Cited by 300Public Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and Political AnalysisPolitical Theory and Democracy

Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?

Yang, Kaifeng, Pandey, Sanjay K.·2011·Public Administration Review

Abstract

While various descriptive and prescriptive citizen participation models suggest ways to improve citizen participation, none has been subjected to large‐scale empirical tests. This article develops and tests an organizational theory model that explores the conditions under which citizen involvement as a general strategy can improve administrative decision making. The new model focuses on organizational variables that are more directly subject to managerial influence, such as political support, leadership, red tape, and hierarchical authority, as well as variables related to participant competence and representativeness. Hypotheses are tested with data collected from a national survey of local government managers. The results suggest that public management matters for citizen participation. The conclusion calls for integrating quantitative designs with normative and qualitative citizen participation research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Political buy-in is necessary for an effective participatory budgeting program.

    “Research suggests that political buy-in is necessary for an effective PB program (Ebdon and Franklin 2006;Yang and Pandey 2011).”

    From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Yang and Pandey 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
  • Yang, Kaifeng
  • Pandey, Sanjay K.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-11
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
880-892
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
OpenAlex
W2111430401
Cited by
300
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 8
FWCI
39.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Administration Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
Keywords
citizen participation, administrative decisions, organizational theory, political support, leadership, red tape, hierarchical authority, representativeness, local government managers, public sector management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review