Introduction: Participatory Budgeting as Community-Based Work

Introduction

Participatory budgeting (PB) represents a new imagination, whereby ordinary citizens have appreciable input into the formation of local municipal budgets (Lerner, 2014). Many commentators believe that this process will help to change the current social conditions, which in many communities are quite dire. Racial and economic disparities, for example, are on the rise in many locales.

PB is a process whereby community members meet regularly to discuss the need for funds to address local issues (Wampler, 2012). Solutions are debated and decisions are made about how to fund these remedies. In the end, the point is to offer alternative budget proposals that are designed to improve local conditions.

Participatory budgeting is part of a new strategy to social planning and change. This novel approach is known as community-based work (CBW). What is important to recognize is that this option represents an entirely new philosophy of how social interventions should be planned, implemented, and evaluated (Israel, et al., 1998; Murphy, 2014). The basic idea is that when economic or other projects are community-based, any proposals will be more relevant and sustainable.

Participatory budgeting projects progress through several stages that are built from the ground up and organized to foster inclusion (Gilman, 2016). Local participation is thus the centerpiece of this practice, whereas traditional planning models focus on professionals or high-level administrators and the knowledge that they bring to bear on an issue. Local perspectives are thus regularly marginalized or treated as providing simply anecdotal evidence. What is important to recognize is that PB attempts to reverse this trend and elevate local participation in importance.

Community-Based Work

PB rests on what Orlando Fals-Borda (1988) calls “authentic participation.” Two principles are at the core of this idea. The first is that local knowledge matters, while the second is that local persons should control every intervention. In contrast to the usual top-down model, local persons are treated as experts. That is, they are presumed to have the skills and wherewithal necessary to assess complex issues and develop appropriate solutions to community problems.

Particularly noteworthy is that local agency, or action, plays a new role in how communities solve problems (Murphy, 2014). Whereas in the past professionals were encouraged to control local projects, due to their education and expertise, those who promote CBW challenge this premise. No longer are local persons passive partners, at best, in the development of local interventions. In fact, authentic participation is thought to benefit communities in many ways. In addition to generating more socially attuned projects, skill and confidence building occurs along with community autonomy.

PB expands the position of local persons in social life. As they engage the budgeting process, and offer alternative proposals, a more intense sense of community is fostered (Gilman, 2016). And on the practical side, the budget priorities of municipalities may begin to change and reflect local needs and values. What some writers call moral or ethical budgets may be produced, as communities gradually become empowered. In other words, improved equity and efficacy may be the result of participatory budgeting (Wampler, 2007).

Phases of Participatory Budgeting

Given the emphasis on local involvement, readers may sense that this approach to budgeting differs from traditional practices. In the past, municipal budgets were controlled by accountants and other civil servants, with little public participation and transparency (Ebdon & Franklin, 2006). Sometimes public hearings are required by law and placed on the budget calendar. But by the time those meetings are convened, the allocation of funds is practically finalized and changes are likely only on the margins. What PB does is try to move community participation up in the process.

The usual phases of PB are as follows:

Establish a budget forum

Although not necessarily implemented ad seriatim, a logic is present that is consistent with community-based work. Throughout the growth of a participatory budgeting project, a particular theme should not be forgotten. That is, the budget process should not be portrayed to be beyond the bailiwick of ordinary citizens.

General Aim of Participatory Budgeting

As should be noted, PB is not simply about money. Within the context of community-based work, this process can enhance human agency, social inclusion, and the democratization of civic life (Cabannes, 2004). At the heart of this process is the desire to create a moral economy, where everyone fits and can play an instrumental part. By encouraging a spirit of collaboration and the generation of wise budgets, the overall well-being of a community can be elevated in importance.

Here is where social justice enters the picture. Clearly, community life can be enriched with a local focus on funding, but something additional can occur (Wampler, 2007). That is, as persons and communities learn about one another, including their strengths and vulnerabilities, a sense of solidarity can develop. Simply put, they may begin to watch out for one another and strive to establish fair and honest relationships based on trust.

Once solidarity becomes paramount, empowerment will not be a frivolous notion. Communities can move forward together in concert, rather than as loose associations, and engage regularly in mutual aid. With some effort, the growing disparities between communities in terms of wealth and health, for example, will no longer be treated as natural and inevitable. While emphasizing the communal character of social life, eliminating inequity and injustice will seem logical and necessary. Individuals and communities may begin to act as if they are connected and rise or fall together.

Guide to the Special Issue

Callaghan and Horn lead this volume by supplying a brief history of the participation movement in social planning. Their key point is that this orientation breaks with the typical top-down approach and, therefore, is often resisted by local officials. PB, accordingly, will likely face similar challenges if this strategy is approached as community-based work. Nonetheless, these authors are correct in claiming that the missing element in most PB projects is that they have not been community-based, and thus, despite good intentions, have regularly drifted away from local control. To be effective, PB should be viewed as community-based work, even if local officials may chafe at this prospect.

Touchton, McNulty, and Wampler provide some interesting insight into an important side of PB that is suggested by Callaghan and Horn. Specifically, if tied closely to communities this approach to budgeting benefits civil society is many ways. For example, there is increased participation in governance and, thus, enhanced transparency and accountability. Additionally, social services increase and improve. But as they note, the design of PB is crucial—care must be taken so that these programs do not move away from the control of communities and become a tool of politicians and administrative officials.

Murphy and Casanova tie PB to community-based philosophy. Their principle idea is that PB works best when grounded in this theoretical outlook. Although PB may be a practical affair, philosophy comes into play. This philosophy requires that local knowledge guide all interventions and that communities control every facet of developing a PB project. In this way, the democratizing potential of PB can come to fruition. Additionally, neighborhood projects can be created that have local support, and thus are sustainable in the long-term.

Arín Martínez strives to introduce the issues of power and positionality into PB. Clearly, when working in communities, these processes are important. Most often, however, a global perspective on these topics is offered; that is, they are addressed in very general terms as likely influences. What is important in Martínez’s work is that she illustrates how power and positionality are manifested in every phase of a PB project, often in very subtle ways. Accordingly, all of the participants must be aware of the damage that can be done if the influence of these factors is not openly confronted in every stage of PB.

There is an assumption, and some research, on the theme that PB leads to social justice, due to the participation of local persons in the development of municipal budgets (Lerner, 2014). But this connection is often not made clear in theory or practice. Choi links PB, particularly as a community-based endeavor, to the promotion of democracy and the social justice that should be part of this style of governance. Before this goal can be achieved, the radical roots of PB must be recognized, along with viewing this activity as an approach to community organizing. In fact, this linkage is important because seldom is community organizing treated as a component of PB.

At the heart of PB is the solicitation of money to fund neighborhood improvement projects. Various models are available to frame this process. Some cities, for example, set aside funds to support neighborhood construction and other plans. In this paper, Choyke, Cronin, and Franz explore a very viable option that has received scant attention in PB circles. That is, anchor institutions that are expected to establish partnerships with the surrounding communities, such as hospitals, can dispense the money by allowing their neighbors to participate in this process. In this way, these organizations can fulfill their mandates and become locally grounded.

José Martínez-Martínez and Viesca address a central element of PB, that is, the issue of citizen motivation. PB will not operate properly if citizens are not motivated to engage in this activity for the long-term. Their basic point is that persons need incentives to continue their participation. An important solution to this issue is that PB projects be rooted in communities, so that everyone feels involved, begins to trust the process, and can experience first-hand some success. Because these persons are mostly volunteers, they savor these sorts of rewards. This solution seems obvious but is difficult to effect. Nonetheless, the civic benefits that are often associated with PB will not be realized without resolving this issue.

The final paper, provided by Evans and Fernández-Burgos, addresses the issue of empowerment that is often associated with PB. Their argument is that many modes of power pervade this process, some visible and others invisible, that are sometimes overlooked by PB projects. Therefore, the societal changes that could be brought about by PB are not realized, since local efforts are sidetracked. The corrective that they advance is to move beyond empowerment, which is regularly too narrowly focused on individual capacity-building and self-expression, to the exercise of community power where the emphasis is shifted to the reallocation of resources and changing the traditional relations of power. Communities that have been marginalized may thus be able to become more self-directed.

Conclusion

The aim of this issue of the American Behavioral Scientist is to introduce PB, particularly as a version of community-based work. The opinion of the contributors is that unless this link is established, PB will not be grounded in communities and, thus, have limited success. At this time, a PB project is underway in Miami through the collaboration of the University of Miami, a community agency called Urbangreenworks, and the residents of a section of this city called Liberty City. Many of the insights expressed in this issue have been derived from this project.

Additionally, the contributors have either conducted research on PB or have been involved for years in community-based practice, including PB, and often both. However, as a community-based activity, much of PB is not about the money, although funds are needed to make life livable in many underserved communities. In this sense, the budget assemblies are often touted to be the centerpiece of PB, where budget decisions are made and funds are allocated. But anyone who has worked on PB projects realizes that many of the surprises and victories happen before these meetings are convened. Especially exciting is when groups come together, maybe for the first time, to solve their community’s problems and experience some hope that collective action is possible. In this regard, the process of PB is often as important as the outcome. This insight should not be lost on those who want to organize these projects. Community growth occurs during some of the unsung facets of PB.