Post in Metrics to judge local e-democracy

Aug 01 13:45 UTC

> 3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48
hours after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
Are there cases where the practice described in point 3 has actually been
followed?

I'd endorse Peter's final suggestion about hooks into the system by
community-based interest groups, and John's about wired local associations
and active political bloggers. These are indicators of the degree of
integration of the local websphere: is the Council website an island, or
does it link seamlessly with other sites that contribute to local democracy?
That's a key question for me.

More broadly, indicators need to relate to context, especially if we're to
be able to compare cross-nationally.
What counts as transparent, accessible and participative in one country
might not be the same in another Variables include political culture, which
shapes public expectations, the legal requirements on authorities as to what
information they should publish, their size, budgetary autonomy,
competences, etc. For instance, Peart & Diaz found that North American local
authorities scored better on what they called transparency measures, with
lots of webcasting, for example, whereas European local authorities scored
particularly well on deliberative measures, with lots of discussion forums.
See http://edc.unige.ch/edcadmin/images/ESF%20-%20Local%20E-Democracy.pdf
It's impossible to make comparisons on a rank-order scale without taking
into account the underlying cultural factors that might explain different
choices.

Simon Smith

2008/7/29 Steven Clift <<email obscured>>