Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:38:11.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Public Hearing as an Effective Citizen Participation Mechanism: A Case Study of the General Revenue Sharing Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Richard L. Cole  and
David A. Caputo
Richard L. Cole
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Arlington
David A. Caputo
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Students of citizen participation in public affairs disagree as to the effectiveness of such citizen involvement. Using the General Revenue Sharing program as a case study and applying techniques of both cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis, this article examines the effectiveness of one form of citizen participation, the public hearing. It is found that in the revenue-sharing program, the public hearing did have an immediate, but only short-term, impact on levels of public interest and citizen involvement. Evidence to support some short-term and some long-term effects on reported expenditure decisions is presented; however, these impacts generally are found to be inconsequential and not statistically significant. It is concluded that, as a form of citizen participation, the public hearing—at least as demonstrated in the General Revenue Sharing program—has not had much of an impact on citizen behavior or policy choices.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 404 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. An agenda for American federalism: Restoring confidence and competence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. R.Eight rungs on the ladder of citizen participation. In Cahn, E. S. & Passett, B. A. (Eds.). Citizen participation: Effecting community change. New York: Praeger, 1971, pp. 69–91.Google Scholar
Berry, J. M.Maximum feasible dismantlement: Reagan and citizen participation. Citizen Participation, 1981, 11/December, 3–5.Google Scholar
Berry, J. M., Portney, K. E., Bablitch, M. B., & Mahoney, R.Public involvement in administration: The structural determinants of effective citizen participation. Journal of Voluntary Action, in press.Google Scholar
Boudon, R.Education, opportunity, and social inequality. New York: Wiley, 1974.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C.Experiment and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.Google Scholar
Caputo, D. A., & Cole, R. L.Revenue sharing: Methodological approaches and problems. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976.Google Scholar
Caputo, D. A., & Cole, R. L.Urban politics and decentralization: The case of general revenue sharing. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974.Google Scholar
Checkoway, B., & Van Til, J.What do we know about citizen participation? A selective review of research. In Langton, S. (Ed.). Citizen participation in America. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1978.Google Scholar
Cole, R. L.Citizen participation and the urban policy process. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974.Google Scholar
Cole, R. L., & Caputo, D. A.City officials and mailed questionnaires: An investigation of the response bias assumption. Political Methodology, 1977, Fall, 271–287.Google Scholar
Cole, R. L., Stenberg, C. W., & Weissert, C. S.Two decades of change: a ranking of key issues affecting intergovernmental relations. Publius, in press.Google Scholar
Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S.Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression, II, Biometrika, 1951, 159–178.Google Scholar
Gittel, M.Limits to citizen participation. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
Gray, V.Models of comparative state politics: A comparison of cross-sectional and time series analyses. American Journal of Political Science, 1976, 05, 235–256.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. D., & Shevin, J.Citizen groups in local politics: A bibliographic review. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Clio Books, 1976.Google Scholar
Juster, T. F.The economics and political impact of general revenue sharing. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Survey Research Center, 1975.Google Scholar
Larkey, P.Evaluating public programs: The impact of general revenue sharing on municipal government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Martin, J.Statement. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. House of Representatives. Washington. 94th Congress, First session, 1975, pp. 923–926.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, D.Participatory democracy in a federal agency. In Dickerson, H. & Pierce, J. (Eds.). Water politics and public involvement. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science, 1976.Google Scholar
McCain, L. J., & McCleary, R.The statistical analysis of the simple interrupted time-series quasi-experiment. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field setting. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979, pp. 233–295.Google Scholar
Meier, K. H.Executive reorganization of government: Impact on employment and expenditures. American Journal of Political Science, 1980, 08, 396–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. R., & Pelissero, J. P.Urban policy: Does political structure matter? American Political Science Review, 1980, 74, 99–1005.Google Scholar
Nathan, R., & Adams, C. F.Revenue sharing: The second round. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1977.Google Scholar
Newcomer, K., & Welch, S.The impact of general revenue sharing on spending in fifty cities. Cincinnati, Ohio: Midwest Political Science Association, 1981.Google Scholar
Opinion Research Corporation. General public and community leaders view the general revenue sharing program. Princeton, N.J.: Opinion Research Corporation, 1975.Google Scholar
Reagen, M. D., & Sanzone, J. G.The new federalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, W.Slaying beautiful hypotheses with ugly fact: IPA and the limits of public participation. Presented at the American Society for Public Administration conference, Chicago, 1975.Google Scholar
Rosener, J. B.Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness?Public Administration Review, 1978, 09/October, 457–463.Google Scholar
Tucker, H. J.Budgeting strategy: Cross-sectional versus longitudinal models. Public Administration Review, 1981, 11/December, 644–649.Google Scholar
Tucker, H. J.Interparty competition in the American states: One more time. American Politics Quarterly, 1982, 01, 93–116. (a)Google Scholar
Tucker, H. J.It's about time: The use of time in crosssectional state policy research. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 02, 176–196. (b)Google Scholar
Van Meter, E. C.Citizen participation in the policy management process. Public Administration Review, 1975, special issue, 12.Google Scholar
Vogel, D.Lobbying the corporation: Citizen challenges to business authority. New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
Watterman, N. Statement. Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. Washington. 94th Congress, First Session, 1975, pp. 939–943.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K., & Yates, D.Street level governments. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.