A Conceptual Framework for Transparent Public Decision-Making through E-Government Development in Saudi Arabia

The field of Environmental Communication has often critiqued the shortcomings of public hearings, noting their limitations in bringing about effective and equitable public decision making. While this work has been significant, it has tended to limit the deliberative field to public hearings themselves, sometimes going so far as to assume that public hearings are the only spaces in which significant deliberations occur. Using a field analysis of the “No Coal Plant” campaign in Surry County, Virginia (2008–2013), the authors illuminate some limitations of existing literature. Their analysis suggests that while public hearings can be extremely limiting, even “failed” public hearings can play a critical role in constituting, organizing, and pacing formal and informal deliberative spaces, which are necessary for communities as they manage the stresses and strains of the decision-making process.

Download Full-text

Chapter 9. Kenyan Women in Politics and Public Decision Making

African Feminism ◽

10.9783/9780812200775.232 ◽

1997 ◽

pp. 232-254

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Women In Politics ◽

Kenyan Women ◽

Public Decision ◽

Public Decision Making

Download Full-text

The Complexity Surrounding Market Rationale in Public Decision Making in the Twenty-First Century

Advances in Public Policy and Administration - Positioning Markets and Governments in Public Management ◽

10.4018/978-1-5225-4177-6.ch014 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 185-195

Author(s):

Bakry Elmedni

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Choice Theory ◽

Public Organizations ◽

First Century ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

Role Of Government ◽

Market Rationality ◽

Public Decision ◽

Public Decision Making

Applying market rationale to public decision making has been in the center of the debates in both political and academic circles. Theoretically, these debates center on the role of government in society and how that role should be played. This chapters shows that applying market rationality to public decision making is problematic for three reasons. First, in reality, neither market nor individuals can be rational as envisioned in neoclassic economics. Second, public organizations pursue broad social goals that are often not measurable by market indicators. Third, the context within which public decisions are made is governed by legal and constitutional mandates that do not always suit market rationale, i.e. utility maximizations. Notwithstanding this, public choice theory can provide public organizations with alternative methods for maximizing social benefits. In doing so, public organizations have been adopting market-based standards as a method to promote performance and manage for results.

Download Full-text