Articulo_1_EN_Doxa_28

Communication in the public sector affects citizen participation around two central concepts. The first involves the concept of neo-institutionalism, which considers that quality government requires regulated, predictable, stable institutions that encourage the good behaviour of political actors. The new school of thought fits with a model of a political culture open to participation, in which the government is not the main actor in politics. Neo-institutionalism advocates the redistribution of resources and authority so that society and the market acquire more areas of power. It is a coordination challenge, which mainly affects local institutions in direct contact with the interested party (private companies NGOs, interest groups), and also with neighbours, who can organise themselves to defend their interests outside of the conventional unions and party structures.

From a communication point of view, cooperation and user contribution improves and creates a new type of product and service. In the so-called “economy of participation”, symbolic consumption consists of the need to share content, to recommend some initiatives to the detriment of others, or to promote specific ideas (Noguera, 2018).

The participation process is not free and finds some negative externalities. According to Manin (2005), participation leads to polarization and the reinforcement of majority tendencies that are capable of adding more people. Likewise, voluntary participation requires, by its very nature, an extraordinary effort that does not guarantee representation and social pluralism. Volunteers participate resolutely. In order to reduce this risk, Mañas (2012) proposes that the issues be organized after a period of deliberative polling that would guarantee equal opportunity and contribute to overcoming the dilemma between political equality and deliberation.

In addition, social participation must be explained within a historical perspective, or at least contextual. This idea maintains that public institutions have obligations of a documentary nature in order to improve accountability, to have information regarding the evolution of a political position, to document political activity, to make economic relations transparent (subsidies, aid, etc.) and to advance socially. In its digital dimension, an institutional report requires the creation of databases, the organization of information, and the generation and distribution of lists or access keys, among other measures.

The deliberative survey consists of a data collection technique with the main objective being to obtain information on the general state of opinion on a subject by the population, once the requirements for information and debate have been met (Fishkin, 1995). For Fishkin and Luskin (2005: 285), deliberation is a process of exchanging arguments that must meet five conditions. It must be “well-briefed”, as arguments must be supported by reasonably accurate and appropriate facts, and also “balanced”, offering different points of view. In addition, participants should speak and listen with civility and respect. Fourth, the authors speak of a necessary “foundation” in referring to the fact that arguments must be considered according to their content, not by the way they are expressed or by the person presenting them. Finally, deliberation must be comprehensive, accommodating all points of view that are held by a significant part of the population.

The procedure is composed of three phases (Cuesta, Font, Ganuza, Gómez and Pasadas, 2008). The first consists of conducting an opinion survey of a representative sample of the population of interest in an attempt to gather the concerns and needs of everyday life. The citizen, who is the real user of the infrastructure, knows the weaknesses, the demands and the small changes that could improve the urban environment.