| Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have developed rapidly in the last decade. They offer unprecedented information processing speed, information storage, and information transmission via multiple modes. Technology enthusiasts claim that these ICTs represent the advent of an “Information Revolution,” and focus on the decentralization and democratization of political systems and political processes, forced by the very nature of the new ICTs.; This dissertation seeks to provide a critical investigation of enthusiasts' claims by determining whether there is a link between this new generation of ICTs and the effectiveness of grassroots groups in the political system. The outcome of the disputes in which these groups are involved is related to their level of ICT use. Specifically, this study will answer whether the use of ICTs by grassroots groups enabled them to overcome the resource constraints and barriers that are inherent to local mobilization efforts.; Quantitative and qualitative approaches were used to determine whether ICT use by local grassroots groups affects the outcome of land-use or “Not-in-My-Backyard” disputes. This dual approach was used to garner the benefits of survey research, which provides a broad scope of information by allowing for the collection of information from a wide spectrum of groups, environmental organizations, and waste management companies; and case study research, which provides an in-depth understanding of linkages and provides the depth of context that is critical in understanding something so complex as the effects of ICTs on the political system.; Contrary to ICT enthusiasts' predictions, the findings suggest that ICTs have not compensated for groups' resource constraints. Many of the groups had neither the technical know-how nor the time and resources to sift through, maintain, and utilize such technology and the large amount of information. Furthermore, dominant/elite groups have continued to ensure their relative power advantage in issue struggles by taking advantage of the same ICTs as grassroots groups while still retaining their advantage in the use of traditional resources. Additionally, the development, implementation, and integration of ICTs has not been toward democratic deliberation but rather market-oriented, one-way communication. Finally, the channels of communication in these disputes are based on traditional methods. Thus, ICTs have not been institutionalized into the pathways of communication with decision makers such that they are received and treated similar to traditional methods of communication. |
