. That report addresses how public participation can be increased via online public participation, face-to-face public participation, and formal public participation (such as rulemaking and federal advisory committees). An earlier IBM Center report, The Management of Regulation Development: Out of the Shadows, by American University President Cornelius Kerwin, addressed the need to government to give increased attention to its role in regulation development and rulemaking.

Table of Contents

Foreword
Introduction
- Purpose of this Report
- Intended Audience and Outline
Understanding the Barriers to Rulemaking Participation
- Case Studies
- Barriers to Effective Participation
Understanding Types of Potential Rulemaking Participants
- Type One: Sophisticated Commenters
- Type Two: Missing Stakeholders
- Type Three: Unaffiliated Experts
- Type Four: Members of the General Public
Strategies to Lower Participation Barriers and Enhance Participation Quality
- Strategy One: Outreach to Alert and Engage Potential New Participants
- Strategy Two: Converting Newcomers to Effective Commenters
- Strategy Three: Making Substantive Rulemaking Information Accessible
Recommendations
- Understanding and Getting Broader and Better Rulemaking Participation
- Building a New Culture of Rulemaking Participation—From Inside the Agency Out
References
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
Key Contact Information

About the IBM Center for The Business of Government
The IBM Center for The Business of Government connects public management research with practice. Since 1998, the Center has helped public sector executives improve the effectiveness of government with practical ideas and original thinking. They sponsor independent research by top minds in academe and the non-profit sector, and create opportunities for dialogue on a broad range of public management topics. The Center’s publications focus on the major management issues facing all governments today: e-government, financial management, human capital management, managing for performance and results, market-based government, and innovation, collaboration and transformation.

Resource Link: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/business-government/new-report-examines-state-rulemaking-20

Direct Download: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Rulemaking%202%200.pdf

Peter Levine takes on the question “Do we live in a republic or a democracy?”

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Sandy Heierbacher

I am excited to see the latest post on scholar Peter Levine’s blog, which tackles the bewildering question (I’ve found it bewildering, anyway!), Do we live in a republic or a democracy?

My pat answer to that question has been both — the U.S. is a democratic republic or a representative democracy; that in a large country you need some combination of elected representatives and direct citizen voice. I’ve also said that this is partly a question of semantics and of changing definitions over time. I’m happy to see I wasn’t far off.

But Levine has taken the time to answer this question thoroughly, with quotes and details from throughout America’s history. As many of our field consider themselves to be part of a movement towards a more deliberative, engaged democracy (NCDD members have written many books with titles like Democracy in Motion, Slow Democracy, the Tao of Democracy, and the Next Form of Democracy), we’d better be able to channel Peter an perhaps quote Ronald Reagan (see below) when we’re on the receiving end of this question!

Peter begins with a quote from Ronald Reagan:

“You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”

- President Ronald Reagan, Normandy, June 6, 1984

Here are some pertinent excerpts from this valuable post:

From World War I until recently, leaders of both major political parties routinely claimed that the United States was a democracy. Politicians often called us “the greatest democracy on earth” and asserted that the purpose of both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War had been to defend democracy. The main debate was whether we had attained a democracy or were still struggling to be one, with the strongest skeptics on the left. A perennial argument pitted left critics–who asserted that our domestic and foreign policies were anti-democratic–against conservative defenders of our credentials as a real democracy.

This consensus about goals has broken down because the hard right now says that we were not founded as a democracy and should not be one….

How did this semantic ambiguity arise? The word “democracy” is of Greek origin. It literally means “rule of (or by) the people.” One could hold that the sovereign power in the US is the people–and hence we have a democracy in the etymological sense. Like all old words, however, “democracy” has accumulated resonances beyond its etymological origins. It may invoke the Greek city-states (whether seen as ideals or as disasters) or mass modern societies.

“Republic” comes from the Latin. My Latin dictionary says that “publicus” means “belonging to the people.” Thus “res publica” means the “thing belonging to the people,” whereas “democracy” is the “people’s rule.” If there is a significant difference in the etymological sense of these words, it is the difference between something that the people have (a republic) versus a power they wield (democracy)…

Ultimately, the United States can be called republican and democratic. The two words have interestingly different origins and resonances but are not sharply distinguishable. Nor do we have either a pure republic/democracy. Some limitations on the republic/democratic element are wise, but our current system is flawed by most standards. Although our democratic/republican aspirations are only partly realized, they remain beacons.

Check out the full post at http://peterlevine.ws/?p=12096.

Dialogue Theories

Posted on July 3, 2013 by NCDD Community

This 2013 book by Frances Sleap and Omer Sener aims to advance theoretical and practical engagement with dialogue by introducing the work of ten individuals who have made important and insightful contributions to thought in this area. The thinkers selected come from diverse fields, from religious studies and interfaith dialogue, through philosophy and social theory, to communication studies, public opinion analysis and even quantum physics.

A great deal of hope seems to be pinned on ‘dialogue’ in the contemporary world. The word is regularly raised in the context of a range of pressing issues, from the need for intercultural understanding in a globalised world, to the economic and ecological crises crying out for creative, collaborative responses, to the political process of policy and law-making at both national and international levels. Dialogue would thus seem to merit serious reflection and experimentation. The thinkers considered in this volume are among those who have afforded it this kind of attention.

This introduction to their work is intended to inform and inspire anyone with an interest in the meaning, value and potential of dialogue, particularly those engaged with dialogue in a professional, academic, voluntary or personal capacity. No background knowledge is assumed. It is hoped that in these pages readers will discover inspiring new thinkers to engage with, and perhaps new facets to more familiar thinkers. The book also includes discussion of a wide range of practical dialogue organisations and projects which may provide further food for thought and ideas for practice. Continue reading →

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: research

Peter Levine takes on the question “Do we live in a republic or a democracy?”

Here are some pertinent excerpts from this valuable post:

Dialogue Theories