This is a short article review on Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation.

1. A Ladder of Citizen
Participation
Journal Review
Journal Review submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
PARK AND AMENITY MANAGEMENT (HONS)
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND SURVEYING
For
Private
By
NICOLAI ZACQ SIDEK
2009xxxxxx
AP230 6B

2. A LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
By Sherry R. Arnstein
JOURNAL REVIEW
Poverty, racism and community engagement are topics of conversations lately.
Whether in Malaysia, England, Africa or Japan, the issue of examining the quality of human
relationship is gradually worsening. Malaysia faces pressure-inducing issues involving
politics and the rights of Malaysians1It is no different in other parts of the world. Poverty is a
major problem in third world countries like Africa and the people of Afghanistan who are
‘controlled’ by the U.S. government are desperately trying to be free.
In 1969, an article in the Journal of the American Planning Association explains the
different levels of participation involving communities. The article by Sherry R. Arnstein
introduced a ‘ladder’ showing the stages of what she calls the ladder of citizen participation.
Before going in-depth to the contents of the article, we shall clarify some of the terms that
will be used in this review.
What is community participation? We must first understand what community is and
what participation mean before understanding the meaning of the words combined. In Wates’
book The Community Planning Handbook, he describes community as a group of people
sharing the same interests and live within a geographically defined area (Wates 2000).
Additionally, he added that the process of working together and achieving things builds a
community and creates a sense of ‘being one’. The book Defining Community in Early
Modern Europe describes ‘community’ as ‘a group people who perceived themselves as
having common interests and a common identity or self-understanding’ (Halvorson and
Spierling 2008). Other definitions have similar basic concept to what community means. It
involves people who are interested in a common issue and they work together as a whole to
solve it. Participation, on the other hand, means being involved in something. Therefore, the
term ‘community participation’ means the creation of opportunities that enables people in a
community to influence and shape the development process of developments (Midgley 1986).
1
The issues that are recently brought are Indian ethnicity in Malaysia (2011) and the issue of having a Malay
government in a non-Malay community in Sabah (2012).
2

3. 2
Figure 1.0.1Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation
There are eight levels of citizen participation distilled by Arnstein (figure 1.1),
ranging from non-participation to full citizen power. Moving from the bottom of her ladder
(non-participation) to the top (full participation), Silveira (1990) has provided a brief
description on each rung:
Manipulation: places people on advisory boards to rubberstamp; to educate them to
the agency perspective; distorting the participation into public relations joy.
Therapy: engages citizens in numerous activities, under the guise of citizen
involvement in planning and decision making, but where experts subject the citizens
to ‘clinical group therapy’ to cure them, rather than fix the original problem.
Informing: provides information that is one way to the citizens, or too late to really
affect decisions and fails to achieve real input; news media, pamphlets, response to
inquiries, and information giving (not exchange) meetings are frequent forms of one-
way communication.
Consultation: involves citizens in a significant manner, but is sham if there are no
assurances that their input will be fully incorporated in the decisions, or the full range
of options are considered; frequent forms of attitude surveys, neighbourhood
meetings, and public hearings.
Placation: represents tokenism if those previously excluded from power remain a
numerical minority on the board and/or are not accountable to any constituency in the
community; another form is giving only power of advice or planning, but not to turn
them into actual decisions.
2
Figure adapted from Petursdottir, S. (2011) http://sonjadogg.wordpress.com/e-participation-in-nairobi-slum-
upgrades/public-participation-literature-review/
3

4. Partnership: represents real citizen participation when citizens and governments
agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through joint structures,
and neither partner can unilaterally change the agreement; implicit in this is that
citizens have access to resources comparable to the government partner.
Delegated Power: occurs when through negotiations between government and
citizens, citizens gain the dominant decision making position on programs affecting
them to insure accountability to the client’s needs.
Citizen Control:falls short of the rhetoric of absolute control, but the intent is that
citizens actually have managerial and policy control and can set the conditions under
which government can alter the institution or program.
Adapted from: Silveira, K. (1990)3
To sum the above excerpt, Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation provides an
overview of the different ways of how people in a community can be involved in decision
making. Non-participation (Manipulation through Placation) involves people assuming that
they are part of the decision making process whereas as noted by Petursdottir (1990) in her
research paper4, a fake form of participation is created by authorities to manipulate a
community into thinking that they are part of the decision making process ‘…around a
decision already made’. As to the final three stages, it is understandable that the power to
decide has shifted to the community.
The ladder of citizen participation is 40 years old yet it is still referenced until today.
However, Arnstein’s ladder has failed to address the poor and women as noted by Willis
(2008). It is more focused on encouragement and questions of equity. Willis stated that
Arnstein has addressed the issue of people being a part of planning and policy making. The
voices of a community give the ‘have-nots’5 power to decide how they want to share
information, the allocation of resources, and how programs are operated.
Arnstein’s limitations to her work is also acknowledged by Connor (1988) who has
stated that while her work consists of 8 rungs, real world applications may ‘require as many
as 150 to cover the range of actual citizen involvement levels’. As a result of these
limitations, Connor (1988) has developed another ladder model to complement Arnstein’s
ladder. Connor’s new ladder of citizen participation addresses the issue of location of
3
A summary of Citizen Participation Methods for the Waterfront Development Project in Oconto, Wisconsin
4
Sonja Dogg Dawson Petursdottir research paper on Technology Enabled Citizen Participation in Nairobi Slum
Upgrades, 2011.
5
Have-nots are minorities or the people in a community who do not have authorisation power as described in
Arnstein’s article.
4

5. programs6 ranging from rural to urban areas. Besides that, the approaching methods
explained by Connor enable managers and people with power resolve public controversies
about various proposals in a broad range of situations. A diagram of Connor’s new ladder of
citizen participation follows.
7
Figure 1.2 Connor's Ladder of Citizen Participation
In a planning analysis paper done by Parker (2002), there are many techniques
planners can use to involve a community to influence an outcome of a planning process. A
method such as open meetings is generally considered the basic to this sort of participation.
Other sorts of methods include the sophisticated Delphi and Nominal Group techniques.
Parker has provided a list of the different forms of participation:
1. Publicity
2. Public education
3. Public input
4. Public interaction
5. Public partnership
6
Arnstein’s model emphasizes on ghetto and urban areas. Connor’s model addresses this issue by including all
ranges of community.
7
Figure adapted from Connor, D. (1988)
http://geography.sdsu.edu/People/Pages/jankowski/public_html/web780/Connor_1988.pdf
5

6. It is important to note that not all techniques are constricted to only one category.
Combining two categories such as education and interaction can be applied in public
meetings. The list above can also be categories into two forms: Passive participation
(publicity and education) and active participation (interaction and partnership).
To receive a positive outcome through community participation, planners must be
able to create an effective participation program. A recent trend used by planners, as studied
by Petursdottir (2011) is an online participatory method called e-participation. Through the
usage of the Internet and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), the number of
public response are higher than traditional methods like open meetings. Online survey helps
generate results from a community that is broader than an actual public meeting which is
often participated by a small local community.
In the field of natural resources management, Parker (2002) suggested that public
participation in the decision on how to protect the natural resources in forests. Through their
participation as well as existing legislations, a community may be able to resolve potential
conflicts that may occur once demand for natural resources is excessive.
As a conclusion, the purpose of public participation is to reduce tension and conflict
over public policy decisions. The models of citizen participation by Arnstein and Connor
serve as a basis for planners to include the public in decision making process. However, the
theories can only be applied on paper but in reality, it depends on many other factors derived
from current situations of a country. Through various methods of approach that are gradually
improving over time, planners will realize the importance of listening to the voices of the
people other than their own.
6

7. REFERENCES
Chooi, C. (2012). In Sabah, brewing anti-BN revolt among non-Malay voters Retrieved
07/10, 2012, from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/in-sabah-
brewing-anti-bn-revolt-among-non-malay-voters
Connor, D. M. (1988).A New Ladder of Citizen Participation.National Civic Review, 77(3).
Halvorson, M., &Spierling, K. E. (2008).Defining Community in Early Modern Europe.
Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Midgley, J. (1986).Community Participation, Social Development, and the State. New York:
Routledge.
Parker, R. (2002).The Theory of Citizen Participation (P. P. Department of Planning, and
Management, Trans.). Oregon: University of Oregon.
Pétursdóttir, S. D. D. (2011). Technology Enabled Citizen Participation in Nairobi Slum
Upgrades.Civil Engineering Degree, Reykjavík University, Iceland. Retrieved from
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13326426/Sonja%20Petursdottir-Master%20thesis-120112-
Signed.pdf
Shankar, A. (2011). India must pressure Malaysia over ethnic issue Retrieved 07/10, 2012,
from http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2011/08/29/india-must-
pressure-malaysia-over-ethnic-issue/
Silveira, K., Shaffer, R., & Behr, C. (1990). A Summary of Citizen Participation Methods for
the Waterfront Development Project in Oconto, Wisconson (D. o. A. Economics,
Trans.). Wisconson: University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension.
Wates, N. (2000). The Community Planning Handbook. London: Earthscan.
Willis, A. V. (2008). Effective Use of Citizen Participation in Planning Decision-making
Processes. Michigan: ProQuest.
7