2005; Cooper, 2005; Teorell, Torcal and Montero, 2007); and on the other hand are contributions that analyse the specific actions that public institutions take to promote citizen involvement in the public realm (see, for example, Marlowe Jr, and Arrington-Marlowe, 2005; Yang and Callahan, 2007; Ellen Claes and Marc Hooghe; 2008).

The contributions of the bibliographic literature that have focused on the actions of citizens have determined that a person is committed when he or she decides to become involved of their own free will. Thus, engagement is “the action of ordinary citizens oriented toward influencing certain political outcomes” (Brady, 1999: 737). Cooper (2005: 534) defines it as “people participating alongside deliberative and collective action within a range of interests, institutions and networks, developing a civic identity and engaging people in governance”.

The standpoint of the second group is based on the ideas of Keeter, Zukin, Andolina and Jenkins (2002: 2):

Engaged citizens do not just suddenly develop an attitude of engagement. We must not expect a spontaneous explosion of commitment. Cultural norms are against the former, just as the laws of physics are against the latter.

Offering a very similar concept, Yang and Callahan (2007: 249) refer to the term “citizen participation efforts” as “government-initiated activities to foster citizen participation in administrative decision-making and management procedures”. From their reflections, we can deduce that bureaucracy influences participatory processes, and the decision to participate is ultimately the citizen’s response to an initiative from administration.

The vision of these authors combines the definitions of Marlowe and Arrington-Marlowe (2005), and Claes and Hooghe (2008), for whom citizen engagement needs a source to promote its creation. Citizens need extra motivation in order to want to become involved in the public sphere. In light of the above, it would seem that this impetus should come from public administration.

3.1. Motives for Citizen Engagement

What acts as a source of commitment? To answer this question, it is helpful to review the literature regarding the mental processes that produce engagement. Some theories have simplified the issue by ensuring that citizens’ commitment depends only on the convergence of their expectations and reality. In this sense, Brown and Michel (2003) believe that if a citizen is satisfied with the actions of his or her government because they coincide with his or her previous perspectives, hopes or desires, then that citizen will be committed.

The World Bank (2014) claims that psychological and intangible factors such as a sense of civic duty and belonging are the motivations that prompt citizens to participate.

For Dahlgren (2005), an engaged citizen is one who does the following: 1) convinces him or herself that their participation is justified; 2) is motivated by the idea of contributing something to society; 3) is informed and acquires knowledge about the participatory process; 4) reaches a sufficient level of empowerment; and 5) participates.

Delli Carpini (2004) also believes that before reaching the level of engagement, a citizen goes through certain previous stages. Specifically, this author talks about three steps: 1) the understanding and acceptance of democratic values; 2) the