Connecting a missing link between participation in administration and political participation: the mediating role of political efficacy
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852315591644 |
| Author | Seunghoo Lim,Youngmin Oh |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
2017, Vol. 83(4) 694–716
Connecting a missing link between
! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
participation in administration and
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852315591644
political participation: the
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
mediating role of political efficacy
Youngmin Oh
Korean Institute of Public Finance, Republic of Korea
Seunghoo Lim
International University of Japan, Japan
Abstract
Public participation in administrative or political processes has been advocated as an
important democratic reform by scholars and practitioners. Despite the importance of
such public participation mechanisms, the relationship between participation in admin-
istration and political participation remains unexplored. This study aims to connect the
missing link by empirically testing the mediating roles of political efficacy between two
types of public participation. By connecting administrative and political participation
through political efficacy, we intend to demonstrate that citizen participation in admin-
istration plays a pivotal role in remedying declining political participation. For the empir-
ical tests, cross-sectional data from local jurisdictions in Korea were collected by survey
questionnaires, and a series of Structural Equation Models are used to identify the
causal relationships among these variables. The findings demonstrate that participation
in administration influences political participation only through political efficacy, while
the demand for participation in administration is connected to political participation
either directly or through internal political efficacy. Conversely, political participation
fosters participation in administration only through political efficacy. Given the empirical
evidence, participation in administration and political participation reinforce each other,
and political efficacy plays a critical role in mediating the two types of public
participation.
Points for practitioners
Borrowing the concept of political efficacy, this study sheds theoretical light on a
missing link between administrative and political participation. Practitioners need to
Corresponding author:
Seunghoo Lim, Public Management and Policy Analysis Program, International University of Japan, Minami
Uonuma-shi, Niigata 949-7277, Japan.
Email: seunghoo.lim@gmail.com
Oh and Lim
695
realize that devising authentic administrative programs is a useful way to remedy
waning democratic participation. Practitioners need to suggest many specific ideas
on how to foster citizens’ political efficacy through public participation. By doing
this, citizens could be politically awakened, which would lead to their increased par-
ticipation. In this sense, this study is an initial step in exploring the possibility of
democratic benefits produced by public participation mechanisms beyond the norma-
tive and instrumental benefits.
Keywords
participation in administration, political efficacy, political participation
Introduction
Since the 1960s, there has been a growing alienation from political systems in
Western democracies. Scholars assert that recovering declining civil societies is
integral to the recovery of democratic values (Putnam, 1995). As an alternative
to such a democratic deficit, activating public participation has received much
attention from both scholars and practitioners. Studies from two streams have
identified two distinctive types of public participation in administrative and polit-
ical processes (Vigoda-Gadot and Mizrahi, 2008; Wang and Van Wart, 2007).
Literature, mainly from public administration, defines participation in administra-
tion as ‘citizen involvement in the administrative decision making and management
processes’ (Yang and Pandey, 2011: 880). Government can normatively legitimize
its decision-making by informing, educating, persuading, and empowering citizens
about administrative processes (Arnstein, 1969; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004;
Michels, 2011). On the other hand, the literature of political science approaches
political participation as ‘activities that have the intent or effect of influencing
government actions – either directly by affecting political decision making or indir-
ectly by influencing the selection of people who make public policies’ (Verba et al.,
1995: 38). Political participation is associated with electoral or political activities,
such as voting, campaign volunteering, party memberships, and political protests.
Democratic accountability is directly ensured by leading more citizens to be
involved in political processes.
Although public administration studies emphasize the unique aspects of citizen
participation in bureaucracy, most studies in political science have not made a clear
distinction between participation in administrative and political systems (Brady
et al., 1995; Tolbert and Smith, 2005; Verba et al., 1995). These studies have
regarded participation in administration as a complementary instrument of polit-
ical participation. For example, citizen board membership or attending public
hearings are just dimensions of non-electoral political participation, which can
be separated from voting or campaign activities. However, empirical studies have
found that citizen participation in administration is a distinct mode1 that enhances
696
International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(4)
the quality of administrative decision-making, managerial quality, and government
performance by reflecting citizen ideas in management (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004;
Moynihan, 2003; Neshkova and Guo, 2012).
Given the benefits of citizen input in administrative processes, an important
point is to explore how the two public participation mechanisms are connected.
This study aims to connect this missing link by empirically testing the mediating
roles of ‘political efficacy’ between two types of public participation. While a pleth-
ora of political science studies are concerned with the way in which political efficacy
relates to different modes of political participation (Finkel, 1985; Pollack, 1982;
Schulz, 2005), studies clarifying the effects of participation in administration on
political efficacy are relatively rare. By connecting administrative and political par-
ticipation through political efficacy, we intend to demonstrate that citizen partici-
pation in administration plays a pivotal role in remedying declining political
participation, and political participation also motivates citizen involvement in
administrative participation programs.
This study conceptualizes the varieties of public participation and political effi-
cacies. It presents a series of hypotheses that explains the associations among par-
ticipation in administration, political efficacy, and political participation. For the
empirical tests, cross-sectional data from local jurisdictions in Korea were collected
from survey questionnaires that measure different modes of public participation
and political efficacy. The structural equation model (SEM) is used to identify the
causal relations among these variables, and the results are discussed to provide
implications.
Two sets of mechanisms of public participation
The activities of government vary from the production of public services to pol-
icymaking or electoral processes, and there have been various public participation
mechanisms throughout these processes. As mentioned earlier, scholars have stated
that two types of public participation mechanisms exist in administrative and pol-
itical processes (Wang and Van Wart, 2007). First, political participation is a
classic construct and an important research topic that has been studied in political
science (Brady et al., 1995; Dahl, 1989; Peterson, 1990; Tolbert and Smith, 2005;
Verba et al., 1995). The dimensions of political participation are usually classified
into conventional (such as voting, campaign works, and party memberships) and
unconventional (such as social movement, protest, or rally) activities (Kasse, 1990;
Schulz, 2005). Verba et al. (1993) define the extent to which citizens are involved in
political activities by measuring the number of participation modes, the volume of
political activities, and the content of messages conveyed to elected officials or
policymakers. Despite the diverse modes of political participation, the literature
has commonly identified that electoral participation (voting and campaign work),
political activities (joining a political party, lobbying, and protests), and civic
engagement (community volunteering and donation) exist in political processes
(Vigoda, 2002).
Oh and Lim
697
A number of public administration studies have also addressed citizen partici-
pation mechanisms in administrative processes (Baker et al., 2005; Beckett and
King, 2002; Callahan, 2002; Cole and Caputo, 1984; Ebdon and Franklin, 2004;
Fung, 2006; Ho and Coates, 2002; Michels, 2011; Wang, 2001; Yang and Kallahan,
2005). Several scholars have conceptualized the varieties of participation in admin-
istration from the supply and demand sides. The first approach focuses on a
supply-side perspective about the participatory modes that governments provide.
A classic work by Arnstein (1969) claims that the levels of citizen participation are
hierarchical and finally lead to citizen empowerment by a sequential process of
manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, and dele-
gated control. Stewart (2007) points out that...
To continue reading
Request your trial