Governance Practices and the Citizen–Government Relationship (CGR): Psychological Pathways to Political Participation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20252319Keywords:
Citizen–Government Relationship, Governance Practices, Political Empowerment, Political Participation, Individualistic Political AttitudesAbstract
Introduction: democratic engagement is shaped not only by institutional design but also by the quality of everyday interactions between citizens and government. Addressing a gap that often treats governance practices and civic behavior separately, this study models the citizen government relationship as a psychological pathway that links concrete governance practices to empowerment, attitudes, and political participation within Indonesia’s decentralized system.
Objective: to determine how five governance practices (administrative simplification, transparency, responsiveness, accountability, and rule of law) shape the citizen government relationship and, through it, political empowerment and participation within Indonesia’s decentralized context. We also quantify which practices most strongly predict relationship quality and test whether an individualistic political attitude weakens the link between relationship quality and participation.
Method: a cross sectional survey of 371 adults from 18 provinces used validated Likert scale measures covering governance practices, relationship quality, political empowerment, individualistic orientations, and participation. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was conducted in SmartPLS 4 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples. Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and model fit met recommended standards.
Results: administrative simplification, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, and accountability each showed significant positive effects on relationship quality. In turn, relationship quality increased political empowerment and produced a positive total effect on participation, including an indirect path through empowerment. More individualistic political attitudes weakened the translation of relationship quality into participation. Among the governance levers, rule of law and simplification exhibited the largest effects, indicating that clear rules and low friction services most strongly build trust and recognition.
Conclusions: governance experiences convert into civic action through relational and psychological mechanisms. Reform priorities should center on rule standardization and service simplification, followed by improvements in responsiveness, accountability, and transparency. By elevating relationship quality and strengthening empowerment, governments can foster broader and more durable forms of citizen participation.
References
1. He AJ, Ma L. Citizen Participation, Perceived Public Service Performance, and Trust in Government: Evidence from Health Policy Reforms in Hong Kong. Public Performance & Management Review. 2021;44(3): 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1780138.
2. Hue T, Sun MTW. Democratic Governance: Examining the Influence of Citizen Participation on Local Government Performance in Vietnam. International Journal of Public Administration. 2021;45: 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1939713.
3. Dalton RJ. Political Action, Protest, and the Functioning of Democratic Governance. American Behavioral Scientist. 2022;66(4): 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211021624.
4. Hansen FG. How impressions of public employees’ warmth and competence influence trust in government. International Public Management Journal. 2022;25(6): 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1963361.
5. Krawczyk KA, Sweet-Cushman J. Understanding political participation in West Africa: the relationship between good governance and local citizen engagement. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2017;83(1_suppl): 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315619024.
6. Escher T, Rottinghaus B. Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities. Policy & Internet. 2024;16(1): 173–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.371.
7. Aggarwal P. The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 2004;31(1): 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1086/383426.
8. Alvarez C, Fournier S. Consumers’ relationships with brands. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2016;10: 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.017.
9. Jang E, Arens ZG. Compensating for interpersonal relationships with brand relationships: A two-dimensional view. Journal of Business Research. 2023;157: 113575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113575.
10. Mack G, Kohler A, Heitkämper K, El-Benni N. Determinants of the perceived administrative transaction costs caused by the uptake of an agri-environmental program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2019;62(10): 1802–1819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1515311.
11. Silveira JT, Fidalgo De Freitas T, Fabião G, Assis Raimundo M. The Simplification of Procedures in Portuguese Administrative Law. Administrative Sciences. 2022;12(1): 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010009.
12. Scheinker D, Richman BD, Milstein A, Schulman KA. Reducing administrative costs in US health care: Assessing single payer and its alternatives. Health Services Research. 2021;56(4): 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13649.
13. Ananny M, Crawford K. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society. 2018;20(3): 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645.
14. Lin Y. Does Greater Market Transparency Reduce Information Asymmetry? Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. 2016;52(11): 2565–2584. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2015.1087786.
15. Erlich A, Berliner D, Palmer-Rubin B, Bagozzi BE. Media Attention and Bureaucratic Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2021;31(4): 687–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab001.
16. Richards J, Elby A, Luna MJ, Robertson AD, Levin DM, Nyeggen CG. Reframing the Responsiveness Challenge: A Framing-Anchored Explanatory Framework to Account for Irregularity in Novice Teachers’ Attention and Responsiveness to Student Thinking. Cognition and Instruction. 2020;38(2): 116–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1729156.
17. Brewer B. Citizen or customer? Complaints handling in the public sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2007;73(4): 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307083457.
18. Danhoundo G, Nasiri K, Wiktorowicz ME. Improving social accountability processes in the health sector in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1): 497. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5407-8.
19. Winter SL. ‘Who’ or ‘what’ is the rule of law? Philosophy & Social Criticism. 2022;48(5): 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211021148.
20. Gowder P. The Rule of Law and Equality. Law and Philosophy. 2013;32(5): 565–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9161-2.
21. Rasheed MA, Bajwa SU, Elahi NS. Do gender-inclusive HRM and fairness perception trigger paradigm shifts in female employees’ psychological empowerment patterns and career progression? Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2023-0131.
22. Singh SK, Singh AP. Interplay of organizational justice, psychological empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction in the context of circular economy. Management Decision. 2019;57(4): 937–952. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0966.
23. Tang X, Mai S, Wang L, Na M. The Influence of Organizational Fairness, Identity and Empowerment on Employee Creativity: Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility. SAGE Open. 2025;15(1): 21582440251328475. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251328475.
24. Armingeon K, Schädel L. Social Inequality in Political Participation: The Dark Sides of Individualisation. West European Politics. 2015;38(1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.929341.
25. Visser M, Gesthuizen M, Kraaykamp G. Work Values and Political Participation: A Cross-National Analysis. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2019;682(1): 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219830961.
26. Toikko T, Rantanen T. Association between individualism and welfare attitudes: An analysis of citizens’ attitudes towards the state’s welfare responsibility. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2020;8(1): 132–150. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i1.1162.
27. Pitlik H, Rode M. Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes. Journal of Institutional Economics. 2017;13(3): 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137416000564.
28. Talitha T, Firman T, Hudalah D. Welcoming two decades of decentralization in Indonesia: a regional development perspective. Territory, Politics, Governance. 2020;8(5): 690–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2019.1601595.
29. Sabani A, Thai V, Hossain MA. Factors Affecting Citizen Adoption of E-Government in Developing Countries: An Exploratory Case Study From Indonesia. Journal of Global Information Management. 2023;31(1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.318131.
30. Lukman S, Hakim A. Agile Governance, Digital Transformation, and Citizen Satisfaction Moderated by Political Stability in Indonesia’s Socio-Political Landscape. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies. 2024;11(1): 210–228. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/2001.
31. Yousaf M, Ihsan F, Ellahi A. Exploring the impact of good governance on citizens’ trust in Pakistan. Government Information Quarterly. 2016;33(1): 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.06.001.
32. Karpowitz CF, Patterson KD. Moral Individualism in Modern Politics: A New Measure Inspired by Political Theory. Perspectives on Politics. 2023;21(4): 1376–1398. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592723001019.
33. Koestner R. Reaching one’s personal goals: A motivational perspective focused on autonomy. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne. 2008;49(1): 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.60.
34. Sasaki F. Online Political Efficacy (OPE) as a Reliable Survey Measure of Political Empowerment When Using the Internet: Measuring Online Political Empowerment. Policy & Internet. 2016;8(2): 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.114.
35. Arshad S, Khurram S. Can government’s presence on social media stimulate citizens’ online political participation? Investigating the influence of transparency, trust, and responsiveness. Government Information Quarterly. 2020;37(3): 101486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101486.
36. Kock N. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration. 2015;11(4): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101.
37. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).. Third edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2022.
38. Wang C, Zhang X. Governance capacity, social justice, social security, and institutionalized political participation in China: A moderated mediation model. Chinese Public Administration Review. 2024;15(3): 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/15396754241252978.
39. Bingham LB, Nabatchi T, O’Leary R. The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review. 2005;65(5): 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x.
40. Marx P, Nguyen CG. Political participation in European welfare states: does social investment matter? Journal of European Public Policy. 2018;25(6): 912–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401109.
41. Han H. The Organizational Roots of Political Activism: Field Experiments on Creating a Relational Context. American Political Science Review. 2016;110(2): 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541600006X.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 M.Fachri Adnan, Hasbullah Malau, Suryanef, Al Rafni, Afriva Khaidir, Muhammad Afdhal Arrazak, Alfi Husni Fansurya (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
