INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

9

Wampler, 2010). PB was developed and implemented first in Brazil, and it has found worldwide
acceptance. It has helped deliver positive or mixed results in many democracies worldwide, like in
Italy, Spain, Korea, and China. PB in the literature is seen to operate on three basic principles or
logics of administrative strengthening. First, the administrative logic of introducing active citizens
in governance; second, the political-reforms logic that can help strengthen citizen politics and community mobilization; and third, the empowerment logic of moving the power balance in favor of citizens in a state–subject relationship (Baogang, 2011).
The literature is unanimous on two caveats towards achieving empowerment goals: the government’s control over people’s participation in the decision-making process, and local government
officials’ resistance. They contribute this condition to the debate of expert knowledge vs. popular
mandate (Ganuza et al., 2016), leading to a divide between the opinions of the governed and the
governing. Also, the literature suggests that although the long-term implications of PB may
change the state–citizen interaction completely, the short-term social impacts are limited (Boulding
& Wampler, 2010). The potential of crowdfunding projects run by citizens using a digital platform
created and legitimized by the administration is also established (Gooch et al., 2020). Some
crucial factors outlined in the literature regarding the success of PB initiatives are: first, strong
state support to ensure inclusive representation of all stakeholders; second, availability and
sharing of information in the same capacity to all stakeholders; third, provisions to express and
record opinions of all stakeholder groups; fourth, avoidance of the problem of elite capture; and
fifth, active targeting of the marginalized to maximize the benefits of budget goals for significant
social change and reduction of the socio-economic divide.

5.3 Deliberative Governance
In 1980, Joseph M. Besettee introduced the concept of Deliberative Governance, representing a
democratic setup where deliberations are central to the decision-making process. The idea
behind this concept was the belief that modifications and adjustments could be made to individual
interests to create policies for the common good (Park et al., 2017). Researchers have discussed this
method of engagement and outlined characteristics of successful deliberations in a democratic
setup. First, all participants are considered and treated equally, free to question or intervene, and
everyone has an equal weight of opinion. Second, deliberations should result in the process of
social learning. Third, the deliberating body should be inclusive of all the stakeholders that can
be affected by the decision taken; and fourth, there is enough relevant information, engagement,
and discussion to be able to forge a consensus among conflicting interests (Newman, 2011; Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012; van der Merwe & Meehan, 2012).
We see DG being adapted for two different types of structure. The first is the policy jury advocated
by Robert Dahl in 1970, who viewed DG as a counter to the limitations of elective democracy. It has
remained popular in recent times and is adopted by countries like South Korea nowadays for better
municipal administration. In this structure, representatives from different stakeholder groups are
chosen to assist the administration in reaching the best possible policy decisions and delivering
the common goal for local development (Chaudhuri & Kendall, 2020). The second form is called
Negotiated rulemaking, or ‘Reg-Neg’ (regulatory negotiations). Here a committee is formed with
elected representatives, community leaders, civic body organizations, and subject-matter experts
to discuss and develop policies. This disintermediation and direct involvement of the public in
policy decisions result in citizen empowerment and democratization of the policy-setting process
(García-Peñalvo et al., 2019; Garcia et al., 2020; Sixto-García et al., 2020). Long-term support for collaborative communities, imparting a sense of ownership over the design and operation of digital
initiatives, is the key to achieve sustainable deliberative governance (Dusi, 2019). The use of ICTbased deliberative governance is also explored for empowering marginalized and tribal communities using digital innovation and tools to solve their local administrative issues. Researchers also
see a reinforcement of the pre-existing societal divisions with explicitly visible benefits if the