واکاوی دلایل انفعال در استفاده از ابزارهای مشارکت عمومی در قانونگذاری: یک پژوهش کیفی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه مدیریت اسلامی، پژوهشکده نظام‌های اسلامی، پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه مدیریت و فلسفه علم و فناوری دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت

4 دکتری خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

5 دکتری خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف: اگرچه در دهه‌های گذشته، روند روبه‌‌رشدی از طراحی و به‌کارگیری ابزارهای مشارکت عمومی در قانون‌گذاری پارلمان‌های جهان به وجود آمده است، اما این روند در پارلمان ایران هنوز قابل مشاهده نیست. ازاین‌رو پژوهش حاضر با هدف واکاوی دلایل انفعال پارلمان ایران در کاربست این ابزارها انجام شده است.
روش: برای جمع‌آوری داده‌ها مصاحبه‌هایی با تعدادی از نمایندگان مجلس، کارشناسان مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس و خبرگان حوزه خط‌مشی‌گذاری و پارلمانی انجام گرفت و برای تحلیل نتایج نیز از روش تحلیل مضمون استفاده شده است.
نتایج: یافته‌ها حاکی از تحقق انفعال در 5 مضمون حساب شده، ایدئولوژیک، تحمیلی، اکراهی و سهوی است که از مقوله‌ها و زیرمقوله‌هایی مشتق شده‌اند. مطابق با نتایج بدست‌آمده مهم‌‌ترین علل انفعال مجلس شورای اسلامی در بهره‌‌مندی از ابزارهای مشارکت عمومی عبارتند از: عدم شناخت کافی از این ابزارها و پیامدهای کاربست آنها، مشروع و مورد نیاز ندانستن این حق برای عامه مردم، تصورات نادرست و اشتباه از مشارکت‌خواهی از مردم، فقدان زیرساخت‌های فرهنگی و اجتماعی، وجود سیستم دموکراسی نمایندگی و در نهایت آیین‌نامه داخلی مجلس.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج این پژوهش می‌تواند بینش جدیدی برای کارشناسان، دانش‌پژوهان و نمایندگان مجلس ایجاد کند. در نهایت توصیه‌هایی برای پژوهش‌های آینده و نمایندگان مجلس ایران ارائه شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Exploring the reasons for inaction in the use of public participation tools in legislation: a qualitative research

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hasan Danaeefard 1
  • Hosein Babaee mojarrad 2
  • Mahdi Abdolhamid 3
  • Jafar Zinatbakhsh 4
  • Mehdi Khosravi 5
1 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management & Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, Iran
3 School of Management, Economics, and Progress Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
4 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management & Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management & Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective: Although in the past decades, there has been a growing trend of designing and using public participation tools in the legislation of world parliaments, this trend is still not visible in the Iranian parliament. Therefore, this research aims to analyz the reasons for the inaction of the Iranian parliament in the use of these tools.
Methods: In order to collect data interviews were conducted with a number of parliamentarians, experts from the parliamentary research center, and experts in the policymaking and parliamentary fields, and thematic analysis method was used to analyze the results.
Results: The findings indicate the realization of passivity in 5 themes calculated, ideological, imposed, reluctant and inadvertent, which are derived from categories and subcategories. According to the results obtained, the most important reasons for the inaction of the parliament in using public participation tools are: insufficient knowledge of these tools and the consequences of their use, not considering this right legitimate and necessary for the general public, false and mistaken perceptions of requesting participation from the people, the lack of cultural and social infrastructure, the existence of the system of representative democracy, and finally the internal regulations of the parliament.
Conclusions: The results of this research can create new insights for experts, scholars and members of parliament. Finally, recommendations for future researches and Iranian parliamentarians have been provided.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • policy inaction
  • public participation
  • open parliament
  • participatory tools
  • thematic analysis

مراجع

References
Acosta, M., Nestore, M., Jarquín-Solís, M. E., & Doubleday, R. (2022). A typology of advisory bodies in legislatures and research perspectives. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2022.2070985
Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking : an introduction (8th Edition). Cengage Learning.
Beyers, C., & Nicholls, E. (2020). Government through Inaction: The Venezuelan Migratory Crisis in Ecuador. Journal of Latin American Studies, 52(3), 633–657. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X20000607
Bherer, L., Dufour, P., & Montambeault, F. (Eds.). (2018). The Participatory Democracy Turn (1st Edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315145341
Bishop, P., & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00255
Bochel, C. (2013). Petitions Systems: Contributing to Representative Democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 66(4), 798–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss005
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
Brown, P. R., & Stark, A. (2022). Policy inaction meets policy learning: four moments of non-implementation. Policy Sciences, 55(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09446-y
Bundi, P. (2018). Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.003
Coleman, S. (2004). Connecting parliament to the public via the Internet: Two case studies of online consultations. Information, Communication & Society, 7(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118042000208870
Dean, R. J. (2017). Beyond radicalism and resignation: the competing logics for public participation in policy decisions. Policy & Politics, 45(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557316X14531466517034
Dunn, W. N. (2017). Public policy analysis : an integrated approach (6th edition). Routledge.
Dye, T. R. (2016). Understanding public policy (15th edition). Pearson.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
Griffith, J., & Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012). How Are Parliaments Using New Media to Engage with Citizens? The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2012.706058
Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2014). How to reach Members of Parliament? Citizens and Members of Parliament on the Effectiveness of Political Participation Repertoires. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(3), 536–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss057
Hoppe, R. (2010). The governance of problems : puzzling, powering, participation (First edition). Policy Press.
Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design (1st Edition). Routledge.
Kabingesi, A. (2021). An assessment of public participation in the law-making and other activities of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa [Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/110137
Khosravi, M., Babaei, H., & ZinatBakhsh, J. (2024). Inaction in the design and use of public participation tools in legislation.
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2014). The Pursuit of Legitimacy as a Key Driver for Public Engagement: The European Parliament Case. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gss050
Leston-Bandeira, C., & Thompson, L. (2017). Integrating the view of the public into the formal legislative process: public reading stage in the UK House of Commons. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(4), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2017.1394736
Lieffers, J. R. L., Ekwaru, J. P., Ohinmaa, A., & Veugelers, P. J. (2018). The economic burden of not meeting food recommendations in Canada: The cost of doing nothing. PLOS ONE, 13(4), e0196333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196333
Lohse, N., Ersbøll, C., & Kingo, L. (2011). Taking on the challenge of noncommunicable diseases: We all hold a piece of the puzzle. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 115(S1), S52–S54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(11)60016-7
Love, J., & Garg, A. (2014). Presidential inaction and the separation of powers. Michigan Law Review, 112(7), 1195–1250.
 
MacArthur, J. L. (2016). Challenging public engagement: participation, deliberation and power in renewable energy policy. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(3), 631–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0328-7
Matthieu, J., Vrydagh, J., Caluwaerts, D., & Erzeel, S. (2020). The democratic credentials of youth parliaments. The case of the Belgian Jeugd Parlement Jeunesse. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 26(2), 204–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1731982
McConnell, A. (2020). The use of placebo policies to escape from policy traps. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1662827
McConnell, A., & t’Hart, P. (2014). Public policy as inaction: The politics of doing nothing. Available at SSRN 2500010.
McConnell, A., & t Hart, P. (2019). Inaction and public policy: understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing.’ Policy Sciences, 52(4), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11077-019-09362-2
Migchelbrink, K., & Van de Walle, S. (2022). Increasing the cost of participation: red tape and public officials’ attitudes toward public participation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 644–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320942311
Mukuna, J., & Mbao, M. L. (2014). Popular Participation in Legislative Law-Making under the New Democratic Dispensation in Kenya. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p438
Niessen, C., & Reuchamps, M. (2022). Institutionalising Citizen Deliberation in Parliament: The Permanent Citizens’ Dialogue in the German-speaking Community of Belgium. Parliamentary Affairs, 75(1), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa056
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Pluchinotta, I., Giordano, R., Zikos, D., Krueger, T., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2020). Integrating Problem Structuring Methods And Concept-Knowledge Theory For An Advanced Policy Design: Lessons From A Case Study In Cyprus. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 626–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1753512
Prior, A., & Leston-Bandeira, C. (2022). Parliamentary storytelling: a new concept in public engagement with parliaments. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 28(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2020.1848081
Ranchordás, S., & Voermans, W. (2017). Crowdsourcing legislation: new ways of engaging the public. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2017.1303224
Restrepo, J., & Christiaans, H. (2004). Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design. Journal of Design Research, 4(2), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2004.009842
Ruth, M. (2010). Economic and Social Benefits of Climate Information: Assessing the Cost of Inaction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.09.026
Serra-Silva, S. (2022). How parliaments engage with citizens? Online public engagement: a comparative analysis of Parliamentary websites. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 28(4), 489–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2021.1896451
Serra‐Silva, S. (2023). Beyond national boundaries in the study of digital public engagement: Interparliamentary institutions and cooperation in the Austrian and Portuguese national parliaments. Policy & Internet, 15(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.326
Su Seo, H., & Raunio, T. (2017). Reaching out to the people? Assessing the relationship between parliament and citizens in Finland. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 23(4), 614–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2017.1396694
Voermans, W., ten Napel, H.-M., & Passchier, R. (2015). Combining efficiency and transparency in legislative processes. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 3(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2015.1133398
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053.
حکمرانی و توسعه
دوره 4، شماره 2
تیر 1403
صفحه 3-18

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار