Abstract
PurposeIn recent years, the public sector has faced the challenge of digitalisation. This has significantly impacted the relationships between citizens and public organisations and, thus, it widely affects participatory processes, such as participatory budgeting (PB); in fact, digital tools (DTs) have emerged as a solution, increasing citizen engagement whilst improving efficiency, reducing costs and saving time. This contribution analyses PB in Rome, which is also implemented with DTs, seeking to understand how DTs impact citizens’ role in creating public value.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a qualitative approach, precisely by analysing a descriptive and exploratory single case study of PB’s first adoption in Rome in 2019. The information is obtained from multiple sources and examined through document analysis.FindingsIn the Roman context, DTs in PB primarily facilitated cost-effective information sharing, offering citizens basic participation. Unfortunately, the potential for more interactive DTs was overlooked, failing to enhance citizen engagement in critical phases like deliberation, evaluation or monitoring. Therefore, the tools did not fully support citizens becoming co-creators of public value instead of just users in governance.Originality/valueThe novelty of this study lies in exploring the difference between the use of DTs that assist citizens/users in improving service quality and those that support citizens in creating a public and shared value. It ventures further to assess various tiers of participation, meditating on the digital elements that stimulate active engagement and value creation instead of simply expanding the participant pool or process efficiency.
Reference79 articles.
1. New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery;Public Money and Management,2021
2. Digitalization, accounting and accountability: a literature review and reflections on future research in public services;Financial Accountability and Management,2022
3. Aichholzer, G. and Rose, G. (2020), “Experience with digital tools in different types of e- participation”, in Hennen, L., Van Keulen, I., Korthagen, I., Aichholzer, G., Lindner, R. and Nielsen, R.Ø. (Eds), European E-Democracy in Practice, Springer Nature, Cham, pp. 93-140.
4. Participatory budgeting as a form of dialogic accounting in Russia: actors' institutional work and reflexivity trap;Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,2018
5. Public sector governance and accountability;Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2013