This citizen participation, which matured into contemporary
“public involvement,” differed in two crucial respects from traditional citizen
involvement with government.
First, whereas the proper role of the public traditionally had been viewed as confined to
policy making by elected bodies, citizen participation focused squarely on policy implementation
and administration, on involving the public in deciding
how policies, once adopted, would be put into operation. Second, in
contrast to the elitebias of earlier citizen involvement, as with urban
renewal’s “blue ribbon” advisory committees (e.g., Dahl 1961, 124),
the new citizen participation broadened the definition of relevant
citizens to include those of low income, such as “residents of the
areas and members of the groups served” by the War on Poverty.
This citizen participation, which matured into contemporary “public involvement,” differed in two crucial respects from traditional citizeninvolvement with government. First, whereas the proper role of the public traditionally had been viewed as confined to policy making by elected bodies, citizen participation focused squarely on policy implementationand administration, on involving the public in decidinghow policies, once adopted, would be put into operation. Second, incontrast to the elitebias of earlier citizen involvement, as with urbanrenewal’s “blue ribbon” advisory committees (e.g., Dahl 1961, 124),the new citizen participation broadened the definition of relevantcitizens to include those of low income, such as “residents of theareas and members of the groups served” by the War on Poverty.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
