Democracy and E-Rulemaking: Comparing Traditional vs. Electronic Comment from a Discursive Democratic Framework

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ

Investigators

Abstract

This research proposes to bring recent theoretical writings on democratic values and processes to bear on the crafting of policy using the input of the public via the Internet. Government agencies must now provide the opportunity for web-based electronic public comment, to meet the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. This is a radical change in the way agencies relate to the public, yet there is very little social science evaluating this transformation. To date, the move to e-rulemaking has been justified using the value of efficiency. The Administrative Procedures Act championed democratic values such as the transparency of information, expanded public participation, and the accountability of agencies; this project will explore precisely these values in the context of e-rulemaking. The past decade of deliberative democratic theory raised numerous issues regarding discourse, diversity, respect, group life, and democratic authenticity. This research applies these issues to the actual implementation of new forms of electronic public participation. Specific questions include: Is electronic participation one-way, or discursive? Given the digital divide, is participation more diverse or less diverse than past forms of public comment? Are some types of comment (for example, legalistic or scientific) more acceptable to agencies than others (emotional or ideological)? Do those who engage in e-rulemaking commentary show more respect for others' positions than those who use traditional modes of comment? Do the preferences of citizens change as they are exposed to those of others in online commenting? Is electronic participation group-based, or isolating? Is participation authentic: does it have an actual effect on rulemaking? Data will come from three different rulemaking cases, chosen for both diversity and public interest in the issues. The project combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies in examining the questions, using qualitative textual data analysis of citizen comments, revised rules, interviews with agency personnel, and a quantitative analysis of a telephone survey of citizens who commented using both traditional and electronic formats. The project findings will provide evidence as to whether current uses of the Internet as a public participation mechanism are expanding democratic practice, and so agency legitimacy, by implementing the values and practices of current deliberative democratic theory. Given the absence of data on Internet-based public participation in regulatory rulemaking, findings will help to guide the ongoing development of e-rulemaking practices. They will provide key information for agencies now required to bring e-rulemaking systems online, and provide empirical data for deliberative democratic theorists on issues central to current debates.