Author(s): Vikash Sharma

Email(s): vks_aim@yahoo.co.in

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00012   

Address: Vikash Sharma
Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency
*Corresponding Author

Published In:   Volume - 16,      Issue - 2,     Year - 2025


ABSTRACT:
This paper revisits Arnstein's "A Ladder of Citizen Participation" which describes in varying degrees eight levels of participation from non-participation to citizen control to characterize the alternative degrees of participation manifested in each rung, like, Manipulation and Therapy (Non participation), Informing, Consultation and Placation (Degree of Tokenism) and Partnership, Delegated Power, and Citizen Control (Degree of Citizen Power). Arnstein argued that unless participation is at the stage of ‘Degrees of Citizen Power,’ where communities can exercise a degree of influence over decision-making, it remains either nonparticipant or tokenism. Any engagement less than that, she said, is “window dressing,” merely a show of involvement while giving no actual power. Arnstein’s model is a useful framework to assess both the depth, authenticity, and effectiveness of participation in development process, and it is consequently examined for its strengths and weaknesses within 21st century developments, where technological advances, globalization, and changing power dynamics mark this era. But today, in a world of constantly changing socio-political and economic stakes, new frontiers and progress, it offers limited utility. The challenges of bureaucracy, institutional inflexibility, elite capture (which disenfranchises less powerful community members), and issues of digital inclusion create an environment where genuine participation is limited to token engagements and consultations. Furthermore, the rise of digital technology and social media shapes participation in development planning, enabling more dynamic and fluid engagement that moves beyond the static rungs of Arnstein's ladder. It is argued that while Arnstein’s model continues to help navigate the citizen participation landscape, it needs re-interpretation in order to accommodate the complexities of the 21st century development.


Cite this article:
Vikash Sharma. Revisiting Arnstein’s A Ladder of Citizen Participation: Strengths and Limitations in the 21st Century. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(2):75-0. doi: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00012

Cite(Electronic):
Vikash Sharma. Revisiting Arnstein’s A Ladder of Citizen Participation: Strengths and Limitations in the 21st Century. Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(2):75-0. doi: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00012   Available on: https://rjhssonline.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2025-16-2-3


REFERENCES: 
1.    Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann. 1969; 35(4): 216-24.
2.    Cornwall A. Unpacking 'participation': Models, meanings and practices. Community Dev J. 2008; 43(3): 269-83.
3.    Baiocchi G, Ganuza E. Participatory budgeting as a tool for citizen engagement: A comparative study. J Public Deliberation. 2017.
4.    Fung A. Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. 2006.
5.    Mansbridge J, et al. The place of self-interest in the study of democracy. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012.
6.    Smith G. Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.
7.    Holmes R, Scoones I. Participatory environmental policy: Negotiating knowledge and power. In: Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science. London: Edward Elgar; 2000.
8.    Hickey S, Mohan G. Participation: From tyranny to transformation? London: Zed Books; 2005.
9.    Cooke B, Kothari U. Participation: The new tyranny? London: Zed Books; 2001.
10.    Baiocchi G. Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 2005.
11.    Bächtiger A, Niemeyer S, Neblo M, Steenbergen M, Steiner J. Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: Competing theories, their blind spots, and complementarities. J Polit Philos. 2010; 18(1): 32-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00342.
12.    Boulton A. Digital participation: How technology is changing civic engagement. Civic Tech J. 2020.
13.    Pretty J. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 1995; 23(8): 1247-63.
14.    Healey P. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: UCL Press; 1997.
15.    Brodsky A. The role of citizen participation in urban planning. J Urban Aff. 2008; 30(4): 455-70.
16.    Putnam RD. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2000.
17.    Gaventa J. Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 2004.
18.    Innes JE, Booher DE. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Plan Theory Pract. 2004; 5(4): 419-36.
19.    Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva. 2003; 41(3): 223-44.
20.    Janssen M, Helbig N. Innovating through public participation: The case of smart cities. Gov Inf Q. 2018; 35(2): 227-35.
21.    Voorberg W, Bekkers V, Tummers L. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the path of co-creation. Public Manag Rev. 2015; 17(9): 1333-57.
22.    Fischer F. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. The Good Soc. 2000; 9(1): 23-7.
23.    Berkes F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage. 2009; 90(5): 1692-702.
24.    Wampler B. Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contested spaces and democracy. J Lat Am Stud. 2007; 39(4): 659-82.
25.    Shah A. Participatory budgeting. Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2007.
26.    Baiocchi G. Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press; 2005.
27.    Peters BG. Governance as political science. Public Adm Rev. 2010; 70(3): 431-42.

Recomonded Articles:

Author(s): Devanshu Bhadauria

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Mayank Pradhan

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Sharad Mishra,

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Roshan John Joseph

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Vikas Dangi

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2017.00032.8         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): S. Shubhang,

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): R.P. Saharia

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Mitike Shrivastava

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Praveen Rai, Sujata

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): S. Shubhang

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Hareet Kumar Meena

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Mohammed Tahir Raoof Malik, Dil Pazir

DOI: 0.5958/2321-5828.2019.00044.5         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Sanjay Kumar

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00119.0         Access: Open Access Read More

Author(s): Nimish Kiran Sharma,

DOI:         Access: Open Access Read More

Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (RJHSS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal, correspondence in the fields of arts, commerce and social sciences....... Read more >>>

RNI: Not Available                     
DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828 


Recent Articles




Tags