Hiroko Kudo
ABSTRACT
"Smart Cities" are assumed to be based on smart technology, smart people or smart collaboration, assigning citizens significant roles. Despite increasing "citizen participation" in the discourse, there is very little debate on their socio-political implications. While some argue that ICT will enhance democratic debate and empower citizens [45, 18, 8], others concern about the development of Smart Cities "without critical discussions and 'politics'" [55, 5, 53] and notice the lack of attention for the politics of technical choices. This applies in particular to Smart Cities, since they require citizens to change behaviour according to quantitative targets and technological features. Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) launched its Smart City project in 2010. The government set specific criteria in order to ensure the "participation of all the stakeholders" (among which the citizens) and the "lifestyle innovation" [22]. The paper analyses information provided by semi-structured interviews to stakeholders of Japanese Smart Cities; the tools of citizen involvement proved effective in promoting cooperation and achieving significant outcomes in terms of energy consumption reductions, this involvement has not allowed any political debate about core issues such as Smart City, sustainability, and policies. METI and Japanese Smart Cities risk the potential for social innovation [7]. Research on behaviour change and sustainability also suggests that such situation is likely to hinder more significant shift towards sustainable lifestyles [56, 50]. Drawing on analysis of official documents as well as on interviews with each of the four Smart Communities' stakeholders, the paper explains that very little input is expected from Japanese citizens. Instead, ICTs are used by municipalities and electric utilities to steer project participants and to change their behaviour. The objective of Smart Communities would not be to involve citizens in city governance, but rather to make them participate in the co-production of public services, mainly energy production and distribution.
- Akrivopoulou, C. M. 2013. Digital Democracy and the Impact of Technology on Governance and Politics: New Globalized Practices, IGI Global. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bardach, E. 1998. Getting agencies to work together. The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship, Brookings, Washington.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, T. 2007. "Beyond Engagement & Participation: User & Community Co-Production of Public Services", Public Administration Review, 67 (5): 846--860. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carabias, V., C. Moser, D. Wilherlmer, K. Kubeczko, and N. Ruben. 2013. The importance of participatory foresight on the way towards smart cities, IFA Academic Seminar 2013.Google Scholar
- Catney, P. and T. Doyle 2011. The welfare of now and the green (post)politics of the future. Critical Social Policy 31(2): 174--193. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christensen, J. G. 2000. The Dynamics of Decentralization and Recentralization, Public Administration, 78 (2): 389--407. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dewit, A. 2014. Japan's Rollout of Smart Cities: What Role for the Citizens? スマートシティーが公開されるなか、日本の市民の役割とは. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 11(24-2): June 16. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Andrew-DeWit/4131.Google Scholar
- Dvir R. and E. Pasher 2004. Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. Journal of knowledge management 8(5): 16--27. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fedele, P. and E. Ongaro. 2008. A Common Trend, Different Houses: Devolution in Italy, Spain and the UK, Public Money and Management, 28(2): 85--92. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ferlie, E., L. Ashburner, L. Fitzgerald, and A. Pettinngrew. 1996. New Public Management in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fortin, M-J and Y. Fournis. 2011. L'acceptabilité sociale de projets énergétiques au Québec: la difficile construction par l'action publique, Symposium Territoire et Environnement: des représentations à l'action, Tours, December 8 & 9, 2011.Google Scholar
- Gramberger, M. R. 2001. Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-making, OECD.Google Scholar
- Grossi, G. and R. Mussari. 2008. Effects of Outsourcing on Performance Measurement and Reporting: The Experience of Italian Local Governments, Public Budgeting and Finance, 28 (1): 22--38. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gutiérrez, V., J. A. Galache, L. Sánchez, L. Muñoz, J. M. Hernandez-Muñoz, J. Fernandes and M. Presser. 2013. SmartSantander: Internet of Things Research and Innovation through Citizen Participation, in: FIA 2013, LNCS 7858, Galis, A. and A. Gavras, eds., pp. 173--186. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hague, B. M. and B. Loader. 1999. Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age, Routledge. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hood, C. 1995. "The 'New Public Management' in the 1980s: variations on a theme", Accounting Organization and Society, 20 (2/3): 93--109. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hutchcroft, P. D. 2001. "Centralization and Decentralization in Administration and Politics: Assessing Territorial Dimensions of Authority and Power", Governance, 14 (1): 23--53. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ishikawa, Y. 2002. Calls for deliberative democracy in Japan, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2): 331--345. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ito, K., T. Ida, and M. Tanaka. 2013. Using Dynamic Electricity Pricing to Address Energy Crises Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments, Mimeo, available online at: http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~ida/4Hoka/smagri/20133023Ito_Ida_Tanaka_Dynamic_Pricing.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Karlin B. 2012. "Public acceptance of smart meters: Integrating psychology and practice" in ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 102--113.Google Scholar
- Kavanaugh, A., S. Krishnan, M. Pérez-Quiñones, J. Tedesco, K. Madondo and A. Ahju. 2014. Encouraging civic participation through local news aggregation, Information Polity 19(1--2): 35--56.Google Scholar
- Kettl, D. F. 2000. "The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and the Role of Government", Public Administration Review, 60 (6): 488--497. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kudo, H. 2010. "E-Governance as Strategy of Public Sector Reform: Peculiarity of Japanese IT Policy and its Institutional Origin", Financial Accountability & Management, 26 (1): 65--84. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mabi, C., M.-H. Sa Vilas Boas and M. Nonjon. Comprendre la signification politique des technologies, in: Digital Polis. La ville face au numérique, A. De Biase, N. Ottaviano and O. Zaza, eds., to be published.Google Scholar
- Macintosh, A., S. Coleman and A. Schneeberger. 2009. eParticipation: The research gaps, Electronic participation 5694: 1--11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maréchal, K. 2010. "Not irrational but habitual: The importance of "behavioural lock-in" in energy consumption", Ecological Economics, 69 (5): 1104--1114. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marres, N. 2011. "The cost of public involvement: everyday devices of carbon accounting and the materialization of participation", Economy and Society, 40: 510--533. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marres, N. 2012. Material Participation: Technology, The Environment and Everyday Publics, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maruyama, Y., M., Nishikodo and T. Iida. 2007. "The rise of community wind power in Japan: Enhanced acceptance through social innovation", Energy Policy, 35: 2761--2769. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Millward, P. 2003. The "grey digital divide": Perception, exclusion and barrier of access to the Internet for Older People, First Monday 8(7). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2010), press release materials regarding "Demonstration of Next-Generation Energy and Social Systems" (mostly on: http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20100408_01.html and its original Japanese version)Google Scholar
- Monnoyer-Smith, L. 2011. Communication et délibération. Enjeux technologiques et mutations citoyennes, Hermès, Paris.Google Scholar
- Moore, M. 1995. Creating public value. Strategic Management in government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Muhlberger, P., J. Stromer-Galley and N. Webb. 2011. Public policy and obstacles to the virtual agora: Insights from the deliberative e-rulemaking project, Information Polity 16(3): 197--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mussari, R. 2005. Le performance dell'azienda pubblica locale, Cedam, Padova.Google Scholar
- OECD, 2003. Managing Decentralisation: A New Role for Labour Market Policy, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Publishing.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Okimoto, D. I., 1989, Between MITI and the Market: Japanese Industrial Policy for High Technology, Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Olson, O., J. Guthrie, and C. Humphrey. 1998. Global Warning! Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management, Cappelen Akademisk ForlagGoogle Scholar
- Ongaro, E. 2006. "The dynamics of devolution processes in legalistic countries: organizational change in the Italian public sector", Public Administration, 84 (3): 737--770. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Osborne, S. 2006. The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, 8 (3): 377--387. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Osborne, S. (ed.). 2010. The New Public Governance, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- Pestoff, V. 2011. "New Public Governance and Accountability: Some Jewels in a Treasure Chest", CIES Centro de Investigación de Economía y Sociedad, N.91.Google Scholar
- Peters, B. G. and D. J. Savoie (eds.). 2000. Governance in the Twenty-first Century -- Revitalizing the Public Service, McGill-Queen's University Press, Canada.Google Scholar
- Pollitt, C., J. Birchall, And K. Putman. 1998. Decentralising Public Service Management, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
- Rifkin, J. 2011. The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Sabouret, J.-F. 2007. L'Empire de l'intelligence. Politiques scientifiques et technologiques du Japon depuis 1945, CNRS Editions. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sancton, A. 2000. Merger Mania. The Assault on Local Government, McGill-Queen's, London.Google Scholar
- Sanford, C. and J. Rose. 2007. Characterizing eParticipation, International Journal of Information Management, 27(6): 406--421. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanne, C. 2002. "Willing consumers or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption", Ecological Economics, 42: 273--287. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shove, E. 2004. Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption. In Reisch, L.A. and I. Ropke (Eds.). The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 111--131. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simard, L. 2013. Repenser la démocratie participative dans le secteur de l'énergie, Mémoire déposé dans le cadre de la commission sur les enjeux énergétique du Québec.Google Scholar
- Steg, L. 2008. "Promoting household energy conservation", Energy Policy, 36: 4449--4453. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Swyngedouw, E. 2007. Impossible 'sustainability' and the postpolitical condition. In: Krueger, R. and D. Gibbs (Eds) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe, New York: Guilford Press. 13--40.Google Scholar
- Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Vanolo, A. 2014. Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies, 51 (5), 883--998. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wilhite, H. 2007, Will efficient technologies save the world? A call for new thinking on the ways that end-use technologies affect energy using practices. ECEEE 2007 Summer Study Saving Energy -- Just do it!Google Scholar
- Wolsink, M. 2012. "The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smartgrids: Renewable as common pool resources" in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16: 822--835. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wüstenhagen, R., M. Wolsink, and M. J. Burer. 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept" in Energy Policy, 35: 2683--2691. Google Scholar
- Citizen Co-designed and Co-produced Smart City: Japanese Smart City Projects
Recommendations
Citizen participation in smart cities: a survey
SCA '19: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Smart City ApplicationsSmart cities have reached unprecedented growth because they deal with all urban development problems using information and communication technologies (ICT). The main purpose of smart cities is to suggest innovative solutions in many fields like security,...
Analyzing Citizen Participation and Engagement in European Smart Cities
With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and ...
Models for citizen engagement in Latin American: case studies of public digital budgeting
ICEGOV '09: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governanceThe paper aims to study the relationship between information and communication technologies and local governance. For that purpose the experiences of the use of Internet in participatory budgeting will be studied. Participatory Budget (PB) involves the ...
Comments