Revisiting Arnstein’s A Ladder of Citizen Participation:

Strengths and Limitations in the 21^st Century

Vikash Sharma

Jammu and Kashmir Economic Reconstruction Agency

*Corresponding Author E-mail:  vks_aim@yahoo.co.in

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 21^st 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 21^st century development.

KEYWORDS: Participation, Development, Power, Citizens, Community, Advantages, Limitations.

INTRODUCTION:

The 21^st century has ushered in an era of rapid urbanization, industrialization, technological advancement, and population growth. This, in turn, has intensified the demand for basic civic infrastructure and fast-paced development. Societies are heterogeneous collections of various social groups with differing needs and priorities for their development. A uniform, "one-size-fits-all" approach of the government often fails to meet these diverse needs. To effectively understand and serve citizens' needs better, it is important to get citizens directly involved and engaged in the development and planning process. But decision-making processes in development planning and policy-making are predominantly centralized within an elite class of powerful actors who are primarily interested in keeping the status quo. They are unwilling to give up their power and control, so they use citizen engagement as a facade to provide the illusion of participatory development while refusing to redistribute decision-making authority.

In her seminal “A Ladder of Citizens Participation,” (1969) Arnstein critiques citizen discourse surrounding participation and its jargon, arguing that concepts like citizen control and maximum feasible involvement often mask rather than clarify power relations. She suggests that these conversations are informed by hyperbolic rhetoric and glib euphemisms — obfuscate citizen engagement, rather than create opportunities for true empowerment. Her examples — urban renewal, anti-poverty programs and Model Cities — are federal efforts in which citizen involvement was frequently exaggerated¹.

To address power anomalies and understand citizens participation, Arnstein categorized levels of participation based on the actual power citizens have in shaping policies. Each rung in the ladder is represented by degree of power viz., Manipulation and Therapy (Non-participation), Informing, Consultation and Placation (Degree of Tokenism) and Partnership, Delegated Power and Citizen Control (Degree of Citizen Power). Arnstein's argument was that unless participation reaches the stage of ‘Degrees of Citizen Power,’ where communities can influence decision-making in practice, it remains tokenistic. Any engagement short of that level, she argued, is simply “window dressing,” making a show of involvement with no actual empowerment. Ultimately, Arnstein urges a deeper examination of whether citizen involvement is symbolic or substantive, making her ladder a valuable tool for evaluating participatory practices in governance and development¹.

Today, the participation in development planning is shaped by various factors ranging from digital technology and social media, openly available information to global movements for social justice. These factors have also fundamentally changed the ways in which citizens engage in the development planning and policies, often enabling a more dynamic, fluid kind of participation that breaks loose from the rungs of Arnstein’s ladder, which were often static.

Above discussion calls for reconsideration and for a reassessment of Arnstein’s model to evaluate its relevance, advantages, and shortcomings in modern contexts. To make pro people polices and development planning, the role of citizens participation needs to be re-examined   to make it effective as well as more inclusive, equitable and responsive to the needs of the communities they (policy makers) need to serve. Arnstein’s “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” offered a groundbreaking conceptual model for assessing the extent to which citizen power is present in the decision-making process and inspired generations in development studies, urban planning, and social policy. This paper makes the case that although Arnstein’s framework is still a powerful tool, we need to reimagine it to deal with complexities of 21^st century development.

Understanding Arnstein’s A Ladder Of Citizen Participation:

Arnstein described eight forms of participation as rungs of the ladder, each rung demonstrates who holds power and the potential citizens have to influence the development programs and policies. Arnstein’s model started from the lower level called “Non-participation” comprises of two rungs i.e., ‘Manipulation’ and ‘Therapy’. The latent objective of this form of participatory processes is to creating an environment for those in position of power to win citizenry approval through public relations. This enables powerholders to ‘educate’ and ‘cure’ the participants. This is about changing or “educating” the public to accept predetermined outcomes for example in highways construction this might look like presenting one hand-picked route as the only viable option or downplaying negative impacts or using public forums as a stage for gaining project support by hiding facts rather than communicating or engaging people meaningfully.

Under the 2^nd level known as “Degree of Tokenism,” Arnstein keeps three rungs of participation viz., ‘Informing’, ‘Consultation’, and ‘Placation’.  In this level, those in power, allows have nots (powerless) to tender their piece of advice and have voice. But they no leverage to make sure that given views will be considered by those in power. So, these are just means to read the minds and plans of citizens. what powerless have in their mind and plan. For example, governments hold public meetings to allow citizens express their opinions and concerns only post selection of the projects and schemes but this has little effect on the final project design. Consultation is often only sought after important decisions have already been made, allowing limited influence of citizens on the decisions.

In third level called “Degree of Citizens Power,” Arnstein, discussed three rungs of participation viz., ‘Partnership’ ‘Delegated Power’ and ‘Citizen Control.’ The citizens in this level have authority to generate power, leverage negotiation and wield a certain level of decision-making power. Partnership is a process where citizens work actively alongside authorities in making decisions and ensures that community needs and priorities are incorporated in project design. Delegated power allows the citizens to have significant control over certain aspects of the project, whereas citizen control puts the ultimate decision-making ability in the hands of the community. But this level of community participation rarely took place since this involve sharing of power which people at higher echelons never want. 

Limitations of Applying Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation In Contemporary Times:

Since it was published in 1969, Sherry Arnstein’s “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” has provided a conceptual map for how to gauge the extent of public involvement in decision-making. Yet, in the intervening decades, society is being fundamentally altered by rapid urbanization, technological advances, industrial and social media revolutions. These changes have altered governance dynamics, citizen engagement, and power structures in ways that highlight certain limitations in Arnstein’s framework.

The Ladder is successful in that it critiques tokenistic and nonparticipation forms of participation by providing pathways for citizen empowerment, but ultimately it works in a binary model of the distribution of power that does not effectively describe the complexities of contemporary participatory processes. This section analyses the limitations of Arnstein’s model within dynamic social, political, and technological contexts, emphasizing the necessity to revisit the Arnstein model in view of the changes and new developments.

Bureaucratic and Institutional Barriers:

Administrative structures are often rigid making it difficult for governments and institutions to come-up with participatory mechanism². As a result, these structures can provide a disincentive to authentic citizen engagement by emphasizing processes and systems of hierarchy over listening and dialogue. This has the effect of stifling the potential for meaningful participation. Bureaucracies can often create distance between the one who decides and the community who serves, where citizens may feel as though decisions impacting them are made worlds away³.

Further, modern policy making frequently employs tokenistic strategy in which citizens participate officially but actually have no decision-making authority. This is clearly visible in public consultations with signature sheets that are purely metaphorical without any substance⁴. Citizens are sometimes asked for their input, but their responses are often ignored or not incorporated into final decisions. This undermines the legitimacy of participatory spaces and risks alienating citizens, who may view such initiatives as mere window dressing rather than authentic attempts to include them in governance⁵. On top of this tokenism lies the lack of institutional structures that enable true participation; without identifiable standards or instruments through which citizen input is translated into policy making, participatory processes risk becoming public relations exercises⁶.

The transition from tokenism towards shared power is crucial not only for acknowledging the  perspectives underlying social issues but also for fostering an environment where people are enabled to act and guide decision-making processes. To solve challenges of participation means to understand and build the institutions and policies that create such responsiveness and flexibility for genuine participation. This necessitates public authorities being trained on participatory practices and inclusive governance meetings, to hear diverse voices and creating feedback loops that make it possible for ongoing negotiations between citizens and decision-makers⁷. The government has to develop inclusive and democratic policies by accepting substantial engagement over tokenism to improve the legitimacy of their projects and programs.

Complexity of Multi-Stakeholder Environments:

Today’s development planning and policies involve a complex mix of governmental, non-governmental, private sector, and international actors, distinguishing it from Arnstein’s mid-20th century context, in which she developed her model. This complex landscape with diverse views and interest of the stakeholders presents its own set of challenges to participatory governance frequently results into conflicts and inadequacies. In contemporary times, participation of diverse actors in community meetings, makes decision-making more difficult and result into power dynamics that may suppress and exclude voices of the marginalized communities. It becomes challenging to reach on consensus and implement effective solutions⁸.

Furthermore, the increasing influence of private sector interests in development projects raises questions about accountability and transparency. As corporations seek to maximize their profits, the potential for conflicts of interest becomes more pronounced, often at the expense of social equity and environmental sustainability. The proliferation of global governance regimes and partnerships further complicate things. Although these partnerships may yield informed resources and expertise, they have the potential to complicate and mute local priorities and aggravate rigidities among stakeholders (ibid). So, a careful handling of the relationship network among the government, non-government and private sector is needed to ensure that participatory development does not remain just a technical term but is a fundamental attitude that values the autonomy of all actors at the table.

Power Imbalances and Elite Capture:

While the theory is great, achieving citizen participation — given the structural power differentials that still exist — is problematic. Thus, Arnstein’s notion of true citizen power is compromised by elite capture of the participatory process⁹. This is not a context specific phenomenon, as we see this in many sectors and in many locations, often marginalizing those who are less powerful in decision making processes¹⁰. The socio-economic inequalities among the participants reflect power relations and can tilt participation in favor of those with influence and power in hand². Many community development projects exacerbate social inequalities as powerful individuals or groups dominate the conversations and resources available⁴. Therefore, there is a clear need for systems to design frameworks that promote participation, but also seek to dismantle the barriers⁶.

In addition, participatory governance requires a more thorough investigation of which social structures enable or inhibit citizen involvement. According to Arnstein (1969), the ladder of citizen participation demonstrates that power is not equally distributed and that citizens only have true power at the top-most levels of engagement. But numerous participatory approaches prove inadequate, ending up being very often tokenistic or fail to genuinely empower people¹⁴.  This highlights the necessity of scrutinizing participatory mechanisms where community interests are genuinely represented, rather than just avoiding those present at the table. Truly, the notion of citizen participation is a laudable one, but many forces conspire to undermine it, and elites often capture it — as they do in other cases. Overcoming these hurdles is key to unlocking the promise of participatory governance and to ensuring that all stakeholders have their voices heard and respected at the decision-making table⁸.

Digital Divide and Exclusion:

The rise and rapid spread of digital technology and widespread use of social media platforms have transformed and, in many ways, revolutionized the ways in which citizens participate in governance and the public decision-making process in modern society. Widely known and used platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, as well as a plethora of civic tech applications, allow for immediate and real-time communication and mobilization efforts and allow for expanded and more inclusive participation that breaks down the boundaries normally found in civic engagement¹⁶.

Thus, Arnstein’s model, which has served as a significant reference for understanding citizen participation, does not account for the unprecedented technological advancements that have democratized the spread of information and enabled citizens to galvanize and advocate for their interests much more effectively and impactfully compared to the past. Digital platforms, by offering an immediate and unique form of access, effectively blur the previously distinct thresholds that had marked the levels of participation, thus diminishing the relevance and applicability of the ladder model of hierarchical engagement in the present-day context of civic life.

Advantages of Applying Arnstein’s Model of Citizens Participation:

The Ladder of Citizen Participation developed by Arnstein (1969) provides a matrix for evaluating citizen involvement in decision-making. At the upper end of the ladder—at the Degree of Citizen Power level, which consists of partnership, delegated power, and citizen control—the best advantages can be found. At this level citizens have actual power in determining policies, resulting in greater impact and sustainability of projects that are better aligned to local realities. Empowering individuals strengthens social cohesion, facilitates access for marginalized voices, and nurtures a sense of collective responsibility.

Moreover, meaningful participation enhances policy responsiveness and builds public trust and make governments more accountable. Moreover, the model ensures social equity through inclusive development so that advantages do not get confined to a few groups but rather spread across different social strata. It also discourages corruption and improves accountability, since decision-making becomes transparent with a participatory governance structure. But these benefits only materialize if the participation is not merely tokenistic but took place at the level of “Degree of citizens control.”

Improved Project Effectiveness and Sustainability:

Development projects and programs that incorporate higher levels of citizen participation yield stronger results because they are more rooted in local knowledge and needs¹⁷. Participatory approaches not only increase the empowerment of the communities but also offer relevance and effectiveness of the development planning. Participatory urban planning initiatives, for example, have shown that infrastructure co-designed by residents is more sustainable and better matches community needs¹⁸.  Research indicates that involvement of citizens can enhance the decision-making process, as the locals provide unique perspectives and context-specific knowledge that can greatly inform the design and implementation of development planning¹⁹.

Strengthening Social Cohesion and Community Engagement:

The application of Arnstein’s ladder helps to create a sense of shared ownership over development initiatives and strengthens social cohesion between diverse groups²⁰. This model centres citizen participation; citizens take an active role in decision-making processes, which can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes. The meaningful participation of people in decision-making makes citizens feel valued which lessens social divisions and promotes sustained involvement²¹. When people believe their voices have been heard and that they have been considered, they are more likely to contribute to the future of the community, ultimately helps in the augmentation of social capital⁸.

Enhancing Policy Responsiveness and Public Trust:

It helps promote project outcomes that closely align with local priorities and needs, which in turn minimizes the potential for failure of policies⁴ when citizen voices are integrated along relevant stages of development. Putting scrutiny of government decisions in the hands of citizens generally benefits legitimacy and public trust along the processes. This is mainly due to the fact that policies resulting from such engagement often reflect the hopes and desires of the local community instead of top-down imposition².

In addition, civil participation can act as a bulwark against the outbreak of conflict. The governments can mitigate resistance to development initiatives by addressing grievances literally "at the planning table", and thus lead to smoother implementation and overall increase the chance of success of development programs²⁵.

Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Development:

Arnstein’s model focuses on redistribution of power, making it a helpful framework in ensuring that marginalized groups (women, minorities, low-income groups, for example) are consulted in development processes⁹. It is further indicated that participatory projects lessen disparities in resource allocation, giving vulnerable communities enough access to public services and infrastructure⁸. Gender-sensitive development, particularly in urban planning and environmental sustainability, is enabled through inclusive participation.

Increasing Efficiency and Long-Term Project Sustainability:

Citizen engagement is increasingly playing significant role in addressing development challenges, as it invites diverse voices and new thinking. This co-wheeling is even more pronounced in urban planning, governance, and tech-driven developments. The citizen participation is in itself beneficial for decision-making processes and a contributor to the legitimacy of governance systems. It will lead to a more relevant, responsive, and effective policy. Mobile penetration and new tools for citizens to participate digitally have game changing potential for citizen engagement²⁸.

Such tools that support iterative feedback loops to facilitate the continuous adaptation and refinement of policy have been inspired by Arnstein’s “Ladder of Citizen’s participation”²⁹. Moreover, co-creation processes have emerged as a particularly appropriate mechanism for such context-sensitive innovations through the engagement of citizens and governments working side by side. These partnerships yield adapted solutions that are more likely to succeed than generalized, homogenized policies³⁰.

Strengthening Environmental Sustainability in Development Projects:

Participatory decision-making is the essence of ecologically-sensitive planning, because the local people have often greater local knowledge of the environmental hazards and challenges. But this script of localized knowledge is key to recognizing the particular environmental issues that outside stakeholders might overlook. Citizen involvement in environmental governance leads to more sustainable land use, improved conservation³⁰ and successful strategies for climate adaptation¹⁷.

Moreover, local knowledge can complement existing data leading to effective decision-making processes that can contribute to better policy implementation and result in successful environmentally sustainable goals. In this respect, evidences have well documented that communities engaged in designing and managing natural resources are more likely to support and comply with conservation measures³².

Preventing Corruption and Strengthening Accountability Mechanisms:

It is believed that transparent participatory decision making reduces opportunities for corruption and the misappropriation of funds³³. They provide a built-in accountability check by requiring citizens to oversee implementation of projects and allocation of budget and resources³⁴. The genuine participation not only allows citizens using public resources but also brings their responsibility towards governance by giving them an ownership perspective³⁵. When participatory budgeting mechanisms (Porto Alegre) respect Arnstein’s principles, they also diminish political clientelism and improve the integrity of governance⁴. Moreover, participatory budgeting enhances transparency and accountability, empowering communities to demand explanations for government allocations and fostering a culture of open dialogue¹⁰. These practices promote more equitable resource allocation by enabling marginalized communities to articulate and communicate their interests and priorities²¹. The party system, transparency, and other checks and balances, lead to a more active citizen involvement in democracy³⁹.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, although Arnstein's "A Ladder of Citizen Participation" (1969) represents an important analytical tool that can facilitate active citizen engagement in development and planning, its drawbacks are clearer than ever within the context of developments at the start of the 21^st  century. While Arnstein's model supports better social cohesion, project effectiveness, inclusivity, and accountability by rooting development processes in local knowledge, it is important to note that these benefits are only found at the highest levels of the model, particularly the "Degree of Citizens Control". The citizens can have real power in shaping developmental planning and policies at this level, resulting in more effective and sustainable development programs and projects tailored to local needs. Empowering individuals strengthens social cohesion, gives marginalized voices a platform, and promotes a sense of collective responsibility.

But these advantages are frequently overshadowed by the complexities of modern society. Citizen control is impeded by a myriad of bureaucratic and institutional barriers, elite capture (wherein less powerful members of the community are stymied), the digital divide, and increasingly elaborate systems of power. 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, which further limits the applicability of the model. The two lowest rungs (Manipulation and therapy) of the ladder offer no hope for genuine citizen involvement, the next three rungs (Informing, consultation, and placation) also serve only to co-opt or pacify citizens. However, participation at the highest level i.e., degree of citizen power (partnership, delegated power and citizen control) is the genuine participation which face stiff opposition explicit or latent from people in power. Therefore, while Arnstein’s framework remains a foundational contribution, its practical application in the 21^st century requires significant adaptation and reinterpretation. This highlights that sustaining citizen participation in a truly effective, inclusive, social equity and community responsive manner, requires a more nuanced approach to engage and overcome the complexities of the development challenges unfolding today.

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.

Received on 17.03.2025      Revised on 22.04.2025

Accepted on 21.05.2025 Published on 02.06.2025

Available online from June 05, 2025

Res. J. of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025;16(2):75-80.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2025.00012

©AandV Publications All right reserved

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.