Do monetary or nonmonetary incentives promote citizens' use of a government crowdsourcing: A case of the City of Omaha's 311-type of crowdsourcing platform
Corresponding Author
Danbee Lee
Department of Public Administration, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea
Correspondence
Danbee Lee, 815, Sangsang-Gwan, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorYeonkyung Kim
School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJooho Lee
School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Danbee Lee
Department of Public Administration, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, South Korea
Correspondence
Danbee Lee, 815, Sangsang-Gwan, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 01811, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorYeonkyung Kim
School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJooho Lee
School of Public Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enIncreasing numbers of local governments have adopted crowdsourcing platforms to engage citizens in public service provisions. As citizen engagement plays a critical role in the success of government crowdsourcing, we focus on incentive strategies to facilitate it. While studies have considered monetary incentives the primary motivator traditionally, recent research has examined the potency of nonmonetary strategies that stimulate citizens' territorial or civic motivation. Linking the coproduction framework of incentives to expectancy theories as a theoretical framework, we compare the effects of those incentives with vignette experiments that include Omahahotline—a 311-type of government crowdsourcing platform run by the City of Omaha. The results show that not just a material incentive but also a solidary incentive increases residents' willingness to participate in the platform effectively. By conducting experiments with Omaha residents, we offer implications for local governments to use effective incentive strategies to engage citizens in the government crowdsourcing platform.
초록
ko지방 정부들의 크라우드소싱 플랫폼을 활용한 시민들에 대한 공공 서비스 제공이 점점 증가하고 있다. 시민들의 참여가 부족하면 정부 크라우드소싱은 성공하기 어렵다. 이 연구는 시민들의 크라우드소싱 플랫폼 참여를 촉진하기 위한 지방정부의 인센티브 전략에 초점을 맞춘다. 기존 크라우드소싱 문헌에서는 금전적 인센티브가 참여 동기에 영향을 준다고 보고 있지만, 최근 연구에서는 시민들의 지역에 대한 애착 및 시민의식 같은 비금전적 인센티브 전략에 대한 논의가 이루어지고 있다. 이 연구에서는 공동생산 연구의 인센티브 프레임워크와 기대이론을 이론적 틀로 이용하여 미국 네브라스카 주의 오마하 시에서 운영하는 311 유형의 크라우드소싱 플랫폼인 오마하핫라인(Omahahotline)에 대한 빈예뜨 실험을 통해 이러한 인센티브의 효과를 비교했다. 그 결과 금전적 이익과 같은 물질적 인센티브 뿐 아니라 지역사회에 대한 이익을 강조하는 연대적(solidary) 인센티브가 주민들의 플랫폼 참여 의지를 효과적으로 높인다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 이를 통해 지방정부가 크라우드소싱 플랫폼에 효과적으로 시민참여를 도모할 수 있는 인센티브 전략에 대한 시사점을 제공한다.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| padm12985-sup-0001-Supinfo.binapplication/bin, 2.3 KB | DATA S1. Supporting Information. |
| padm12985-sup-0002-Tables.docxWord 2007 document , 14.7 KB | TABLE S1. The percentage of respondents' opinion about the relevance of $5 for the participation. TABLE S2. The percentage of respondents who had the vignette-reward matching correct. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Aitamurto, T. & Saldivar, J. (2017) Motivating participation in crowdsourced policymaking: the interplay of epistemic and interactive aspects. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), pp. 1–22.
- Alford, J. (2002) Defining the client in the public sector: a social-exchange perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 337–346.
- Ansell, C. & Miura, S. (2020) Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance? Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276.
- Berg, A., Giest, S.N., Groeneveld, S.M. & Kraaij, W. (2020) Inclusivity in online platforms: recruitment strategies for improving participation of diverse sociodemographic groups. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 989–1000.
- Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T. & O'Leary, R. (2005) The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
- Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G.G., Loeffler, E. & Parrado, S. (2015) Activating citizens to participate in collective coproduction of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1), 1–23.
- Brabham, D.C. (2013) Crowdsourcing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/9693.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Brüggen, A. & Strobel, M. (2007) Real effort versus chosen effort in experiments. Economics Letters, 96(2), 232–236.
- Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. & Bloomberg, L. (2014) Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.
- Chapman, J. (2019) City now taking ‘hotline’ complaints. https://www.wowt.com/content/news/New-pipeline-for-getting-your-complaints-to-the-city-504445261.html
- Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. & Kallgren, C.A. (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.
- Clark, B.Y. & Brudney, J.L. (2019) Citizen representation in city government-driven crowdsourcing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28(5), 883–910.
- Clark, B.Y., Brudney, J.L. & Jang, S.-G. (2013) Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701.
- Crawford, A. & Wulkan, I. (2012) Federal Prize Competitions. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Federal-Prize-Competitions.pdf
- Doran, G.T. (1981) There'sa SMART way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
- England, R.E., Pelissero, J.P. & Morgan, D.R. (2016) Managing urban America. Washington D.C.: C.Q. Press.
- Frederickson, H.G. (1971) Toward a new public administration. In: Toward a new public administration: the Minnowbrook perspective. Tuscaloosa, AL: University Alabama Press, pp. 309–331.
- Frey, B.S. & Jegen, R. (2000) Motivation crowding theory: a survey of empirical evidence, revised version. Working Paper Series/Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, 49.
- Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000) Pay enough or don't pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.
- Hargittai, E. & Shaw, A. (2020) Comparing internet experiences and prosociality in Amazon mechanical Turk and population-based survey samples. Socius, 6, 2378023119889834.
10.1177/2378023119889834 Google Scholar
- Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.
- Howe, J. (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, 14(6), 1–4.
- Kaufmann, N., Schulze, T. & Veit, D. (2011) More than fun and money. Worker motivation in crowdsourcing: a study on mechanical turk.
- Kim, S. & Lee, J. (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828.
- Kim, S. & Lee, J. (2019) Citizen participation, process, and transparency in local government: an exploratory study. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 1026–1047.
- Kontokosta, C.E., Hong, B. & Korsberg, K. (2017) Equity in 311 reporting: understanding socio-spatial differentials in the propensity to complain. ArXiv, abs/1710.02452.
- Lee, J. (2022) A review of empirical research on citizen participation in government crowdsourcing platforms: lessons for government leaders and managers. Informatization Policy, 29(1), 3–23.
- Lee, J. & Kim, S. (2018) Citizens' e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Public Management Review, 20(6), 873–896.
- Lee, S., & Na, C. (2023) Why citizens engage in Co-Production: A Theoretical Framework and Experimental Evidence. Public Performance & Management Review, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2288054
- Letki, N. & Steen, T. (2021) Social-psychological context moderates incentives to coproduce: evidence from a large-scale survey experiment on park upkeep in an urban setting. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 935–950.
- Liu, H.K. (2017) Crowdsourcing government: lessons from multiple disciplines. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 656–667.
- Liu, H.K. (2021) Crowdsourcing: Citizens as coproducers of public services. Policy & Internet, 13(2), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.249
- Lodge, M. & Wegrich, K. (2015) Crowdsourcing and regulatory reviews: a new way of challenging red tape in British government? Regulation & Governance, 9(1), 30–46.
- Marjanovic, S., Fry, C. & Chataway, J. (2012) Crowdsourcing based business models: in search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy, 39(3), 318–332.
- Martinez, M.G. & Walton, B. (2014) The wisdom of crowds: the potential of online communities as a tool for data analysis. Technovation, 34(4), 203–214.
- Mayer, M. (2019) Examining community dynamics of civic crowdfunding participation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 28(5), 961–975.
10.1007/s10606-018-9307-3 Google Scholar
- Mergel, I. (2018) Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of challenge.gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726–745.
- Mergel, I. & Desouza, K.C. (2013) Implementing open innovation in the public sector: the case of challenge. Gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890.
- Minkoff, S.L. (2016) NYC 311: a tract-level analysis of citizen–government contacting in new York City. Urban Affairs Review, 52(2), 211–246.
- Moon, M.J. (2018) Evolution of coproduction in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based coproduction in Korea. Policy and Society, 37(3), 294–309.
- Nam, T. (2012) Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20.
- O'Brien, D.T. (2015) Custodians and custodianship in urban neighborhoods: a methodology using reports of public issues received by a city's 311 hotline. Environment and Behavior, 47(3), 304–327.
- O'Brien, D.T., Offenhuber, D., Baldwin-Philippi, J., Sands, M. & Gordon, E. (2017) Uncharted territoriality in coproduction: the motivations for 311 reporting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 320–335.
- Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing government. London: Penguin Publishing Group.
- Ostrom, E. (2000) Crowding out citizenship. Scandinavian Political Studies, 23(1), 3–16.
- Perry, J.L. (1996) Measuring public service motivation: an assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303 Google Scholar
- Pestoff, V. (2006) Citizens and coproduction of welfare services: childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–519.
- Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. & Dirks, K.T. (2001) Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310.
- Porumbescu, G.A., Cucciniello, M. & Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2020) Accounting for citizens when explaining open government effectiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 101451.
- Rainey, H.G. (2014) Understanding and managing public organizations (5th). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Riccucci, N.M., Van Ryzin, G.G. & Li, H. (2016) Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: an experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.
- Roberts, N. (2004) Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
- Rodriguez Müller, A.P., Lerusse, A., Steen, T., & Van De Walle, S. (2024) What motivates users to report service-related issues? A study on coproduction in a smart public service. Public Administration, 102(2), 691–714. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12946
10.1111/padm.12946 Google Scholar
- Schmidthuber, L., Hilgers, D. & Randhawa, K. (2020) Public crowdsourcing: analyzing the role of government feedback on civic digital platforms. Public Administration, 100, 960–977.
- Schmidthuber, L., Piller, F., Bogers, M. & Hilgers, D. (2019) Citizen participation in public administration: investigating open government for social innovation. R&D Management, 49(3), 343–355.
- Sheehan, K.B. (2018) Crowdsourcing research: data collection with Amazon's mechanical turk. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 140–156.
- Sun, Y., Wang, N., Yin, C. & Che, T. (2012) Investigating the non-linear relationships in the expectancy theory: the case of crowdsourcing marketplace. In 18th Americas conference on information systems 2012, AMCIS 2012, pp. 86–96.
- Surowiecki, J. (2004) The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business. New York, NY: Random House.
- Taeihagh, A. (2017) Crowdsourcing: a new tool for policy-making? Policy Sciences, 50(4), 629–647.
- Thapa, B.E., Niehaves, B., Seidel, C.E. & Plattfaut, R. (2015) Citizen involvement in public sector innovation: government and citizen perspectives. Information Polity, 20(1), 3–17.
10.3233/IP-150351 Google Scholar
- Thomas, J.C. (2013) Citizen, customer, partner: rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796.
- Voorberg, W., Jilke, S., Tummers, L. & Bekkers, V. (2018) Financial rewards do not stimulate coproduction: evidence from two experiments. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 864–873.
- Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and motivation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Walsh, K. (1991) Citizens and consumers: marketing and public sector management. Public Money & Management, 11(2), 9–16.
10.1080/09540969109387649 Google Scholar
- Willems, J., Faulk, L. & Boenigk, S. (2021) Reputation shocks and recovery in public-serving organizations: the moderating effect of mission valence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(2), 311–327.
- Wilson, J.Q. (1973) Political organizations. NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Xu, C.K. & Tang, T. (2020) Closing the gap or widening the divide: the impacts of technology-enabled coproduction on equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 962–975.
