The influence of citizen participation on local government performance the case of vietnam

Title of Thesis: The Influence of Citizen Participation on Local Government Performance: the Case of Vietnam Name of Institute: Department of Public Policy and Administration, College of

國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系

博士論文

公民參與對地方政府績效之影響─以越南為例 The Influence of Citizen Participation on Local Government Performance: the Case of Vietnam

指導教授：孫同文博士 研究生：鄭黃鴻惠 中華民國 108 年 7 月

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have supported and guided me throughout my doctoral studies in Taiwan During four years of studying at the National Chi Nan University, I received many precious supports from my

supervisor, committee members, the faculty and staff at Department Public Policy and Administration, classmates and friends

First of all, I wish to place on records my heartfelt and sincere thanks to my supervisor Prof Sun, Milan Tung-Wen for the outstanding guidance to my dissertation Without his significant and valuable suggestions, comments and guidance, my

dissertation could not have been completed He is the most tremendous mentor that I have chance to meet in my life He always encourage and stimulate me to learn and do research more day by day He is my idol that I would like to become in the future Big thanks once again go to him for his deep understanding and flexibility throughout my pursuing professional goals

I would like to express my special appreciation to my dissertation committee chair, Prof Chen Jin-Gui, and each of the committee members: Prof Shih Mei-Chiang, Prof Lee Tsuey-Ping, and Prof Lu Chun-Meng for giving excellent comments and feedbacks that have great improved the quality of my dissertation I am also very

appreciate of precious supports form Prof Shih Mei-Chiang for offering us a seminar room at the Tung Hai University I am also deeply grateful to Prof Chen Wen-Hsueh for giving invaluable insights and suggestions throughout the process of my study

I would also like to extend my special thanks to all of professors of the

Department of Public Policy and Administration at National Chi Nan University Over the past four years, I have learned a lot of knowledge and wisdom from all of you, which will guide my professional career in the future Additionally, from the bottom of

my heart, I am also deeply grateful to Wei-li sister and Man-tou for helping me a lot I will never forget your precious assistance and generosity

I would like to covey my sincerest thanks and greatest gratitude to the

scholarship donors form the National Chi Nan University I would like to express my very special thanks to Prof Wu Ruo-Yu for giving me a chance to pursue PhD Program

and financing my job as a Vietnamese language teacher throughout the years of my studies at the National Chi Nan University

I would also like to give thanks to Ms Do Thi Thanh Huyen, a policy analyst on Public Administration Reform and Anti-corruption at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Prof Edmund J Malesky, Duke University (UNDP international consultant on governance measurement) for providing lots of precious information to

my dissertation

Especially, I highly appreciated Prof Tran Thi Thu Luong (University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU-HCM, Vietnam) Prof Nguyen Chi Hai (University of Economic and Law, VNU-HCM, Vietnam), M.S Tran Dai Nguyen (University of Technology, VNU-HCM, Vietnam) for their support, encouragement and trust over years

Thanks also to all of my dear friends and classmates in Taiwan and Vietnam who have supported me with their confidence and encouragement throughout my study

in Taiwan Thank for your valuable time, co-operation, and generosity which set this work possible as it is till the end

I would like to thank my family, especially in my parents for their love, support and understanding throughout the years I have been pursuing my education and career I love you so much, my dear dad and mom You always stand by me even I face to the most difficulties in my life I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my beloved daughter, Tran Hoang Thao Linh, who gave up her childhood with mother and allow her mother to pursue the goals I could not finish my study without these great supports and love from my family

Finally, I am deeply thankful to all person who contributed to my doctorate program’s completion Thank you very much again from the bottom of my heart I will always love all you

關鍵詞：公民參與，地方政府績效，越南，民主治理

Title of Thesis: The Influence of Citizen Participation on Local Government

Performance: the Case of Vietnam

Name of Institute: Department of Public Policy and Administration, College of

Humanities, National Chi Nan University Pages: 189 Graduation Time: 07/2019 Degree: Doctor Student Name: Trinh Hoang Hong Hue Advisor Name: Dr Milan Tung-Wen Sun

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify and develop a better understanding of the influence of citizen participation on local government performance in Vietnam in terms

of democratic governance It provides an overview of the evolution of citizen

participation at the local level and performance of local governments in Vietnam

Additionally, this study also finds out attributes that are crucial for enhancing citizen participation and the performance of local governments in Vietnam Finally, this study examines whether citizen participation affects performance of the local governments in Vietnam or not

This study is the first research in Vietnam that employs panel data analysis with REMs to explore the effect of citizen participation on performance of government at the provincial level with four different aspects including economic, institutional, political and administrative We target all provinces and municipalities from 2012 to 2017, covering 58 provinces and 5 municipalities (Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, Da Nang and Can Tho) This study uses the secondary data from four data sources,

including The Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI), the Provincial

Competitiveness Index (PCI), the Public Administration Reform Index (PARI), and the General Statistics Office of 63 provinces of Vietnam from 2012 to 2017

This study has some major conclusions, including: (1) citizen participation at the local level has mixed effects on institutional, administrative and political performances; and has no significant effect on economic performance In particular, citizen

participation is positively associated with institutional and political performances, but is negatively associated with individual province’s administrative performance; (2) The efficiency of government spending/per capita, the disparities between the majority of

Kinh people and ethnic minorities, and the regional differences between the North and

the South, all of these factors influence the level of citizen participation at the local level and local government performance in Vietnam

Key words: citizen participation, local government performance, Vietnam, democratic governance

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i

摘要 iii

Abstract iv

Table of Contents vi

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Background of the Study 1

Purpose of Study 7

Research Questions 7

Significance of the Study 7

Organization of the Study 8

Chapter 2 Literature Review 9

Democratic Governance 9

Citizen Participation and Government Performance through Democratic Governance 11

The Influence of Citizen Participation on Government Performance 27

Chapter 3 The Case of Vietnam 35

Local Government in Vietnam 35

Democratic Governance in Vietnam 45

Chapter 4 Research Design and Methods 67

Research Framework 67

Data Procedure and Sources 70

Measurements 70

Variables 96

Hypothesis Development 98

Statistical Methods 100

Equation 101

Chapter 5 Results and Discussion 103

Descriptive Statistics 103

Panel Data Analysis 107

Results 109

Discussion 113

Chapter 6 Conclusion 119

Summary of Research Findings 119

Theoretical Implications and Practical Applications 123

Limitations 126

References 128

Appendixes 158

Appendix A  Consolidated List of Legal Normative Documents on Grass-Roots Democracy 158

Appendix B  Some main indexes using in PA in Vietnam now 160

Appendix C  Provincial Policy Responses to PAPI from 2012 to 2018 168

Appendix D  Provincial Policy Responses to PCI from 2014 to 2018 175

Appendix E  Provincial Policy Responses from 2014 to 2018 to improve PARI 184

Appendix F  Correlation Matrix among variables 189

List of Tables

Table 3.1 The changes in number of the three – tier model of the local government

system in Vietnam 43

Table 3.2 Scio- Political Profile of East Asia countries 47

Table 3.3 Corruption perceptions index of Vietnam 49

Table 3.4 Changes in associational membership from 2011-2014 52

Table 3.5 Characteristics of liberal democracy and socialist democracy 53

Table 4.1 PAPI dimensions and indicators 71

Table 4.2 Sub-dimensions of citizen participation at the local level 73

Table 4.3 PCI dimensions and indicators 76

Table 4.4 PAR Index dimensions and indicators 88

Table 4.5 Sub-dimensions of political performance (from PAPI) 91

Table 4.6 Variables definitions 97

Table 5.1 Citizen Participation at Vietnam provinces from 2012 to 2017 103

Table 5.2 GRDP/ per capita from 2012 to 2017 104

Table 5.3 PCI of provincial changes over 2012 -2017 105

Table 5.4 Public Administrative Reform Index (PARI) from 2012 to 2017 106

Table 5.5 Political performance of provincial changes over 2012 -2017 107

Table 5.6 Summary Statistic 108

Table 5.7 The effect of social demographic backgrounds on citizen participation and local government performance 110

Table 5.8 The effect of citizen participation and social demographic backgrounds on local government performance 112

Table 5.9 The effect of citizen participation and social demographic backgrounds on local government performance (lagged one year) 113

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 The structure of government according to the 1946 Constitution 35

Figure 3.2 The structure of government according to the 1959 Constitution 36

Figure 3.3 The structure of government according to the 1980 Constitution 38

Figure 3.4 The structure of Vietnam government according to the 1992 Constitution 39 Figure 3.5 The structure of local government according to the 1992 Constitution 40

Figure 3.6 Map of Vietnam, including 63 provinces/municipalities 42

Figure 3.7 The framework of citizen participation at the local level in Vietnam 55

Figure 3.8 The overview of Vietnamese Democratic system 58

Figure 4.1 Research framework 69

Figure 4.2 PAPI’s collection, construction and calibration methodology 71

Chapter 1 Introduction Background of the Study

Governance is an innovative term to describe changes in the nature and role of the state following the public sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s (Bevir, 2009) In which, citizen participation and government performance are clear implications for the theory and practice of democratic governance (Neshkova & Guo, 2012) These are two reinventing government movements designed to improve governance capacity and democracy (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Schachter, 1995; Pharr & Putnam, 2000) Democratic governance and citizen participation not only contribute to political stability but also build up a fairer and more equal society, in which power belongs to the people (UNDP, 2006) Additionally, through democratic governance, governments become more responsive to citizen’s needs and more effective in providing public services (Rondinelli, 2007) In the context of Vietnam, democratic governance is truly necessary

to yield “a State of the people, by the people, and for the people” (cua dan, do dan, vi

dan) (UNDP, 2006)

Referring to Vietnam, before, many people think that it is a country of war, a less developed country or one of the world’s poorest nations However, with the high economic growth rate of approximately 7% in recent years, it now is transforming to one of the most dynamic emerging countries in East Asia region and has set its sights on becoming a developed country by 20201 Although being a single party State, Vietnam has implemented many measures to democratize the economic, political and social life (Nghi, 2008) as well as to strengthen accountability of the governance system and citizen participation in decision-making (UNDP, 2006)

Historically, Socialist Republic of Vietnam and its local government system was founded in 1945 based on the ideologies of socialist democracy from the former Soviet Union After the Spring Victory in 1975, due to then imbalanced national budget, Vietnam fell into severe economic crisis, resulting in hyperinflation of 775% in 1986 (Xiaobo, 1998), followed by scarcity of staples and consumer goods, impoverished living conditions, industrial stagnation, and mounting foreign debts (Quan, 2014) To

overcome these difficulties, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) and the

Government of Vietnam (GoV) introduced the Doi moi (renovation) policy with

economic reforms in 1986 It mainly focuses on transforming Vietnam’s economy from centrally planned economy to the market socialist-oriented one, which promoted open-door policies towards international trade and investment, and recognized private

property rights (Vuving, 2013) Thanks to the process of the Doi moi (renovation),

Vietnam’s economy has changed impressively and people’s lives have been enriched In

1985, GDP per capita was 231.452 US$ per year; and it reached to 575.463 US$ per in

19872 From a country that lack of food, clothing and accommodation, it become the world’s third largest rice exporter in 1989 (around 1.2 million tons exported), after China and the United States (Quan, 2014) Between 1990 and 2016, Vietnam’s GDP grew by a giant 3,303 percent, the second-fastest growth rate in the world, only

surpassed by China (Barker & Üngör, 2018) Citizens have more opportunities to access

to information and education (Constitution, 1992) From that, they have been deeper awareness of their civil rights This is vital for the promotion of democracy Economic development has also demanded a more substantive democratic system with altruism enhancement and self-expressed values To fulfil these demands, step-by-step political reforms were conducted through reforming the State’s administration, upholding citizen participation in politics and the citizens’ right to mastery In particular, the 1992

Constitution and Party Congress IX confirm that Vietnam is a State “of the People, for

the People and by the People” (cua dan, do dan, vi dan) in which “People know, People discuss, People execute, and People monitor” (dan biet, dan ban, dan lam, dan kiem

tra) Besides, the 1992 constitution also recognizes the rights to freedom of opinions,

expression and association for all citizens In this sense, citizen participation has

become a necessary need, and has been put in the priority of Vietnam government’s policies (Lien, 2003)

Although the Doi moi (renovation) policy in 1986 truly reinforced democracy,

citizens’ right were still violated in some places Some protests broke out in various provinces in the 1990s The most serious violence occurred in rural of Thai Binh

province in May 1997 and similar events expanded in the southern of Dong Nai

province in November 1997 These protests uncovered serious problems of local

2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=VN Retrieved on April 1st 2019

governance in Vietnam at that time, such as corruption of local officials, high taxes, and land disputes In other words, local governments do not have capacity to provide

adequate services and facilities that are equivalent to tax payments and compulsory labor or financial contributions to infrastructure projects (Mattner, 2004)

Simultaneously, central government recognized the problems in local

governments as well as that they failed to control local administration, especially in monitoring local officials and enforcing them to follow rules and regulations To

improve the transparency and accountability of local administration and to ensure formal ways for citizens to express their grievances and preferences in their economic, social and political life, the Communist Party of Vietnam launched Decree 29 in 1998 concerning regulations on the exercise of democracy at grassroots level This decree can

be seen as a response by central government to tackle weakness in local governance It

is also the first official framework for citizen participation in the public administration and decision-making process at the local level in Vietnam However, the

implementation of the Decree 1998 on grass roots democracy has been unequal among localities because of lacking capacity to accomplish the reform policy at the local level

(Sau & Thong, 2003) Additionally, “some rules were no longer appropriate and

ineffective”, according to Do Quang Trung, Minister of Home Affairs (Viet Nam News,

2006) Thus, it is amended and upgraded into an ordinance on grassroots’ democracy in

2007 (GRDO) by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly This ordinance aims at further strengthening the democratic rights and participation of citizens in local governance Following the Ordinance 2007, Vietnamese citizens are able to better monitor the local government’s performance Hence, local government authority must adjust their own performance level to increase benefits and decrease negative

consequences Simultaneously, local government must effectively ensure citizens’ rights and their legitimate interests in practice Besides, numerous legal instruments have also been promulgated to reform elected bodies and electoral systems, to reform elements of the ruling Communist Party, and to strengthen the role of mass organizations, such as to amend the 1992 Constitution in 2014, the Anti-Corruption Law 2005, and a new Law

on Complaints and Petitions of Citizens 2011

Following the success of economic transition of the 1986 Doi moi (Renovation)

associated with the rules of a market economy, the need for the comprehensive reforms

for all of aspects of state management were raised In January 1995, the public

administrative reforms (PAR) were carried out at provincial levels It mainly focuses on restructuring government system, simplifying administrative procedures, and renovating the civil servants through training (Funston, 2001:385; OECD, 2011) However, there were still some challenges in the public administrative system like the red-tape,

corruption, and weak performance of local government system Therefore, government

of Vietnam launched another ten-year Public Administration Reform (PAR) master plan 2001-2010 with the aim of building an effective, strong, modern, professional, and transparent public administrative system Nevertheless, after ten years of

implementation of the PAR master plan, the public administrative system still

encountered many weakness like before such as red-tape, corruption, lack of

accountability and transparency In other words, nothing has been significantly changed

as the result of this master plan On November 8, 2011, Vietnamese government

decided to launch the PAR period 2011-2020 to build up an effective, efficient,

transparent public administrative system in consistent with the rule of law principle and democratic value (Chinh phu, 2011)

The Doi moi (Renovation) policy also requires institutional and organizational

reforms Clearly, local governments are responsible to enhance the resident’s life, so they ought to provide public services as well as response to the needs of citizens better than the central government It also should have the capacity to contribute to a more democratic freedom and human society (Chandler, 2001) However, Vietnam has not yet recognized the importance of local government in promoting the democratic value and good governance Promoting decentralization or reforming local government in Vietnam has also carried out inadequately (Fritzen, 2006; Wit, 2007) Performance of local government is rather weak (Mattner, 2004) As a result, some local citizen unrests occurred in the late 1997s From that, reforming local government is necessary for successful decentralization To orient to a democratic society and good governance, Vietnamese local governments are making efforts to build up an effective, efficient, transparent and accountable system

Through the above economic, political, administration and institutional reforms,

it is presumably that citizen participation affects the performance of local government

So far, however, in Vietnam there has been little discussion about the effect of citizen

participation on performance of local governments in terms of democratic governance Current studies mainly examine the role of citizen participation in the development process in Vietnam and concentrate on how to increase citizen participation in local governance (ACVN, 2008; Dang, Thai & Le, 2015; Giang, Nguyen, Tran, 2016;

Jackson, 2014; Dao, 2015; Nguyen, Le, Tran & Bryant, 2015; UNDP, 2015; Thai & Garcia-Zamor, 2017; Su & Bui, 2017) For instances, some findings show that weak local governance can decrease citizen participation because of “lack of clarity of legal instruments, insufficient funding and overlapping roles and responsibilities among government institutions and mass organizations remain obstacles to more active

engagement of citizens in their political institutions” (UNDP, 2006: iv) Other studies contribute to the literature on the term “civil society” by analyzing citizen participation

in Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) since the Doi moi (Renovation) policy or the

emergence of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) in Vietnam (Dalton, 2006; Wischermann, 2010; UNDP, 2006) They found out some differences between citizen participation in Vietnam and those in Western countries Some researchers also

investigate differences of citizen participation between large and small cities, between the poor and non-poor people; and the gap between urban and rural governance in Vietnam (Nguyen, 2015; Jairo, Nguyen, Tran & Phung, 2015) Extensively, citizen participation in large cities is weaker than that in the small cities; and citizens belong to

“unofficial poor” groups participate less than non-poor people Several other studies indicate the effects of citizen participation and the importance of decentralization on public services delivery in the context of Vietnam (Wescott, 2003; Thanh, Zouikri, Deffains, 2012; Ramesh, 2013; Malesky, Cuong & Anh, 2014; Thi, 2016; Anh, 2016;

Vu, 2016) Among these, Wescott (2003) points out decentralization and administrative reform in Vietnam increase citizen participation and accountability, and reduce poverty

and regional disparities Malesky et.al (2014) explore that decentralization significantly

improved public service delivery in some important areas such as transportation,

healthcare, and communications In addition, Vietnam has been achieving a number of positive results in fiscal decentralization and improving the efficiency of using national financial resources (Thi, 2016; Anh, 2016)

Meanwhile, far too little attention has been paid to local government

performance These studies are merely qualitative with conventional approach to

describe the status-quo of public administrative reform process (UNDP, 2009; Tham, 2009; Nguyen, 2016) Numerous studies have recommended Vietnamese policy makers

to modernize the public administration reform process They have explained that the institutional context significantly influences business strategy and economic

performance, corruption, as well as the public administration reform performance with

GDP per capita (Malesky & Taussig, 2009; Thai & Le, 2012; Bai et al., 2013; Phan,

2013; Schmitz, Dau, Pham, & McCulloch, 2012; Quang, 2016; Pan & Ngo, 2016; Le, & Nguyen, 2017; Vu, 2018) Thai and Le (2012) found that there were causality linkages between public administration reform, provincial competitiveness and the GDP welfare per capita in Vietnam They suggested that legal institutions were positively influential

to the GDP outcome for Vietnamese citizens, while public administration reform

services and public services delivery exert positive impacts on GDP per capita Bai et

al (2013) asserted that as poor countries grow, corruption could subside "on its own,''

and this is one type of positive feedback between economic growth and good

institutions Participatory governance is also getting much attention in Vietnam

Through literature analysis, Thai et al (2017) found that in Vietnam case, citizen

participation would shed lights on democratic governance through transparency and accountability of local governments Thang (2017) has a valuable contribution to the debate about linkage between corruption and efficiency of service provision in

developing countries He recognizes that in Vietnam, corruption significantly decreases the quality of public service, and that improving local governance helps to reduce corruption

Clearly, all the previously mentioned studies have less discussion about the influence of citizen participation on the performance of local governments in Vietnam

in terms of democratic governance Hence, there is a need to shed some lights on the causal relationship between citizen participation and the performance of local

governments with a quantitative method This study is conducted to fill this gap, and contribute literature to clarify what is necessary to support democratic society and good governance in the future of Vietnam

Purpose of Study

This study aims to identify and develop a better understanding of the influence

of citizen participation on local government performance in Vietnam The following research objective are formulated:

 To provide an overview of the evolution of citizen participation at the local level and performance of local governments in Vietnam;

 To find out attributes that are crucial for enhancing citizen participation and the performance of local governments in Vietnam;

 To examine whether citizen participation affects performance of the local governments in Vietnam or not

Research Questions

The study is designed to answer the main questions: Does citizen participation affect performance of local governments in Vietnam?

Some following sub-research questions will specifically support for this study:

i What are the status of citizen participation at the local level and

performance of local government in Vietnam, and what have been the major changes of them over time?

ii What attributes are essential for citizen participation and local

government performance in Vietnam?

iii Does citizen participation influence performance of local governments in Vietnam?

Significance of the Study

There are several studies exploring the causal relationship between government agencies performance and citizen participation in various countries (Epstein, Coates & Wray, 2006; Ho & Coaster, 2004; Swindell & Kelly, 2000; Yang & Holzer, 2006) However, until now there has been limited understanding of the effect of citizen

participation on local government performance in the context of Vietnam, a socialist republic and a developing country In particular, if this analysis is able to identify the influence of citizen participation on the Vietnamese government performance at the local level, it can highly prove the theoretical validity of relationship between citizen participation and performance of local governments Additionally, this study initially

draws the comprehensive picture about citizen participation and performance of the

provincial governments in Vietnam

The findings of this study will spur provincial officials, policymakers and

development specialists to develop action plans and an initial benchmark from which to

measure of progress, and empowers citizens’ and businesses’ voice to influence

government efforts on improving performance of local governments

This study also contributes to the very limited of literature regarding citizen

participation and performance of the local governments in the context of Vietnam

Organization of the Study

This study is organized into six chapters, as follows:

Chapter 1 presents background of the study; purpose of study; research questions;

significance of the study; and organization of the study

Chapter 2 covers theories of governance, democratic governance and the

literature review on citizen participation and performance of the local governments, as

well as the linkage between them

Chapter 3 provides an overview of citizen participation and performance of local

governments in the context of Vietnam

Chapter 4 describes the research design and its implementation, including

research design, research framework, sampling design, variables of the study, data

collection procedures, and data analysis methods

Chapter 5 provides the descriptive statistic; and reports the analysis including

correlations, regression analysis; and provides discussion for findings

Chapter 6 provides a summary of the research findings; conclusions drawn from

the findings; and theoretical implications and practical applications for improving

citizen participation and local government performance in Vietnam

Chapter 2 Literature Review Democratic Governance

Being as the fourth phase of public administration development, the term

governance has become an overarching conceptual framework in recent decades (Bevir, 2009) It has attracted attention not only of civil society organizations, local and

international nongovernmental organizations but also of policy makers and scholars in developed as well as developing countries Like many other political concepts,

“governance” is also vague and contested (Bevir, 2010), and it is widely used in the development literature with a variety of meanings and interpretations (Barclay, 2006)

At the outset, governance is different from government although both of them have shared goals-oriented objectives By now, Stoker (1999) gives five major propositions

3 Governance identifies the power dependence involved in relationships

between institutions involved in collective action

4 Governance emphasizes the importance of autonomous self-governing

governance is not based on control, but on coordination; 3) it involves both public and private sectors; and 4) it is not a formal institution, but continuing interaction

Generally, governance is a concept that is used to depict the relations between state and civil society (Bevir, 2010)

Governance is directly connected to democracy because it aims to expand the scope of citizen participation in political processes and public service delivery

(Köseoğlu & Morçöl, 2014) Democracy is often used in conjunction with governance since it is as a credible system of governance that meets the needs of citizens According

to Mudacumura (2014), governance is a paradigm that shift the role of citizens from passive to active participants in democracy Fukuyama (2013) points out that

governance is as a capacity of government to make and enforce rules and to deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not However, he further argues that good governance and democracy should be considered as mutually supportive in the development community Similarly, Keping (2018) asserts that good governance is organically combined with democracy Many institutions such as the World Bank, United States, British and French governments, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the European Council and the Commonwealth Secretariat also

support and promote for this relationship because good governance has the ingredients, features, the functional and institutional prerequisites as well as the building blocks of democracy (Ndue, 2005) In particular, the essential elements of good governance are accountability, participation, predictability, transparency, and responsiveness (Asian Development Bank, 1995; Behn, 2001; UNDP, 2002; Brinkerhoff, 2006) Concerning democracy and governance, Farazmand (2009) claims that ethics, accountability, and transparency are important as they can prevent corruption and bad administration

To pursue sustainable development strategies, both developed and developing countries now are creating an environment that fosters effective democratic governance The term democratic governance is used to imply the involvement of market actors and civil society actors in public decision-making (Fenger & Bekkers, 2007) It is originally promoted by UNDP, which emphasizes on citizen participation in governmental

decision-making, accountability of governments, and mechanisms of reducing or

eliminating corruption Hence, UNDP (2009) acknowledges participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and

efficiency, accountability, and strategic vision as core characteristics of democratic governance Huque and Zafarullah (2006) conceive democratic governance as a

dynamic process encompassing vertical and horizontal linkages within public

organizations and their interactions with other stakeholders for sustainable development According to McCawley (1993), democratic governance is often equated to good

governance because both of them are the key elements of development, which

determines the success of development However, UNDP uses the term “democratic governance” rather than “good governance” because the former focuses on the process

of governance to ensure equality (of opportunity) and equity (social and economic justice) for all citizens

Democratic governance offers a genealogy of some problems confronting democracy Traditionally, democracy is associated with elected officials making

policies, then with public servants implementing policies However, in the new

governance, polices are being implemented and even made by non-state actors

Therefore, the theoretical origins of democratic governance are the concept of new governance It refers to an institutional shift at all levels of government from local to global, from bureaucracy to markets and networks; and conveys a more diverse view of authority and its exercise (Bevir, 2006)

Obviously, citizen participation and government performance are key elements for the theory and practice of democratic governance (Neshkova & Guo, 2012)

Particularly, citizen participation advances “democratic governance” (OECD, 2001a; Farazmand, 2004; Fung, 2015) while government performance is also “a result of democratic processes with systems of governance and mechanisms of delegation, control and accountability together with norms of responsibility they engender” (Lynn

governance” (Fung, 2015)

Through different perspectives, there are various definitions of citizen

participation (Involve, 2005) From a democratic perspective, citizen participation is usually seen as a vital aspect of democracy that “gives citizens a say in decision-making

as well as their voice can be heard; encourages civic skills and virtues; leads to rational decisions; and increases the legitimate decisions” (Michels, 2011:279) In this sense, citizen participation can refer to a community-based process by which public concerns, needs, and interests are incorporated into decision making (Pateman, 1970; Holdar, 2002; AbouAssi, 2013) Drawing on fundamentally administrative and bureaucratic perspectives, citizen participation is defined as the interaction between citizens and administrators involving policy issues and service delivery (Callahan, 2007) This definition differs from political participation and concept of civic engagement, in which citizens are considered as part of the governance process and they have a direct impact

on policy formulation and implementation (Roberts, 2004) From a managerial

perspective, New Public Management advocates view citizen participation similar to management movements in the private sector (Osborne & Hutchinson, 2004; Popovich, 1998) Citizens are customers or consumers of government service and their inputs are crucial for delivering high performance of public service In particular, with the

emergence of “good governance” concept, citizen participation occurs when all relevant stakeholders cooperate to solve underlying problems (Martin, 2003); whereas “sound governance” not only involves citizen participation but also encourages and promotes it (Farazmand, 2004)

Some other concepts might seem similar to citizen participation First, public participation is often used interchangeably to citizen participation, but in some cases, public participation not only includes citizens but also other interest groups and

organizations (Creighton, 2005) Second, some scholars generally employ “citizen involvement” instead of “citizen participation” According to Wang and Wart (2007), citizen’s political participation is public involvement in expressing preferences for important policies at national, regional and local level during the process of selecting political representatives Yang & Pandey (2011) define that citizen participation as citizen involvement in administrative decision making and mangement processes Accordingly, citizens get involved in issuing regulations or sharing public service delivery Third, citizen engagement sometimes is used as the same meaning as citizen

participation However, this term particularly implies a higher level of participation (Gibson, 2006) Nelson & Stenberg (2018) indicates a significant change in the

terminology over this time period from citizen involvement to citizen participation to citizen engagement In general, these concepts can be legally interpreted the same since they all talk about the noting of “participation” (Dudley, 2003; Yang & Callahan, 2007; Mannarini, 2010; Ekman, 2012) Citizen participation not only indicates civic

participation in political, social and administrative activities but also citizens’ actions and their interests in civil society, so-called community engagement In the same vein, Langton (1978) divided citizen participation into four categories: citizen involvement; public activity (e.g lobbying, civic protest…); electoral participation and obligatory participation (e.g paying taxes, voluntary contribution)

In the broader sense, citizen participation can be defined as the process of

providing people knowledge and opportunities to participate in political, social and administrative activities that influence public decisions Hence, this study adds to the definition of citizen participation by emphasizing four dimensions; they are the civic knowledge, opportunities for participation, quality of election and voluntary

contribution First, recent research suggests that civic knowledge is positively associated with citizen participation (Galston, 2007; Leigh, 2018) In other words, citizens are more likely to participate in public affairs if they have more knowledge and information about national issues in general and local situations in particular Civic knowledge is related to the content, or what citizens must know about, of the circumstance, it is the basis upon which citizens can make “rational” decisions Hence, the more knowledge citizens have, the better they can understand the effects of public policies on their

interests, and the more effectively they can protect and to promote their own interests in the political process (Galston, 2007).  Second, citizen participation also refers to the process during which citizens possess the opportunity to participate in the public

decision-making process, the notion is in line with the deliberative democratic theory (Parvin, 2018) Third, elections are traditionally the most important means to realize the core values of democracy, the same token can be applied to citizen participation High quality of elections indicates that the process of election is transparent, thus it is

trustworthy Hence, quality of elections is considered as an indicator to ensure quality governance and accountability on the part of elected officials (Alemika, 2007). Finally,

citizen participation also related to social networks and voluntary organizations

(Putnam, 2000) This is a latent citizen participation in terms of “actions” such as

voluntary work to the community, and making contributions to the charity (Emorine

et.al, 2015) Local residents realize that they must have commitment to improve their

quality of life, so they actively participate in local activities through voluntary works

Perspectives of citizen participation

Due to different perspectives on democratic and administrative theory and the contradictions inherent in contemporary society (Roberts, 2004), there has been heated debate about whether to adopt a participatory style of decision-making that actively involves citizens Supporters of greater citizen participation gave a variety of reasons relating to promoting democracy, trust, transparency, accountability, social capital, legitimacy, mutual understanding, fairness, justice and reducing conflict (Barber, 1984; Box, 1998; Callahan, 2002; Fischer, 2002; Fukuyama, 1995; Innes & Booher, 2004; King & Stivers, 1998; Schacter, 1997; Thomas, 1995) As instrumental advantages, citizen participation positively influences citizen trust in government (Yang & Callahan, 2005; Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006), governmental legitimacy (Fung, 2006) and

governmental responsiveness (Bucek & Smith, 2000; Yang & Holzer, 2006)

Meanwhile, as developmental benefits, it contributes to a greater sense of social

integration, cohesion or solidarity (Burton, 2009) According to Smith and Ingram (1993:1), citizen participation is “to empower, enlighten and engage citizens in the process of self-government” Hence, take voting as the fundamental way of citizen participation as an example, if governments obtain higher level of citizen participation through elections, it demonstrates that these governments are better representatives for their respective citizens In other words, the more citizens vote, the higher level of their trust on governments is Opponents of the above point of view highlight that citizens usually lack of expertise and knowledge in dealing with complex problems, and their motivation are rooted on their self-interest rather than the common interest (Stivers, 1990; Berman, 1997; Fischer, 1993; Thomas, 1995; Vigoda, 2002) For skepticisms, greater citizen involvement means redefining the role of public officials in the decision-making process; they argued about the potential problems regarding the effectiveness and representativeness of citizen participation (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Davies,

Blackstock, & Rauschmayer, 2005)

Models of citizen participation

Scholars have proposed several models of citizen participation to clarify the different types of interaction between citizens and government One of the earliest and the most prominent model of citizen participation is the “Ladder of Participation” developed by Arnstein (1969) She pointed out three activities that reflect levels of citizen participation, including the lower rung of the ladder represented as “non-

participation” part of citizens; the middle section seen as “tokenistic” activities –

“informing” and “consultation”; the upper rung interpreted the “citizen power” with decision making in public policy; and then citizen participation occurs at the top rung of this ladder From public administration theory, Thomas (1995) developed an “Effective Decision Model of Public Involvement” that are parallel to Arnstein’s typology to guide public managers in dealing with citizen input, and the decision among methods (less or more public involvement) will rely on giving due consideration to a variety of concerns

In fact, both of the above models show that the public administrator can control and decide how and when to involve the public

Box (1998) also offered the model of “Citizen Governance” based on the

relationship of citizens and the public sphere, to rethink the structure of local

government and the roles of citizens, elected officials and public professionals in the twenty-first century In this model, citizens take a large part of the responsibility for engaging in the governance process while the professionals facilitate citizen discourse, and the elected officials coordinate the public policy process Timney (1998) originally depicted a set of citizen participation models and divided each level along a continuum from passive, transitional and active; and then developed the Scorecard of Citizen Participation methods that run from 0 to 10 level These levels generally follow the model of managerial decision making proposed by Thomas (1995) The passive section

of the scorecard ranges from level 0 to 7 because the public agencies control the process and there is no actual collaboration with citizens; and the active section, so-called the collaborative network paradigm begins at the level 8 (partnership) represents the

intensive interaction between agency and citizens

Vigoda (2002) visualized an evolutionary continuum of public administrator and citizen interaction; in which citizens may be seen as subjects, voters, clients or

customers, partners, or owners while government and public administration play the

role as rulers, trustees, managers, partners, or subjects Thus, there are five types of interactions between government and public administration and citizens including coerciveness, delegation, responsiveness, collaboration, and back to coerciveness To examine the relationship between citizens and government, Smith and Huntsman (1997) proposed a value-centered model that builds on the strengths of customer model and owner model The customer model is considered as the spirit of the "reinventing"

government movement (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992) and the National Performance Review (1993) by borrowing it from the total quality management (TQM) and re-

engineering movements of the American private sector (Kettl, 1994) However, it has been criticized for modeling citizen involvement in terms of passive consumers of government services and their interaction with government is primarily through

transactions, surveys, or complaints (Frederickson, 1994; Smith, 1997) On the other hand, the owner model (Schachter, 1995) views citizens as being much more proactive,

as owners of government and they have “an active role in improving government

services, making decisions, challenging government actions and holding government accountable but it seems inconsistent with the practicability or influence of most

citizens” (Smith, 1997: 312) Furthermore, there is the value-centered model, in which citizens and government are proactive and concentrated on creating incremental value for citizen This model is also consistent with "new" public sector values described by Wart (1996) that focused on decentralization, bottom-up democratic processes,

teamwork, flat organization, and multidimensional jobs

In addition, Epstein et all (2006) developed an “Effective Community

Governance Model” to demonstrate how communities have engaged citizens: in level 1 (community problem solving), although citizens play a major role in what gets done, they may have to advocate policy makers for implementation; in level 2 (organization management results), citizens are primarily engaged as stakeholders but results do not necessarily reflect citizen’s main concerns; in level 3 (citizens reaching for result), citizens engagement occurs as advocacy; in level 4 (communities governing for results), the desired outcome is created by aligning citizens with the organizations This model provides guidance to citizen groups and organizations committed to engaging citizens in robust processes to improve their communities (King & Timney, 2011: 99) Generally, these above models can help us to visualize the changes of citizens- government

interaction over time even if they still overlap According to Callahan (2007: 1186), these “changes typically reflect the values embodied in reform movements and public opinion about the appropriate role of government”

1185-Citizen participation is one of the most important principles of local

development Simultaneously, local government plays an important role in citizen participation initiatives because it is the place where the concerns of the “grassroots” or locality intersect most directly with those of governance and the state (Gaventa & Valderrama, 1999) Participatory decision-making has greater usefulness at local level

(Fung & Wright, 2001; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Mizrahi et al., 2010) Essentially, the

initiatives regarding the citizens and stakeholders of local governments coincide with three levels of development of citizen participation, namely, communication,

consultation and cooperation (Martin & Boaz, 2000; Liner, Dusenbury & Vinson, 2000) Some scholars indicate benefits of direct citizen participation in local

governments, such as greater support for government decisions (Kweit & Kweit, 2004), enhancement of social capital in communities (Leach, Pelkey, & Sabatier 2002; Putnam, 1993), and building capacity to resolve "wicked" problems (Roberts, 2000) Citizen participation is vital for increasing the accountability and responsiveness of local

governments (Crook & Manor, 1998; Gaventa, 2004) It not only can strengthen

awareness about the actions of subnational governments, but also serves as a monitoring mechanism It can reduce the discretion of local governments in prioritizing public services and programs in favor of local officials; and can also reduce unnecessary cost and aims to attain the allocative efficiency goal of decentralization In summary, citizen participation allows local government to understand more about citizen needs and concerns, while citizens can get information about services, monitor the quality of service delivery, and demand corrective actions of their government (Speer, 2012: 2382)

Citizen Participation in Local Governments

Nowadays, in most developed and developing countries, local government policies have changed significantly to create new chances for democratic participation (Lowndes, Pratchett, & Stoker, 2001a) In this sense, these changes were considered as

a shift from government to governance (Andersen & van Kempen, 2003) or

collaborative civic management (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral

Assistance -IDEA, 2001); in which the citizen’s needs are responsive by the local governments Additionally, indirect citizen participation that mainly focuses on voting and elected representatives’ decisions has been replaced by direct citizen participation (Roberts, 2008) To a certain extent, citizens involve in issues that directly affect them For instance, the central government usually encourage its local governments to employ

a variety of citizen participation initiatives in their policy processes including

transportation, environmental protection, budget, education, and etc (Renn et al., 1995;

O’Toole and Marshall, 1998; Cheeseman & Smith, 2001; Fung and Wright, 2001;

Lowndes et al., 2001b) As a consequence, more opportunities are given to citizen engagement at the local government (Dutil, et al., 2007; Burton, 2009)

Empirical Studies of Citizen Participation in Local Governments

Some studies were conducted to promote citizen participation in local

governments Sidor (2012) refers to the process of enhancing citizen participation in Poland local governments as well as to investigate citizens’ willingness to get involved

in this process This study finds out that in Warsaw, Poland, various forms of social consultations were implemented but the level of citizen involvement remain low

Michels (2010) examines the relations between citizen involvement and quality of democracy in two municipalities in the Netherlands He indicates that democratic citizenship are more crucial for a healthy democracy at the local level Some other studies mainly emphasize on the relations among citizen participation, local level

decision-making, and accountability Kim (2017) points out that in Seoul, South Korea, citizen participation involving agenda setting and evaluation phases of the policy

process have a positive impact on government transparency From case studies of Kenya and Uganda, Devas and Grant (2003) argues that citizen participation, local level decision‐making, and accountability are traditionally limited by most local governments systems However, now they have been changed positively by the

committed local leadership, civil society organizations and the availability of

information

A number of studies suggest that citizen participation is a principal strategy for strengthening local planning, budgeting systems and accountability Through patterns of hearing participation and citizen impact on budgeting decisions for the Community Development Block Grant program, Handley and Howell-Moroney (2010) find that

communities in which grant administrators feel most accountable to citizens for grant performance have higher degrees of citizen participation in hearings and higher levels of perceived citizen impact on budgetary processes The findings point to the importance

of instilling a public service ethic among government employees that places a high value on engaging as well as listening to citizens From subnational governments in China, Lu & Xue (2011) point out that the accountability is supported by the superior bureaucratic power, instead of the comprehensiveness of various accountability

components Therefore, this structure of the power of the purse both enables and limits the tone and terrain of budget accountability in particular and government

accountability in general Kluver and Pillay (2009) study the possibility and extent of direct participation in the budgetary processes at 79 municipalities in Australia They explore that apart from managers and councilors, citizen participation in the budgetary decisions in local government is possible Blakeley (2010) characterizes the new

governance arrangements in two European cities, Barcelona and Manchester; and

argues that a useful way of understanding the developing relationship between

governance and citizen participation is through the analytical perspective of

governmentality Simultaneously, his study gives two paradoxes: the power of the state

is not necessarily diminished despite the emerging plurality of actors involved in

governance; and the spread of participatory practices as an integral element of new modes of governance does not necessarily lead to citizen empowerment

Generally, the findings from these studies suggest that the higher degree of citizen participation in local government has a larger impact on attaining development gains, enhancing accountability, empowerment and trust of citizens as well as educating citizens about governmental activities (Pandeya, 2015; Berner, 2011; Batley & Rose, 2011; Kaufmann & Bellver, 2005; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Wang & Wart, 2007; Farazmand, 2009; United Nations, 2008; Blair, 2000) To advance understanding of the value of citizen participation in local government budgeting, Berner (2011) conducts a series of forty telephone interviews in four cities across North Carolina Then he offers three perspectives on effective participation: (1) elected officials regard effective

participation as being passive and channeled through elected officials, in the spirit of traditional representational government; (2) staff sees effective participation coming from educated citizen advocates; and (3) citizens see effective participation as being

interactive, in the spirit of direct democracy Undertaking an initial construction of a transparency index for 194 countries based on over twenty independent sources,

Kaufmann & Bellver (2005) emphasize that exemplary transparency is not the exclusive domain of a particular region, and there are transparency-related challenges in countries

in each region and income categories Further, there is a significant within-country variation, with large differences in performance between economic/institutional and political dimensions of transparency Wang & Wart (2007) indicate that increasing public trust is the primary goal, and it should be on administrative integrity and

performance results.From a macro perspective, Farazmand (2009) suggests that citizen participation can revitalize public service and administration; enhance capacity design; strengthen governance, instrumental and administrative capacities, along with making concrete recommendations for public administration Based on a six countries study sponsored by USAID (Bolivia, Honduras, India, Mali, the Philippines and Ukraine), Blair (2000) analyzes the relationship between participation and accountability, he finds out that both show significant potential for promoting democratic local governance In summary, citizen participation at local level can facilitate towards a sustainable

development in local community (International Council for Local Environmental

Initiatives (ICLEI), 1997; Leal and Opp, 1999; UNDP, 1997; Cornwall and Gaventa, 2000)

Nowadays, to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as to promote democratic governance, government not only must be representative of the citizens but also become more efficient to serve citizens’ needs According to the micro performance theory, citizens are interested in efficiency and quality service delivery and they use these criterion to judge government (Bouckaert & Walle, 2001) Government needs to pay more attentions to its performance, consequently

Government Performance

Definition

Performance is likely an increasing obsession with governments around the world According to organizational theory, measuring performance is one of the most crucial and problematic issues (Steers, 1975; Zammuto, 1982; Handa and Adas, 1996) Performance is usually defined in terms of outputs and outcomes that follow from a public production process (Hatry, 1999) However, through this definition, we do not

know exactly what these outputs and outcomes should be Different ideologies as well

as different actors will have various definitions of performance In the 1950s,

performance was referred to as the “extent to which an organization as a social system fulfilled its objective” (Georgopoulos and Tannenbaum, 1957: 535) During the 1960s and 1970s, it was defined as the ability of an organization to access scarce resources by exploiting its environment (Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967) In the 1980s and 1990s, due

to constructivism, performance involves the perceptions of the organization’s multiple constituencies or stakeholders (Hassard and Parker, 1993) Paton (2003: 5) states that

“performance is what those people centrally involved in and concerned about an

organization agree, implicitly and explicitly” Obviously, this definition detracts from the objective, reliable and scientifically valid evidence of performance measurement systems in the public sector Concerning the operational definition of performance, Klerman (2005) emphasizes various levels of performance: inputs (processes, what an agency does), outputs (its immediate products), and social benefits and costs (what happens as the result of citizens and clients doing that) He finds that it is difficult to measure public programs as they are established through a political process with

competing goals Lusthaus (2002) presents a framework with three contextual forces that drive performance (organizational capacity, environment and internal motivation)

to define performance in terms of effectiveness (mission fulfilment), efficiency and ongoing relevance (the extent to which the organization adapts to changing conditions

in its environment or survive over time) In this sense, an organizations is considered as

a good performer when it balances effectiveness, efficiency and relevance Performance

is also defined as how well the outputs produced by the unit meet organizational

objectives (Culbertson, 2009)

Government performance is a major concern of public administration research (Boyne, 2003) It can be defined broadly as “the character and consequences of service provision by public agencies” (Forbes, Hill & Lynn, 2006:255) Particularly,

government performance is the actual outcomes or accomplishments of government efforts (RyZin, 2007) It focuses on efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, equity of public agencies (Boyne, 2003; Glaser, 2007) as well as the overall

capacity/flexibility/resilience of the administrative system as a whole (Pollitt, 2000), and accountability and transparency (Neshkova, & Guo, 2012; Cucciniello & Nasi,

2014) Additionally, Rainey (2009:145) confirms that “Virtually all of management and organization theory is concerned with performance and effectiveness, at least

implicitly” Government performance is often difficult to be measured because this concept can be unclear or ambiguous (Rainey, 2009; Andersen, Boesen & Pedersen, 2016), and it can include multi-faceted and subjective phenomenon as viewed by

diverse stakeholders (Radin, 2006)

Performance can be defined as the results of government decision, it is related to the outputs of government decision; hence performance needs to be effective

Additionally, government performance can also be conceptualized as the “4Es” model (economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity), reflecting multifaceted aspects such as economic, institutional, administrative and political ones (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010; Andrews, Boyne, & Richard, 2006; Boyne, 2002; Boyne et al., 2006; Kim, 2004) First, economic performance is identified as the main-spring for citizens to evaluate their government as well as to rate their democratic institutions (Norris, 1999) To measure economic performance of government, some economic indicators are often used such as gross domestic product (GDP), and stability (central government budgets, prices, the money supply, and the balance of payments) Income and savings adjusted for pollution, depreciation, and depletion of resources are also broader measures of economic

performance3 Second, institutional performance refers to the quality of public service provision, in reference to two broad issues: responsiveness and efficiency (Letki, 2007)

To perform well, institutions must be well-designed to effectively responsive to the demands and expectations of citizens Institutional performance is very important to maintain the legitimacy of government through accountability in democratic regimes Third, administrative performance means the performance of public administration There are no real criteria to determine the exact scope of public administration, hence it

is difficult to exactly know what institutions or services that citizens think about when referring to public administration In line with recent reforms in public administration, especially those stemming from the NPM paradigm, many performance indicators (PIs) have been developed to evaluate administrative performance (Berman, 2000; Nyhan, 1995) Administrative performance means a comprehensive, distinctive, reliable and continuous assessment of citizens’ satisfaction from governmental operation in various

3   https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world‐development‐indicators/themes/economy.html  

fields (Vigoda & Yuval, 2003) Lastly, political performance can be seen as the

evaluation of the political process (Eckstein, 1971); or a type of political action

(Högström, 2011) In particular, political performance depends on both the input side and the output side of the political system with levels of democracy and democratic norms as well as impartiality of institutions, bureaucracy quality, macroeconomic management and other policy performance as for example welfare system (Högström, 2011) Political performance is considered as those performances that seek to

communicate to an audience meaning-making related to state institutions, policies and discourses (Rai, 2014) The role of political performance is about an external control over reality (Lavery, 2009)

Perspectives of Government Performance

There has been a prominent debate about how to measure government

performance (Andrews, Boyne, and Walker, 2006; Brewer, 2005; Heinrich and Choi, 2007; O’Toole & Meier, 2006; Pitts, 2005; Wolf, 1993) Brewer (2005) highlights the role of frontline supervisors in organizational performance and effectiveness while Andrews, Boyne, and Walker (2006) emphasize on objective and subjective measures

of performance Heinrich and Choi (2007) focus on the implications of alternative contract structures for service provider behavior and performance The empirical theory

of O'Toole and Meier (2006) suggests that buffering is related to organizational

performance in nonlinear ways by interacting with environmental forces, managerial networking, and organizational structures Pitts (2005) uses the public organization as the unit of analysis to understand the true impact of workforce diversity on work-related outcomes; whereas Wolf (1993) focuses on curriculum-embedded assessments as powerful tools for modeling, enhancing, and yielding evidence about opportunities

Many previous models of performance have focused on productivity,

satisfaction, profitability, resource acquisition, efficiency and open communication (Georgopoulos & Tannenbaum, 1957; Mott, 1972; Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1973; Child, 1972; Friedlander & Pickle, 1968; Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967; Schein, 1970); whereas the recent studies emphasize efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness (Rainey, 2009; Ebben & Johnson, 2005; Bernardes & Hanna, 2009; Ingrams, 2016) There are several different types of performance measures for government services Since the 1990s, to respond to the internal and external pressures, government begins to

focus on measuring performance by adopting private sector values and practices to

improve effectiveness and efficiency (Marshall et all, 1999) The internal pressures are

to generate cost-effective services and to offer information for strategic planning

processes, quality improvement programs, and reengineering processes (Vinzant & Vinzant, 1996); whereas the external pressures are to privatize public services, reduce spending, and increase public accountability, push government to become more results-oriented (Poister, 2003) In addition, Kuhry and Pommer (2004) provide other indicators

to describe government performance: growth of the economy (GDP growth); stability (short-term changes in inflation and unemployment, and government budget deficit); distribution of welfare (poverty rate); allocation of public services (educational

achievement, upper secondary educational attainment, tertiary educational

attainment…); law and order (crime); quality of the public administration (bureaucracy, transparency, effectiveness) and corruption Miller and Listhaug (1999) give medical care, unemployment insurance and pension benefits as examples while Huseby (2000) used public health care, pensions and unemployment benefits

According to Boyle (2000), performance measures are precise quantitative data, whereas performance indicators tend to be much more common when acting as signals

to inform managers regarding issues which may be examined further He proposes a variety of elements of performance which were identified over recent years such as inputs (how much); process/activities; outputs (how many) and outcomes (how well)

He develops a program logic model to achieve benefits for participants when combining these elements (from inputs to outcomes) In line with these elements, indicators of different dimensions of performance can be generated, including economy indicators, efficiency indicators (at what cost), effectiveness indicators, equity indicators and quality of service indicators Ho (2004) states that using specific indicators to measure the results and efficiency of government services at regular intervals is one of best way

to assess government performance Differ from traditional program evaluation or policy analysis, it mainly focuses on measuring and reporting performance regularly, annually

or biennially to let policymakers, managers, and citizens keep track of “the progress of government in accomplishing its goals and desired results” (Ho, 2004: 5) As a result,

he suggested outcome measures as a more meaningful information about government performance because they can define the needs and concerns of citizens as well as

identify the critical elements of public services that are used to address those needs Nevertheless, it is sometimes difficult to measure outcomes of a public service due to the fact that “the impact of these public services may not appear in a short period of time, and assessment may require carefully designed evaluation programs” (Ho, 2004: 6) Additionally, other external factors such as the national economy, weather, and demographic changes may have unexpected impact on government’s effort to reach the targets That is the reason why government should measure intermediate outcomes and impacts - conditions of a public service that are conducive to and indirectly linked to the accomplishment of the end goals (Hatry, 1999)

Besides outcome and intermediate measures, efficiency or productivity measures are also proper indicators that show the relationship between output and input of a public service The term performance is rooted in the principle of efficiency target, which is a combination of economic theory (providing services at the lowest cost) and administrative theory (producing results in the public interest) (Dupont-Morales & Harris, 1994) However, because of social goals and political issues, it is not easy for government entities to attain maximum results with limited resources In fact, efficiency

is not only a simple ratio of unit cost and inputs but also is measured in terms of

competing values for democracy, participation, vision and quality (Carroll &

Frederickson, 2001) As Marquis (2006) states that the importance of the relationship between short-term outputs and long-term outcomes is critical for an organization’s overall objectives when measuring the effectiveness of government programs

Empirical Studies of Government Performance

Walker and Andrew (2015) undertook a comprehensive assessment of the

management-performance hypothesis in local governments by integrating the empirical research that has been published over the past 40 years They found out that most of these studies have been dominated by the British and American scholars with divergent theoretical perspectives Measuring performance of local governments has been popular

in the US, some European countries and other countries over the world for many years (Lapsley and Wright, 2004; Ammons & Rivenbark, 2008; Berman & Wang, 2000; Melkers & Willoughby, 1998; Poister & Streib, 1999) For example, under the Best Value inspection, local authorities in United Kingdom (as well as police and fire

authorities) are required to continually improve performance with regard to a

combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness (Mannion & Goddard, 2001)

One study by Yetano et al (2011) was conducted to explore reasons for adopting

performance indicators in the context of Spanish local governments This study shows that performance measurement systems are not neutral but conditioned by the

environmental context of each local government to fit into its organizational structure Another study tries to identify different dimensions of Italian local governments’

performance (Grossi & Mussari, 2008); and its results show that these performance dimension can be useful in understanding the present economic environment in local public services provision in Italy Several studies used European countries as the

examples to find out the different approaches of measuring performance, such as reform and channels of implementation in France, Germany, Sweden and Great Britain

(Kuhlmann, 2010); or the adoption of performance measurement tools in Italian and Spanish local governments (Brusca, 2017) By analyzing and comparing the reforms in these four countries, Kuhlmann (2010) concluded that: a strong culture of transparency combined with a voluntary approach allow for optimum use of local performance measurement and comparison, while compulsory, highly standardized, top-down

imposed procedures are expensive and do not have the desired learning effects Brusca (2017) found that performance measurements tools support for accountably in these two countries Some similar initiatives can also be found in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (Yetano, 2009; Meloche, 2017; Griffiths, 2003) Examining two cases of the City of Brisbane and the City of Melbourne, Australia, Yetano (2009) used the

Balanced Scorecard to analyze how local governments have managed the use of

performance management systems He found out that the demands for better public performance, for greater customer focus, for enhanced decision‐making and for

increased responsiveness have an important role in the design of performance

management systems

Performance of local governments recently has gain lots of attention in some developing Asian countries such as China, Thailand and Indonesia (Zhao, 2016; Wu,

2018; Panya et al., 2018; Eckardt, 2008) For over 10 years now, Chinese local

governments increasingly have depended on Performance Evaluation Intermediary Institutions (PEIIs) in the Performance-based budgeting process (Zhao, 2016) He indicated that PEIIS can make up for governments’ limited technical capacity in

performance evaluation; increase the credibility of performance evaluation among stakeholders; and move debate about resource allocation from within government to

wider external forums Panya et al., (2018) evaluated the performance of

the environmental management of local governments (EMLG) in Thailand and

examined the relationship between specific management factors (context, input, and process) and output They revealed that the performance of both municipalities (urban areas) and SAOs (rural areas) in Thailand was at a moderate level However, the

structural equation model (SEM) analysis indicated that there was no significant

relationship between the process and the outputs Eckardt (2008) explored the

interactions between political institutions and public sector performance in the context

of decentralization and local governance in Indonesia His findings indicated that to improve public services, the decision-making processes must be well-functioning

Generally, the above discussions refer to demands for a better performance of local governments in developed and developing countries Additionally, for local

development, strengthening the relationship between government and citizens is

important (Marshall et al., 1999)

The Influence of Citizen Participation on Government Performance

The Roles of Citizens on Government Performance

Normally, most citizens are not directly involved in governance, and they are not much concerned about government performance unless specific events occur that

directly affect their lives They may not pay attention to technical or operational

measures of performance but may be deeply keen on quality of living measures such as tax rates, GDP growth, crime rates, and etc However, Ho (2004) provides some

evidences to advocate for why citizens should focus on performance of government First, he argues that even though citizens all pay taxes and use public services, they seldom think about what we get from government, the quality of services, or whether they get their money’s worth Nevertheless, citizens are the consumers of public

services as well as the owners of government in a democratic society Hence, they should be interested in the performance of local government Second, citizens should exercise their rights and responsibilities in a democratic society in order to become smart consumers, investors in their community, and owners of governments Citizens also need meaningful ways to participate in government decision-making (Ho, 2004) In

other words, they need to get information about the results of government actions to ensure that their government serves the people in the ways that citizens expected

Citizens should not totally rely on their representatives because only citizens themselves know exactly what their needs are and the level of their satisfactions about the quality and quantity of public services

Epstein, Wray et al (2000) distinguish six different roles of citizens to find out

the importance of government performance: 1) Customers; 2) Owners/shareholders: is the job getting done (value for money, problem solved, in an ethical way); 3) Issue framers: not only concerned about services and performance, but also about values and aspirations; 4) Co-producers; 5) Service quality evaluators: e.g as a participant in a client survey It concerns a much more active and result oriented role as compared to

“customers”; 6) Independent outcome trackers: such as grassroots movements

concerned about quality of life, sustainable development, etc In fact, over time, the role

of citizens has been changed significantly from passive to active; from as constituents and clients (Traditional Public Administration) to as customers (New Public

Management and Reinventing Government) and now as the owners of government (New Public Service) According to the New Public Administration framework, citizens are placed at the center of decision-making mechanisms and play a deeper role in

communicating their needs and influencing solutions (Page, 1971; Van Slyke et al.,

2010) Under the New Public Management framework, participation is directly related

to consumerism and citizens are being perceived as consumers As an alternative to the New Public Management, Public Value framework pinpoints that citizens as active,

participative and responsible (Bryson et al., 2014) and the government as a

“value-creating enterprise” (Moore & Benington, 2011: 257; Bennington, 2011) Similar to New Public Administration, New Public Service also calls for citizenship, but

emphasizes on active citizen participation (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015) According to New Public Governance, citizens are seen as partners to jointly deliver public services

in a network form instead of customers because governments cannot provide all public services on their own (Moynihan & Thomas, 2013)

During the 1980’s, citizen participation reforms lead to a more responsiveness government by engaging with the citizens The New Public Management mainly

focuses on improving government performance by aiming for “customer-driven

government” (Osborne & Gaebler, 1993:166) The New Public Service particularly elevated citizen participation in government performance based on advantage points of efficiency, productivity and democratic theory (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2001) Citizens are much more involved directly with public policy and decisions that affect the

community Simultaneously, the government is changing its role to highly emphasize on public interaction and involvement In general, the linkage between citizens and

government performance is important for governance (Marshall et al., 1999) because

traditional controlling role of government is changing to embrace public interaction and involvement (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2001) This makes citizens and interest groups to

be much more involved directly with public policy and decisions that affect the

community It is crucially meaningful if performance of government is accountable to the public because it can reflect how well government is doing what it should do

(Callahan, 2007) Government needs to be reformed with respect to efficiency,

effectiveness, and citizen participation, particularly in local-level activities and

alongside performance measurements efforts (Epstein, Coates & Wray, 2006)

Two Debates about the Effect of Citizen Participation on Performance of Governmental Agencies

From the above arguments, an important question is to study the influence of citizen participation on performance of local governments There are two debates about the effect of citizen participation on performance of governmental agencies

The traditional perspective holds that the nature of bureaucratic decision making

is different from democratic decision making due to the inherent tension between

bureaucratic decision making and citizen participation (Gawthrop, 1997) Bureaucracy

is legitimate as a policymaker from its expertise that will be executed in an efficient and effective manner (Dahl, 1989; Stivers, 1990); whereas democracy upholds the “owner” role of citizen as the ultimate principals that delegate authority to policymakers,

although they often lack technical expertise (Rondinelli, 2007) Kweit & Kweit (1984) argue that there is no place for citizen participation in the “ideal bureaucracy”, and citizen participation may lead to the inefficiency and irrationality in the ideal

bureaucracy The main reason they explain for this viewpoint is that the “ideal

bureaucracy” depends on the expertise - a means to achieve efficiency; whereas citizen participation may be time-consuming and slow down decision making as citizens tend