Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
E-participation through the lenses of political efficacy.
Unexpected tales from Italian citizens
Marco Anderle
London School of Economics and Political Science
Abstract: in Italy, as in the whole of Europe, academia is still struggling for a better
understanding of phenomenon of e-participation. The ongoing PhD project presented in this
paper aims at offering a contribution to the challenge, by combining new media studies and
political theory. A mitigated participatory perspective is adopted to emphasize the role of
political participation practices in determining attitudinal changes, with a particular focus on the
attitude of the sense of political efficacy (Spe),. Commonly regarded as a prerequisite for
democratic participation, Spe is traditionally measured quantitatively. I argue that the concept
has the potential to be employed within qualitative research as a guiding, sensitizing instrument,
and propose a study of e-participation through the lenses of Spe. This allows to explore the
viewpoints of the citizens on e-participation under a peculiar light. The project concentrates on
two empirical cases of local e-forums in the context of Northern Italy. Italian citizens offer a
unique case, since they have shown negative feelings towards to political realm for the last 60
years. The Northern scenario has additional peculiarties, not least linked to the growth of
separationist parties in the last 15 to 20 years. In the forthcoming fieldwork, the student will
approach the citizens via qualitative depth interviews, to the goal of exploring the ways Italians
define and evaluate e-participation, in terms of Spe and with reference to the other available
options for political participation. This paper presents portions of the initial theoretical
framework that precedes the upcomping empirical phase of the project.
Keywords: e-participation, sense of political efficacy, political participation
E-participation challenges
Although progressing at a fast pace, e-participation research is still struggling with
excessive fragmentation, immaturity of methods, and sometimes naïve conceptualizations of
democracy (Freschi et al. 2009; Macintosh et al. 2009). Much attention has been paid on the
ways public institutions and politicians use the Web, and less on the perspective of the
citizens (Coleman and Spiller 2003). As of today, the main challenge remains the pursuit of a
better understanding and evaluation of the phenomenon through interdisciplinary efforts
(Macintosh and Whyte 2006; Rose and Sanford 2007). Given the primary role of the citizens
in the formula of democratic participation, I argue that the ways they experience and envision
e-participation should be granted more space. Here, I propose a qualitative study of their
perspectives. In this project, I employ an interdisciplinary approach by cutting across the
fields of new media studies, political science and political theory, stressing the necessary link
between them. I note that e-participation research has often underrated the ongoing debate
within democratic theory (Coleman and Spiller 2003; Hacker 1996; Polat 2005). Despite the
meaningful addition of the 'e', much of the nature of e-participation can still be enlightened
by approaching the topic with the help of political theory.
Definitional tensions
Analytical definitions of e-participation usually comprise sequential stages that are
constituted by different possible activities and tools. The classic OECD scheme lists three
levels: information, consultation, and active participation (OECD 2001). These models follow
1
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
a structure that recalls Arnstein's renowned ladder of citizen engagement1, where the higher
the rung the greater the involvement (Grönlund 2009). On the one hand, these classifications
describe existing circumstances. On the other, they suggest ideal targets, such that of “active
partnership”, which may clash with underlying normative prescriptions: “E-participation
should be used to support, complement or enhance the activities and understanding of
representative government, and should not undermine the value of representative democracy”
(Macintosh and Whyte 2006: 9). This suggests a normative tension that is inherent in
e-participation. For instance, while electronic and representative democracy have often been
united in a common and auspicious fate (cf. Hague and Loader 1999), some observers see
them as an unhappy couple (Åström et al. 2010; Freschi 2007). Freschi considers their
combination established on neoliberal grounds, which would foster top-down e-democracy
while discouraging grassroots participation (2007: 96). Polat suggests that the marriage may
go to the disadvantage of potential modes of direct citizen engagement (2005: 446). What is
certain is that the Internet cannot befog the frictions between different democratic values,
some say that it may exacerbates them (Pratchett 2007). To underestimate these tensions
means missing a constitutive component of our object of study. In fact, the contested nature of
democratic participation implicates different normative standpoints that inevitably shape
e-participation. It follows that any definition of e-participation is dependent on value
standards and rests unsettled until framed in a given normative discourse. Even the activities
that can or cannot constitute e-participation are ultimately decided by the scope of a definition
that is normatively shaped. An online plebiscite would hardly suit a classic liberal perspective
as much as an election of representatives through e-voting could not be conceived within
extreme views of direct democracy.
A mitigated participatory perspective
The following discussion starts digging into the normative alleys behind e-participation,
and it goes further to address the conceptual references that will guide our empirical work. In
particular, this project uses theories of democracy and participation and it does so at two
interconnected levels: firstly, at the level of the normative positions that back and shape
different views of democratic participation; secondly, at the level of the conceptual tools that
offer a way from the theoretical into the empirical domain. On the first level, I use a
theoretical dichotomy constituted by two main perspectives, the liberal and the participatory.
This allows to define our conceptual tools of investigation within a general framework, and
outside the specific conditions of democratic theories such as the deliberative, the radical or
the communitarian.
Liberalism is considered to be the leading democratic paradigm (Dahlgren 2006), rooted in
the vision of self-interested and fighting men that was pushed forward by thinkers like
Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke (Hobbes 1651; Locke 1690; Machiavelli 1675). The classic
liberal citizen participates only if necessary, he abides by the law and pursues private interests
through rational choices, under the eye of a freedom-protecting minimalist state. In short, the
role of participation in liberalism appears limited and subservient to the focus kept on the
safeguard of individual interests. Who really participates then? Not the average citizen, a
“deaf spectator” that is better off away from the mysteries of politics (Lippmann 1922). The
only ones worthy of political participation are the elites (Schumpeter 1943). When after
World War II evidence showed that the average citizens were lacking the necessary
democratic requirements – i.e. socio-economic factors and positive political attitudes – liberal
elitarians concluded that universal participation would only endanger political stability
(Berelson et al. 1954; Dahl 1956; Eckstein 1966; G. Sartori 1962).
On another line of thought, participatory theories challenged the liberal perspective and
put democratic participation right at the centre of the stage. As for the post-war evidence on
political participation, participatory theorists interpreted it as an alarm being sounded for the
1 S. R. Arnstein, 'Ladder of Citizen Participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35/4
(1969), 216-24.
2
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
expansion of opportunities for education, self-development and participation (Bachrach 1967;
Mason 1982; Pateman 1970). In other words, low disengagement was ascribed to the unequal
distribution of opportunities that was built in the liberal society. Participatory theorists also
observed that the findings of political science revolved primarily around voting, thus
neglecting other essential and possibly more educative types of political participation (cf.
Leighley 1995). As for the liberal argument of mass participation causing political instability,
the participatory answer was coherent to the theory: if low-skilled citizens destabilize the
system, a functioning democracy should not label them as inferior and expel them from the
arenas of political participation. Participatory accounts include extreme or 'strong'
propositions of direct democracy, which entail encompassing citizen participation to formal
decision-making (Barber 1984; Pateman 1970). The perfect symmetry envisioned by these
models would impose “a fundamentally different world, a world of co-equals in which the
very idea of super ordinates and subordinates disappear” (Schonfeld 1975: 152). Thompson's
definition of reconstructive ideals offers a good illustration of this kind of proposals. They
express a “ceaseless discontent” that could be satisfied only by means of unattainable radical
reforms (Thompson 1970: 45-47). Even in today's technologically developed societies the
idea of full participation remains an impracticable one (Cammaerts 2005; Held 1996). Direct
democracy is held to be unrealistic and “unwieldy” also because of the personal,
psychological and cultural dimensions that shape the citizen's everyday life, preventing a
full-time commitment to public decision-making (Dahlgren 2009: 15-16). In Thompson's
account, these ideal and prescriptive visions are to be intended as inspirational targets, a North
Star that will never be reached and touched, but one which suggests nevertheless a precise
direction. In concrete terms, the direction of increased engagement can be followed by what
he calls constructive ideals, those realizable by means of attainable and non-radical reforms.
Following the constructive approach, this project discards extreme propositions of direct
democracy and focuses on participatory proposals that preserve political representation. I call
this position a mitigated participatory perspective, one that uses participatory insights and
challenges liberal assumptions, while avoiding the pitfalls of extreme accounts. In a
contemporary Western setting, in which old and new media together provide with multiple
channels of communication, citizens can have a real chance to closely “monitor” their
representatives (Keane 2009). Through new information and communication technologies,
citizens can interact with them and with fellow citizens on a constant basis, thus adopting a
participatory orientation that goes far beyond the electoral moment (cf. Rodota 1997). An
exemplary participatory conceptualization that retains political representation is encapsulated
in Stephen Coleman's definition of “direct representation”. In his own words:
“By direct representation we have in mind a democratic system which rejects
paternalistic modes of governing associated with the postwar welfare state and adopts
techniques and technologies that go beyond formal consultation on preestablished
policy agendas by mobilising, listening to, learning from, mapping and responding to
diverse articulations of public experience and expertise. Direct representation entails
an ongoing rather than episodic political conversation, inhabiting trusted spaces of
everyday communication rather than being confined to official zones of electoral
manipulation. Direct representation offers many of the same benefits as direct
democracy, but fewer of the burdens. In short, it offers citizens the prospect of
representative closeness, mutuality, coherence and empathy, without expecting them
to become full-time participating citizens” (Coleman and Blumler 2009: 80)
As today's Western democracies experience feeble citizen engagement (Putnam 2000), the
dominant liberal presuppositions are still questioned. The mitigated participatory perspective
offers legitimization by means of more engagement. If we take the citizen in the individualist
liberal sense, i.e. as a potential participant on standby, it is no surprise that he may never
engage at all (Pateman 1989). Participatory atrophy hinders his political involvement. As a
consequence, participation becomes essential to encourage the necessary democratic
requirements, since it is only by participating that one learns how to participate (Pateman
3
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
1970: 105). In simpler terms, it is a matter of learning by doing. As suggested by Dewey and
Rousseau, participatory institutions should grant the average citizen opportunities for
education and growth within the political realm, e.g. forums for discussion, consultation
machanisms aimed at policy-making, etc. What becomes crucial is to overcome the distance
between the citizens and the public affairs that concern them. To this end, a participatory
perspective invites political participation in the everyday life of the citizen. It sees political
matters becoming closer to him, more familiar, increasingly understood and ultimately more
participatory. The key element for legitimizing democracy and equipping the citizens with the
necessary democratic resources becomes participation itself, thanks to its educative and
self-propelling function. This focus turns the liberal focus around. It is not sufficient to
concentrate on individual resources and attitudes as static predictors of participation, while
uncritically accepting the status quo. A focal point to the participatory perspective is how
political participation itself can be decisive in generating and shaping the very same resources
and attitudes.
Sense of political efficacy as a
sensitizing concept to study e-participation
At this point I enter the aforementioned second level and concentrate on one crucial
attitude, the sense of political efficacy (Spe). This attitude has been regarded as an
indispensable prerequisite for participation and democracy. Spe was defined as “the feeling
that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process,
i.e., that it is worthwhile to perform one's civic duties” (Campbell et al. 1954: 187). It was one
of the fundamental variables that were used to explain participation in the studies focused on
socio-economic status and individual political attitudes as predictors. In short, Spe was seen
as an attitudinal resource that caused participation. It was concisely described as the
awareness “that what one does really matters” (Dahl 1963: 61; Milbrath 1965: 61), a
perception of powerfulness or powerlessness in the political realm that occurs when “the
individual internalizes an expectation and appraisal of his role as one that is politically
effective” (Morrell 2005: 710; White 1968: 710; Wright 1975: 710). The label of “subjectve
competence” was also used to describe the same substance, i.e. the citizen's belief that he can
exert influence over the political arena (Almond and Verba 1963: 181). Spe was regarded as a
key prerequisite for democracy, and still is. Since action is induced by efficacy beliefs
(Bandura 2001), it follows that for democratic participation to happen citizens need to believe
that they can participate, and that their participation counts. An important addition to the first
conceptualization of Spe came with the recognition of two separate dimensions (Balch 1974).
On the one side, the internal dimension reflects the feeling that one has about his capability to
influence the political arena. On the other side, the external dimension refers to the belief that
the political arena is responsive to the influence attempts of the citizen.
Spe is generally considered to be determined by socialization, socio-economic factors,
other political attidues, and psychological factors. What is central to this discussion, is how
political participation was found to encourage Spe (Finkel 1985, 1987). Finkel's findings
suggest that political participation practices that last longer and have a chance to enter the
citizens' daily routines are more likely to promote feelings of political efficacy. A more recent
American study upholds the same conclusions extending them to internal Spe (Bowler and
Donovan 2002). Furthermore, Spe has been found to be determined also by Internet access
and Internet general use, Internet political use, online political information, online
interactivity, online provision of public services (e-government), civility of online political
discussion, online deliberation, etc. (Curtice and Norris 2004; Johnson and Kaye 2003;
Kenski and Stroud 2006; Y. M. Kim 2001; J.-Y. Kim 2006; Kwan Min 2006; Ng and
Detenber 2005; Parent et al. 2005; Tedesco 2006). Studies on Internet and Spe show assorted
results, with differences when the internal rather than the external dimension of Spe is
concerned. These hints from political science and new media studies underpin the assumption
that practices of e-participation can be related to Spe, with distinctions based on the specific
4
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
features of the type of e-participation that one choses to consider, and e-forums may be a
good example of arenas for participatory practices. It is however important to observe that the
aforementioned studies often argue for causal relations while, in fact, they provide us with
statistical correlations. They have a tendency towards generalizations that undervalue the
contextual settings. Sometimes they offer quantitative measurements of Internet dimensions
that do not account for the possibile variety of meanings attributed by the citizens. In short,
these studies analyze practices that could be broadly labelled as e-participation, but they do
not describe in depth how e-participation relates to Spe, especially as far as the multifaceted
visions of the participants are concerned. To achieve this goal, the conventional quantitative
measurements of Spe prove inadequate.
While acknowledging the specific objectives of quantitative endeavours, I argue that the
concept of Spe can be fruitfully put into use in qualitative research to serve different goals.
Two studies support this conclusion. A study of youth political efficacy in New Zealand used
qualitative interviews to characterize the differences between young voters and non-voters
(Sheerin 2007). In another study focus groups were carried out in the Leeds area, United
Kingdom, in order to identify new media themes emerging from the discussion about local
issues and political efficacy dimensions (Coleman et al. 2008). Both works successfully
employ Spe as a guiding concept within a qualitative inquiry, thus allowing for unexpected
characterizations of the concept. On the same lines, this project embraces a qualitative
approach, although with different research objectives and within specific contextual settings.
In particular, I plan to probe into the perspective of the citizens with the goal of
researching how they define e-participation in terms of political efficacy. This allows us to
explore e-participation under a specific light, and to unveil the themes and the connections
that are concealed in the thoughts of the citizens. The task promotes a better understanding
and evaluation of e-participation, in contribution to the outlined e-participation research
agenda. In addition, this investigation gives the opportunity to better characterize the
relationship between e-participation and Spe, with a chance to take note of the citizens'
connotations of the efficacy concept. To this objective, the sense of political efficacy is freed
from a definitive connotation that reduces the concept to a rigid operationalization within a
standardized, pre-determined framework. Instead, it is used more as a sensitizing concept that
offers a “sense of reference and guidance” in approaching the empirical cases. “Whereas
definitive concepts provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merely suggest
directions along which to look” (Blumer 1954: 7; Flick 2009).
While addressed in light of Spe, e-participation can also be examined in connection to
other forms of political participation. The benefits of this additional element are at least two.
Firstly, the differential definition given by the respondents allows an examination and
evaluation of e-participation with reference to the scenario of political participation options
that they perceive as available. Secondly, the addition allows an identification of the
perceived connections between e-participation and other forms of engagement.
The project's introduction that has been offered brings to the following (provisional)
research questions, referred to the specific context of Italy and more specifically to two cases
of local e-forums in the Northern regions of Veneto and Lombardia:
•
•
•
How do the citizens define and evaluate local e-participation in terms of perceived
internal political efficacy?
How do the citizens define and evaluate local e-participation in terms of perceived
external political efficacy?
How do the citizens define and evaluate local e-participation with regard to other
forms of political participation?
5
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
References
Almond, Gabriel Abraham and Verba, Sidney (1963), The Civic Culture. Political attitudes and
democracy in five nations (pp. xi. 562. Princeton University Press: Princeton) 8º.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969), 'Ladder of citizen participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
35 (4), 216-24.
Åström, Joachim, Freschi, Anna Carola, and Montin, Stig (2010), 'Electronic and Representative
Democracy: A happy Couple? Comparing online Dialogues in the UK, Sweden and Italy', in
Erik Amnå (ed.), New Forms of Citizen Participation. Normative implications, European Civil
Society CINEFOGO (3; Mannheim: Nomos Publishers), 35-51.
Bachrach, Peter (1967), The theory of democratic elitism : a critique (Boston: Little, Brown) xiv, 109
p.
Balch, G. (1974), 'Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept 'Sense of Political Efficacy'',
Political Methodology, 1, 1-43.
Bandura, Albert (2001), 'Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication', Media Psychology, 3 (3),
265 - 99.
Barber, Benjamin R. (1984), Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age (Berkeley:
University of California Press) xvi, 320p.
Bowler, S. and Donovan, T. (2002), 'Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on
government', British Journal of Political Science, 32, 371-90.
Cammaerts, Bart and Carpentier, Nico (2005), 'The unbearable lightness of full participation in a global
context: WSIS and civil society participation'.
<http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/>.
Campbell, Angus, Gurin, Gerald, and Miller, Warren E. (1954), The voter decides (Evanston, Illinois:
Row, Peterson and Company) xiii, 242 p.
Coleman, Stephen and Spiller, Josephine (2003), 'Exploring new media effects on representative
democracy', The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9 (3), 1 - 16.
Coleman, Stephen and Blumler, Jay G. (2009), The Internet and democratic citizenship : theory,
practice and policy (Communication, society and politics; Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge
University Press) ix, 220 p.
Coleman, Stephen, Morrison, David E., and Svennevig, Michael (2008), New Media and Political
Efficacy (2008).
Curtice, John and Norris, Pippa (2004), 'E-politics? The Impact of the internet on political trust and
participation', in Alison Park, et al. (eds.), British Social Attitudes The 21st Report (London:
Sage), 99-118.
Dahl, Robert Alan (1963), Modern political analysis (Foundations of modern political science series;
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall) 118 p.
Dahlgren, Peter (2006), 'Doing citizenship', European Journal of Cultural Studies, 9 (3), 267-86.
--- (2009), Media and political engagement : citizens, communication, and democracy
(Communication, society and politics; Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press)
xi, 232 p.
Finkel, S. E. (1985), 'Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy : A panel analysis',
American Journal of Political Science, 29 (4), 891-913.
--- (1987), 'The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support : evidence from a
West-German panel', Journal of Politics, 49 (2), 441-64.
Freschi, Anna Carola (2007), 'Democrazia elettronica e partecipazione al tempo del neoliberismo',
Testimonianze. Galassia Internet, 452, 87-96.
Freschi, Anna Carola, Medaglia, Rony, and Nørbjerg, Jacob (2009), 'A Tale of Six Countries:
eParticipation Research from an Administration and Political Perspective', in Ann Macintosh
and Efthimios Tambouris (eds.), Electronic Participation (Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, 5694: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg), 36-45.
Grönlund, Åke (2009), 'ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy – eParticipation Development
Models Revisited', in Ann Macintosh and Efthimios Tambouris (eds.), Electronic
Participation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5694: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg), 1223.
6
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
Hacker, Kenneth L. (1996), 'Missing links in the evolution of electronic democratization', Media,
Culture & Society, 18 (2), 213-32.
Hague, Barry N. and Loader, Brian (1999), Digital democracy : discourse and decision making in the
Information Age (London ; New York: Routledge) 264p.
Held, David (1996), Models of democracy (2nd edn.; Cambridge: Polity) xiv, 392 p.
Hobbes, Thomas (1651), Leviathan, or, The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth
ecclesiasticall and civil, ed. Andrew Crooke (London: Printed for Andrew Ckooke [i.e.
Crooke], at the Green Dragon in St. Pauls Church-yard) [iv], 396 p.
Johnson, T. J. and Kaye, B. K. (2003), 'A boost or bust for democracy? How the Web influenced
political attitudes and behaviors in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections', Harvard
International Journal of Press-Politics, 8 (3), 9-34.
Keane, John (2009), The life and death of democracy (London: Simon & Schuster) xxxiii, 958 p.
Kenski, Kate and Stroud, Natalie Jomini (2006), 'Connections Between Internet Use and Political
Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation', Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50 (2),
173 - 92.
Kim, Ji-Young (2006), 'The impact of Internet use patterns on political engagement: A focus on online
deliberation and virtual social capital', Information Polity, 11 (1), 35-49.
Kim, Young Mie (2001), 'Better informed, no say : Internet news use and political efficacy', Annual
meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
(Washington DC), 238-65.
Kwan Min, Lee (2006), 'Effects of Internet Use on College Students' Political Efficacy',
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (4), 415-22.
Leighley, Jan E. (1995), 'Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political
Participation', Political Research Quarterly, 48 (1), 181-209.
Lippmann, Walter (1922), Public opinion (London: George Allen & Unwin) x, 427 p.
Locke, John (1690), Two treatises of government : in the former, the false principles, and foundation of
Sir Robert Filmer, and his followers, are detected and overthrown. The latter is an essay
concerning the true original, extent, and the end of civil government (London: A. Churchill)
271 (i.e. 467) p.
Machiavelli, Niccolò (1675), The works, eds J. H. P. Sankey and H. Nevile (London: J. S[tarkey])
(xxii), 529, (5, 15) p.
Macintosh, Ann and Whyte, Angus (2006), 'Evaluating how eParticipation changes local democracy',
in Z. Irani and A. Ghoneim (eds.), eGovernment Workshop 2006, eGov06 (London: Brunel
University).
Macintosh, Ann, Coleman, Stephen, and Schneeberger, Agnes (2009), 'eParticipation: The Research
Gaps', in Ann Macintosh and Efthimios Tambouris (eds.), Electronic participation : first
international conference, ePart 2009, Linz, Austria, September 1-3, 2009 : proceedings
(Berlin: Springer), 1-11.
Mason, Ronald M. (1982), Participatory and workplace democracy : a theoretical development in
critique of liberalism (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press) xix,248p.
Milbrath, Lester W. (1965), Political participation : how and why do people get involved in politics?
(Chicago: Rand McNally College Pub.) viii,195p.
Morrell, M. E. (2005), 'Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy',
Political Behavior, 27 (1), 49-69.
Ng, E. W. J. and Detenber, B. H. (2005), 'The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political
discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate', Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10 (3).
OECD (2001), Citizens as partners : information, consultation and public participation in policymaking (Paris: OECD) 267 p.
Parent, M., Vandebeek, C. A., and Gemino, A. C. (2005), 'Building citizen trust through e-government',
Government Information Quarterly, 22 (4), 720-36.
Pateman, Carole (1970), Participation and democratic theory (London: Cambridge U.P) [5],122p.
Polat, Rabia Karakaya (2005), 'The Internet and Political Participation: Exploring the Explanatory
Links', European Journal of Communication, 20 (4), 435-59.
Pratchett, Lawrence (2007), 'Local e-Democracy in Europe: Democratic X-ray as the Basis for
Comparative Analysis ', International Conference on Direct Democracy in Latin America
(Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Rodota, Stefano (1997), Tecnopolitica : la democrazia e le nuove tecnologie della comunicazione
(Sagittari Laterza ; 105; Roma \etc.!: Laterza) 174.
7
Prato Community Informatics Conference 2010 PhD Paper
Rose, Jeremy and Sanford, Clive (2007), 'Mapping eParticipation Research: Four Central Challenges',
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20, 909-43.
Schonfeld, W. R. (1975), 'The meaning of democratic participation', World Politics, 28 (1), 134-58.
Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1943), Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (London: G. Allen & Unwin
ltd) x, 381, [1] p.
Sheerin, Celia Anne (2007), Political Efficacy and Youth Non-Voting (Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller).
Tedesco, John C (2006), 'Web interactivity and political efficacy: Exploring effects on young citizens',
in A. P. Williams and J. C. Tedesco (eds.), The Internet Election (Rowman & Littlefield), 187202.
Thompson, Dennis F. (1970), The democratic citizen : social science and democratic theory in the
twentieth century (London: Cambridge University Press) xi, 271 p.
White, E. S. (1968), 'Intelligence and sense of political efficacy in children', Journal of Politics, 30 (3),
710-31.
Wright, J. D. (1975), 'Does acquiescence bias the index of political efficacy', Public Opinion Quarterly,
39 (2), 219-26.
8