Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Molinari at ED2010
Molinari at ED2010
Molinari at ED2010
e‐Democracy, Equity and Social Justice 2010
Freiburg, Germany – 26 / 28 July 2010
Francesco Molinari
THRILLED BY THE TOOLS, CHILLED BY THE FIGURES.
HOW AN “E” CAN REALLY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Rationale
• The broad research questions behind this presentation are the
following:
• How can we make eParticipation sustainable, i.e. replicable over time
– or a permanent add‐on to the current setup of public decision
making process(es)?
• How can we ensure that the existing (scanty and not‐all‐successful)
trials teach us lessons that can be reused to make sound
improvement, avoiding “reinventing the wheel” every time?
• How can we evaluate the comparative performance of available
eParticipation tools with respect to the above principles?
• As a contribution to these issues, I would like to focus on a case
study that is handling with “the issue of (participants’) numbers”
in a quite original way.
2
Contents
• Advertisement : from IDEAL‐EU to PARTERRE projects
• Background
• “Thrilled by the tools”
• “Chilled by the figures”
• Parallel research and vision of the future
• Presentation of our Case Study
• Advertisement : DEMO‐PART, the European Network of Participatory
Regions
• Discussion: evaluation criteria for eParticipation methods and tools
• Conclusions
• Q&A
3
Advertisement
How the EU Taxpayer’s
money is being spent
www.ideal‐eu.net parterre.ning.com
• Jan 2008 – Dec 2009 • July 2010 – June 2012
• EU policy making on • Spatial planning and
climate change (the strategic environmental
20‐20‐20 agenda) assessment
• Social Networking • Demos‐Plan for cost
Platform effective management of
mandatory participation
• Electronic (Virtual) Town
Meeting • Town Meeting ‐ Plan
5
The usual disclaimers apply wrt European Commission’s official position on the above issues
Background
“Thrilled by the tools”
7
“Chilled by the figures”
Source: Ferro and Molinari (2009, 2010) using data from www.ep‐momentum.eu
8
Two horns of a dilemma
More participants Fewer participants
• eParticipation is a way to include • eParticipation is a way to provide
more/new people (particularly meaningful and reusable
the young) in the political feedback to public decision
process. making.
• Most of the web tools are • There are technical (as well as
designed to rely on numbers for political) reasons to avoid big
their results (wisdom of the numbers which can’t be properly
crowds). handled.
• eParticipation is not like an • eParticipation is not like an
electronic consultation. electronic poll.
• Representation is important. • Scale is important.
9
So what?
If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Yogi Berra (1925‐), US Baseball Catcher / Outfielder / Manager
10
The ASCU Model
Source: Ferro and Molinari (2009, 2010) 11
Expected evolution
Source: Ferro and Molinari (2009, 2010) 12
Policy implications
Source: Ferro and Molinari (2009, 2010) 13
Our Case Study
Profiling the case
What A “virtual” Town Meeting
Where Simultaneously in Barcelona, Poitiers, Florence + additional venues
When 15th November 2008
Who The Regional Gov’ts of Catalonia, Poitou‐Charentes and Tuscany
Whom About 545 young people (aged 16‐30) from the three Regions
How 1. Discussing in tables of 10, both in the same and in distant rooms
2. Forming virtual tables of max 6, with all participants connected
from remote
Why To contribute to the European Parliament’s agenda on climate
change and energy policy, then still in preparation (and soon to
become the 20‐20‐20 targets)
Pictures of the Florence
venue
Courtesy: Michele D’Ottavio, Avventura Urbana s.r.l. 16
The eTM workflow
17
The vTM infrastructure
18
User I/F (1/2)
“Real Table” Facilitator “Virtual Table” Facilitator
19
User I/F (2/2)
“Theme Team” Member “Theme Team” Leader
20
The Tuscany Region’s
track record
1. November 2006, 500+ people discussing about the priorities of a Regional law
on the topic of Participation;
2. November 2007, 300+ people prioritising the funding alternatives of Regional
health policy in Tuscany;
3. November 2008, 545 young people aged 14‐18 simultaneously in three venues,
Barcelona (Spain), Florence (Italy) and Poitiers (France), and four more in
Tuscany;
4. April 2009, 360 people from Regione Toscana and the City of Turin (Italy), about
the priorities of a national law on the “living will”;
5. May 2009, restricted to 80 Regional staff members only, to evaluate the internal
organisational climate status;
6. December 2009, in 10+ Tuscan locations and with about 200 young citizens
discussing on the meaning of “lawfulness”, security and justice;
7. February 2010, 150+ citizens in 5 locations discussing on the priorities of the new
landscape plan adopted by the Regional Council.
21
Advertisement
22
www.demo‐part.org
Membership value
• No fees, no constraints
• Knowledge sharing on a peer‐to‐peer basis
• Resource sharing (vTM infrastructure)
• A number of thematic events every year
• A 6‐language website
• Clustering with relevant research
• Training opportunities
• Joint undertakings (e.g. EU funded projects)
24
Discussion
25
Comparison of eParticipation
methods and tools
Conclusions
27
Summing up
• At the moment, there is no perceived difference between offline and
online participatory practices, especially when it comes to evaluating
their impact on community life and on the quality of public decision‐
making.
• This can be partly due to limited attention to social complexity and to an
improper selection of tools and methods according to the context and
purposes of the participatory exercise.
• The case presented sheds some light on the Regional level as the most
appropriate dimension to let the electronic participation potential
emerge and consolidate in Europe.
• In the upcoming PARTERRE project, the experience of the Virtual Town
Meeting in the Region of Tuscany will be continued and implemented in
the specific domain of spatial planning and strategic environmental
assessment.
28
Thanks for your attention
• Contact:
• Francesco Molinari, mail@francescomolinari.it
Any Questions?
29
References
• Ferro, E. and Molinari, F. (2009, 2010): “Making
Sense of Gov 2.0 Strategies: ‘No Citizens, No
Party’”. In: Proceedings of the eDEM09
Conference in Vienna & JeDEM 2(1): 56‐68,
available at http://www.jedem.org/
• Macintosh, A., Coleman, S. and Lalljee, M. (2005):
“E‐methods for public engagement: helping local
authorities communicate with citizens”, The Local
e‐Democracy National Project, Bristol City Council,
available at: http://itc.napier.ac.uk/ITC/
publications.asp
30