"A Ladder of Citizen Participation" - Sherry R. Arnstein (1969)

The following is a review of Sherry Arnstein's work entitled "A Ladder of Citizen Participation". 

The basic concept of this text is summed up by Arnstein early - "citizen participation is arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens' power in determining the plan and/or program."

Arnstein describes citizen participation as citizen power, and citizen participation involves the redistribution of power that enables the 'have-nots' of society to have some say in economic and social processes. She then goes onto saying participation without redistribution of power is an empty process for these 'have-nots'.

Types of participation and non-participation 

8   Citizen Control

7   Delegated Power          Degree of citizen power

6   Partnership

5   Placation

4   Consultation                 Degree of tokenism

3   Informing

2   Therapy                        Non-participation

1   Manipulation

Characteristics and Illustrations

1. Manipulation

• On advisory committees to educate the 'have-nots'
• In the committees it is the officials who educate, persuade and advise, not the reverse
• Community Action Agencies have little power and act as grass-roots programs to somewhat include the 'have-nots'

2. Therapy

Refers to extensive activity to cure powerless of their 'pathology' rather than curing the core features (racism and victimisation for example) which cause the pathology

3. Informing

• Informing of rights, responsibilities and options citizens have
• The informing process tends to be one way - official to citizens - with little or no negotiation. This tends to be through media, pamphlets and responses to inquires

4. Consultation

• This refers to inviting citizens opinions (e.g. through attitude surveys)
• By doing this citizens "participate in participation"

5. Placation

• This refers to where citizens have some influence - tokenism is still present 
• This is the degree to which citizens are placated depends on:
• 1. Quality of technical assistance in articulating priorities
• 2. Extent to which citizens have been organised to press for these priorities 
• Citizens have clear and direct access to decision-making process

6. Partnership

• Power is redistributed through negotiation between citizens and power holders
• Shared responsibilities (joint policy boards, planning committees)
• Works best with organised power base in community - citizen leaders are accountable

7. Delegated Power

• Negotiation between citizens and power holders - may lead to citizens having majority support
• Citizens hold accountability to the program 
• Separate and parallel groups of citizen and power holders with provision for citizen veto if negotiation fails
• City councils have final veto even if citizens have majority support 

8. Citizen Power

• The degree of power where people can govern a program/institution, be in full charge of managerial aspects, be able to negotiate the conditions under which outsiders may change them
• Works best with neighbourhood co-operation with no intermediaries between it and source of funding
• Capitalised with research and development funds from the office of Economic Opportunity and other major sources of federal funding
• No model city can meet citizen control as final power and say always is with city council

Limitation of the typology

It does not include an analysis of the most significant roadblocks to achieving genuine participation - including: racism, paternalism and resistance to power redistribution, poor community's political socioeconomic infrastructure and knowledge base and difficulties of organising a citizen group in the face of futility, alienation and destruction.