Análisis de los componentes del bien intangible Compromiso Ciudadano en el sector público

  1. Paloma Piqueiras Conlledo 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales

ISSN: 1696-019X

Ano de publicación: 2020

Número: 30

Páxinas: 79-106

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.31921/DOXACOM.N30A4 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Doxa Comunicación: revista interdisciplinar de estudios de comunicación y ciencias sociales

Resumo

Since the economic crisis of 2008, the public administration has shown increasing interest in establishing relations of trust with its citizens. Consequently, the concept of Citizen Engagement has become a recurrent object of study for academics who have praised the virtues of public participation and collective deliberation as a fundamental component of a responsible democracy (Carpini et al., 2004; Dahlgren, 2005; Carpini, 2009). However, investigations devoted to the definition of citizen engagement are rare, and only a few studies have tried to explain its components and how it can be activated. This article has three objectives, which are as follows: 1) to identify specific attitudes and behaviours that express engagement; 2) to explore and identify the factors of citizen engagement; 3) to develop a set of suggestions to improve its management. In order to achieve the stated aims, a theoretical study of the concept has been carried out, followed by a factor analysis. Data has been obtained from European surveys of 2013 and refer to 27 countries on the continent. Finally, the article provides suggestions to institutions in order for them to establish relationships with their audiences.

€ Ver financiamento

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adler, R. P. y Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344605276792
  • Banco Mundial (2014). Strategic framework for mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group operations. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2VsXOnj
  • Benedicto, J. y Morán, M. L. (2003). Aprendiendo a ser ciudadanos. Experiencias sociales y construcción de la ciudadanía entre los jóvenes. Madrid: INJUVE.
  • Bontis, N., Dragoneti, N. C., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. (1999). The knowledge toolbox: a review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources. European Management Journal, 17(4), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00019-5
  • Bossi, A., Fuertes, Y. and Serrano, C. (2001). El Capital Intelectual en el Sector Público, [en línea] 5campus.org, Capital Intelectual https://bit.ly/3cf3PLi
  • Bouckaert, G. (2012). Trust and public administration. Administration, 60(1), 91-115.
  • Bovaird, T. y Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119-1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
  • Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of Political Attitudes, pp. 737-801. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, (76)3, 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
  • Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732032000046024
  • Canel, M. J. y Luoma-aho, V. (2017). ¿Qué aportan los bienes intangibles a la Administración Pública? En Canel, Piqueiras y Ortega (Eds.). La comunicación de la Administración Pública: conceptos y casos prácticos de bienes intangibles. Madrid: Colecciones INNAP Investiga. Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública (INAP), 29-50.
  • Canel, M. J. y Luoma-aho, V. (2018). Public Sector Communication. Closing Gaps between Citizens and Public Organizations. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Carpini, M. X. D. (2009). The Inherent Arbitrariness of the “News” versus “Entertainment” Distinction. “Keywords: The Public Sphere, Public Culture and Reasoned Public Choice” of the 59th Annual ICA Conference in Chicago, May 22, 2009.
  • Carpini, M. X. D. (2004). Mediating Democratic Engagement: The Impact of Communications on Citizens’ Involvement in Political and Civic Life. In Handbook of political communication research (pp. 413-452). Routledge.
  • Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., and Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and Citizen Engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
  • Claes, E., y Hooghe, M. (2008). Citizenship education and political interest: Political interest as an intermediary variable in explaining the effects of citizenship education. Paper presented at the Conference on Civic Education and Political Participation. American Political Science Association, 104 edn. Boston, 28–31 agosto.
  • Cooper, T. L. (2005). Civic engagement in the Twenty-First Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 534-535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00480.x
  • Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A. and Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen‐centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00668.x
  • Coursey, D., Yang, K. and Pandey, S. K. (2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 572-582. https://doi.org/10.2307/41506807
  • Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political communication, 22(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160
  • Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political studies, 56(1), 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x: 2386-3978
  • De Escalada, M. (2007). ¿Es posible emplear la noción de capital intelectual en la Administración Pública? Comunicación presentada en el IV Congreso argentino de administración pública, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • Ekman, J. and Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human affairs, 22(3), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1
  • Eurobarometer (2013). A Eurobarometer Almanac. Spotlight on European public opinion in 2013. Disponible en https://bit.ly/3caNpDA
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Flash Eurobarometer (374). Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU report. Disponible en https://bit.ly/34BHMvu
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Flash Eurobarometer (384). Citizens’ awareness and perceptions of EU regional policy. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2K4z5Ri
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Flash Eurobarometer (385). Justice in the EU report. Disponible en https://bit.ly/34AliLo
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Special Eurobarometer (272d). Europeans and organ donation. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2VpYGcp
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Special Eurobarometer (409). “Climate change”. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2Vuqbl1
  • Eurobarometer (2013). Standard Eurobarometer (80 Autumn 2013). Public opinion in the European Union. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2VFsYbx
  • Eurobatometer (2013). European Parliament Eurobarometer (EB79.5). ‘One year to go until the 2014 European Elections’. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2Xx38Zw
  • Eurobatometer (2013). Flash Eurobarometer (373). Europeans’ engagement in participatory democracy. Disponible en https://bit.ly/34yW6Ff
  • Eurostat (2013). Average rating of trust by domain, sex, age and educational attainment level. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2RCr0HA
  • García de Castro, M. A., Merino Moreno, C., Plaz Landaeta, R., y Villar Mártil, L. (2004). La gestión de activos intangibles en la administración pública.
  • González Fernández, C. F. (2015). Datos experimentales: medida y error. Guía práctica. Madrid: Bellisco Ediciones.
  • Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. (2004). The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets. Strategy & leadership, 32(5), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699825
  • Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., y Jenkins, K. (2002). The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Washington: Center for information and research on civic learning and engagement (CIRCLE).
  • Kernagham, K. (2003). Integrating Values into Public Service: the values statement as centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 711-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00334
  • Marlowe Jr, H. A., y Arrington-Marlowe, L. L. C. (2005). Public Engagement: theory and practice [Working Paper].
  • Maurrasse, D. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. New York: Routledge.
  • Ostrander, S. (2004). Democracy, Civic Participation, and the University: A Comparative Study of Civic Engagement on Five Campuses. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003260588
  • Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American prospect, 4(13), 35-42.
  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America´s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics (pp. 223-234). New Yok: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62397-6_12
  • Ramírez, Y. (2010). Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 248-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691931011039705
  • Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Teorell, J., Torcal, M. and Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the terrain. Citizenship and involvement in European democracies: A comparative perspective, 17, 334-357.
  • Terrádez-Gurrea, M. (2012). Análisis de componentes principales. España: UOC. Disponible en https://bit.ly/2ygGXwo
  • Torres, L. (1991). Indicadores de gestión para las entidades públicas. Revista española de financiación y contabilidad, 21(67), 535-558.
  • Uslaner, E. M. (2003). Civic engagement in America: Why people participate in political and social life. Report to the Knight Civic Engagement Project, co-directed by The Democracy Collaborative, University of Maryland–College Park and the Center for the Study of Voluntary Organizations and Service, Georgetown University.
  • Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S. and Bouckaert, G. (2008). Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for a longterm decline? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085733
  • Verba, S. and Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Social equality and political democracy. Nueva York: Harper& Row.
  • Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 273-285. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00453.x
  • Yang, K., and Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public administration review, 67(2), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00711.x
Fonte de datos: Dialnet