Abstract
Participatory budgeting (PB) is increasingly being used by local governments. The first American PB process was in Chicago in 2009 and built upon processes developed in Brazil. The adoption of PB programs in the United States has been closely tied to deliberative democracy and public engagement scholarship. As a result, PB research has benefited from detailed evaluations conducted as the first PB programs were implemented. This review essay also identifies research findings and topics for additional research. Public administration scholars and practitioners can especially contribute to this emerging literature by examining budget outcomes and the perspectives of public sector employees.
Participatory budgeting (PB) stands out as both a civic engagement and budgeting innovation because members of the public generate and then vote on funding proposals. PB certainly gives residents more influence than provided through typical venues like public hearings, workshops, advisory committees, and neighborhood outreach (Berner and Smith 2004; Herian 2011; Institute for Local Government 2010; Matkin 2010). Even new financial transparency dashboards and online budget simulations fall short of giving the public a full voice in budget decisions (Bernick et al. 2014; Mallinson 2018).
The Participatory Budgeting Project’s (PBP) slogan, “Real Money, Real Power” encapsulates the main distinction between PB and other forms of public participation in budgeting. PB belongs on one of the top rungs of Arnstein’s (1969) oft-cited ladder of citizen participation. The multiphase PB process also matches up well with the Spectrum of Public Participation (International Association of Public Participation 2014); participants move across the Spectrum’s categories (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower) as participants develop budget proposals, evaluate feasibility, and vote.
PB processes in the United States are modeled after processes first developed in 1989 in Porto Alegre, Brazil (Baiocchi 2003; Smith 2009). While there are number of variations in how PB has been implemented in other countries and continents, PB was brought to the United States by academic scholars who had primarily observed Brazilian-style PB processes. In particular, Josh Lerner, the founding executive director of PBP, studied deliberative democracy processes in Canada and South America for his master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation.
Lerner and other founders of PBP provided critical support for the first American PB process, which started in a Chicago council ward in 2009. According to PBP’s (2017b) Scoping Toolkit, PBP has assisted at least seventeen cities in processes that have resulted in hundreds of winning proposals. 1 PB has been adopted in council districts in larger American cities and implemented citywide in a few communities. In addition, PB has been promoted to school districts and other types of public and nonprofit organizations. It was first used in 2017 for the allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds in the City of Oakland, a few years after the Obama administration supported the process (see Online Supplemental Table 1 for a list of notable early adopters).
Since almost ten years have passed since the first adoption of PB in the United States, this is a good juncture for reviewing its history and related research literature. PB has been exceptionally well-documented by its primary advocacy organization, the nonprofit PBP, and key stakeholders. 2 For example, PB Chicago, which now includes several wards, is a partnership led by the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Great Cities Institute has produced reports on the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 PB processes plus a white paper on a one-time PB process in 2014 for allocating tax increment funds (TIF; Carroll et al. 2016; Crum et al. 2015; Crum, Salinas, and Weber 2013; Weber, Crum, and Salinas 2015). The Community Development Project at the Urban Justice Center (with guidance from scholars at several universities) has produced reports on the first four PB cycles in New York City (Kasdan and Cattell 2012; Kasdan, Cattell, and Convey 2013; Kasdan, Markman, and Convey 2014; Urban Justice Center 2015). Information on subsequent cycles and a data portal are now available through the New York Council Speaker’s Office (http://council.nyc.gov/pb/).
Multiple evaluation reports have been developed for each of the citywide PB programs. As of 2018, the City of Vallejo (2014, 2016a, 2016b) had issued three detailed reports on its first three PB cycles. The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, recruited graduate students from Harvard University and the University of Massachusetts Boston for evaluations of its first and third PB cycles (Mundt 2017; Zohdy 2015). Similarly, Boston’s youth PB program has benefited from the availability of researchers from Harvard (Grillos 2014) and Boston University (Augsberger et al. 2016; Augsberger et al. 2017; Collins et al. 2018).
PBP, with support from the Kettering Foundation, also contracted with the nonprofit Public Agenda to synthesize these findings, conduct additional research, and prepare a series of reports (Public Agenda 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e). Other academic researchers have interacted with PBP staff and key stakeholders as they conducted their own research (e.g., Alfonso 2017; Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017). PBP (2017a) has attempted to foster further research by recommending PB adopters use sixteen evaluation metrics developed from the Public Agenda work. However, it remains to be seen whether future PB adoptions will be evaluated as intensively as the initial efforts.
As described in this review essay, American PB processes have increased civic participation from previously uninvolved residents, but participant demographics are usually less diverse than found in the adopting cities or council districts. There is limited research on the effectiveness of PB as a budgeting tool. While participants view the process favorably, stakeholders increasingly recognize that the total amounts devoted to PB need to increase to achieve more substantive outcomes. There also is a need to evaluate the views and perspectives of government employees who will be critical to the sustainability and diffusion of PB programs.
Elected officials, academics, and nonprofit organizations have succeeded in simultaneously promoting and evaluating PB, but their involvement raises concerns about the top-down nature of diffusion and research objectivity—ironic for an innovation intended to increase individual public engagement. In order to understand these dynamics, it is necessary to first describe how PB processes work in practice. Then, studies can be reviewed from the perspective of PB as a democratic innovation and also as a budgeting tool.
PB Processes in Practice
At first glance, PB appears to be a straightforward process that is inviting to potential participants. The graphic shown as Figure 1 has five phases: design the process, brainstorming ideas (light bulb), develop proposals (ballot), vote (ballot box), and fund projects (dollar sign). PBP also has a four-minute introductory video on its Web site (http://www.participatorybudgeting.org).
Participatory budgeting process. Source: Participatory Budgeting Project (http://www.participatorybudgeting.org).
The phases are divided in a number of detailed and complex tasks in actual practice. 3 It was necessary for the first adopters to contract with PBP to provide staff support and guide the processes through to completion. As the author of the first full-length book on PB in the U.S. observes, “Participatory budgeting is not…a time-saving institution. It is resource intensive. Its civic appeal lies precisely in the deliberative process and the information ecosystem it creates” (Gillman 2016a, 3).
The first PB cycle usually requires several months of planning to ensure a deliberative and inclusive process. A steering committee with community leaders and government representatives crafts a rule book and outreach plan. There is not yet enough experience with PB to know just how much the planning phase can be abbreviated in future years without compromising program goals.
The public part of PB opens with community meetings to solicit ideas from attendees. Any resident is welcome, regardless of citizenship status. Processes are universally open to those sixteen years of age and above; many have reduced the age requirement to fourteen or even younger. Boston’s youth process is open to those from age twelve to twenty-five. Ideally, trained facilitators serve as neutral observers. The sessions may include a dot democracy exercise to gauge support for the ideas. (Participants place round stickers on proposals written down during the brainstorming sessions.)
These facilitated exercises are typical of visioning exercises conducted by public participation professionals (Bherer, Gauthier, and Simard 2017; Lee 2015). The in-person meetings may be supplemented by online solicitations for ideas. The possibility of infusing PB with digital tools has attracted the attention of scholars interested in technological innovation and the rise of social media (Cropf 2017; Gillman 2016b; Gordon 2014; Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017). Nevertheless, a fully online PB program would run counter to the goal of expanding participation to a more diverse set of participants, including those who do not have regular internet access.
The next phase, developing budget proposals, is especially interactive. Volunteer budget delegates, often selected at community meetings or neighborhood assemblies, take some months to refine the proposals. Budget proposals have to be one-time expenditures that are of small enough scale that multiple projects can be awarded. The budget delegates work closely with local officials to determine proposal feasibility, costs, community impact, and time lines; they may also do fieldwork. For example, a 2016 hour-long PB documentary by an independent filmmaker shows Chicago delegates measuring potholes (http://www.countmeinmovie.com).
A ballot is created with a pared down list of proposals. The ballot might be divided into different sections by the type of project (arts, public safety, parks, etc.). Each PB rule book includes criteria on how many projects a participant can select and whether selections have to come from different categories. Because PBP provided support for the early adopters, with reimbursement from at least some of the participating governments, many of the ballots have a uniform appearance. They feature clear descriptions of the voting rules and project proposals plus easy-to-check boxes for casting votes.
The proposals might be presented and voted upon at a project expo, with poster boards and presentations. Initial voting processes were low-tech, with residents having to show some proof of residency and placing their ballots in old-fashioned cardboard boxes. Ballots might be counted by hand or set up with hand-held optical readers to scan barcodes. Communities may translate the ballots into different languages. Social media outreach is also used to boost interest and turnout (Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017, 164–70).
Jurisdictions have since added digital voting options, including computers at voting sites and online voting. Voting app developers in the United States and Europe have become involved in working with PB jurisdictions. Participants are usually presented with a survey to collect demographic and evaluative information.
The winning projects are those with the highest number of votes. Projects are selected until no more funds remain. The steering committee rule book may come into play if a more expensive winning project needs to be bypassed for a less costly one in order to avoid overspending. Elected leaders usually have to officially approve the funded projects, but there do not appear to be any instances of the voting results being overturned. The actual completion of projects returns to government employees and contractors, but the delegates continue to have a role in monitoring progress and impacts.
The nonprofit PBP has been transitioning to a resource support role rather than trying to provide extensive services to each new adopter (Lerner 2014a; PBP 2018). These developments and the diffusion of PB to different types of organizations mean that PB processes may become less standardized in the future. A pitfall is that proponents caution that its promise will be unfulfilled if empowerment through direct voting is not included (Baiocchi and Ganuza 2014).
PB as a Democratic Innovation
The Origins and Development of PB
It is apparent that PB’s origins are as a democratic innovation. PB also has been more of a political and social movement than other civic engagement efforts. The perception of PB as a leftist Brazilian political reform may offer an explanation for why diffusion to the United States took twenty years and why diffusion has been led more by political leaders, activists, and academics than local government professionals.
To elaborate, PB began as one of a series of reforms initiated by the Worker’s Party as it gained political power in Brazil as the country democratized. By 2001, about 20 percent of the local budget (mainly capital projects) went through the PB process (Baiocchi 2003). As democratic theorist Carole Pateman (2012, 10) stated in her American Political Science Association presidential address, “PB in Porto Alegre is not only very well known but it is also well studied.” Scholars have found that PB broadened participation among the poor and women, resulted in tangible improvements in local infrastructure, increased participation in community activities, and created a more inclusive and transparent political culture (Abers 2000; Baiocchi 2005; Bruce 2004). These outcomes have led to its use in other countries and support by a wide variety of international organizations and activists.
Josh Lerner, not to be confused with a Harvard professor with the same name, became familiar with PB as a graduate student at the University of Toronto. Lerner (2014a) describes going to a conference where he observed a skit involving Toronto Community Housing Authority tenants who had started a PB process. Lerner worked on a report for the City of Toronto about the possibility of a city version of PB and in 2004 completed his master’s thesis on the same topic.
At a World Social Forum event in Porto Alegre, Lerner (2014a, 10) connected with Gianpaolo Baiocchi, a Brazilian native whose 2001 sociology dissertation at the University of Wisconsin–Madison was on PB, and Mike Menser, “a philosophy professor, union organizer, and avid fan of economic democracy, and death metal music.” Daniel Schugurensky was the last of the four initial members of the PB network. Suchugurensky, originally from Argentina, was a professor at the University of Toronto at the time and is now at Arizona State University.
Lerner moved to New York City in 2005 to enroll in a doctoral program at the New School for Social Research. Lerner, Baiocchi, and Menser set up a website around 2006 that is still active as the site for PBP. Baiocchi and Lerner (2007) then published a foundational article in The Good Society about the probability of PB being adopted in the United States. Critically, Chicago Alderman Joe Moore attended the 2007 U.S. Social Forum conference, which included sessions led by Lerner and others. Moore, with the help of Lerner and the Institute for Policy Studies, launched a PB process in his ward in 2009, to allocate about US $1.3 million in discretionary funds. Delegate-developed proposals were voted upon by residents about a year later (Lerner 2011).
The PBP began to be formalized as an organization in 2009 and was incorporated as a New York nonprofit in 2011. PBP partnered with a community organization, Community Voices Heard, and several New York City council members to launch PB in several districts (Secondo and Lerner 2011). The first New York City voting took place in 2012, and PBP sponsored its first conference on PB with over 250 attendees from the United States and other countries. Lerner (2014a, 19) describes PB as “a movement” that “was building” by this time. Another key development was the adoption of the first citywide process in Vallejo, California, to allocate a portion of a special sales tax passed after the city’s bankruptcy. The Vallejo program was championed by then-council member Marti Brown who had attended the 2012 PB conference. A North American PB Research Board was launched at the conclusion of the 2014 PB Conference.
The nonprofit PBP has continued to have academics sit as members of its Board of Directors and Advisory Board. Eleven of the forty-three members (26 percent) in 2018 had university affiliations. The percentage of academics has remained steady, but there has been a shift toward more members with expertise in community and corporate outreach. PBP’s separate Research Board had twenty members as of 2018, fifteen with university affiliations.
An advantage of PB being disproportionately championed by those with academic backgrounds is that adoption has happened concurrently with critical reflection and evaluation. A limitation is that practitioners may have different perspectives and needs. In one study of a Canadian climate change initiative, practitioners “expressed discomfort with framing deliberative democracy as a social movement,” and academics were more concerned about studying innovation for its own sake (Kahane and Loptson 2017, 167). For PB, the academic perspective means that the public engagement impacts have been the most extensively researched.
Public Engagement Outcomes
PB is intended to attract more diverse participants than those who typically attend public meetings or contact elected officials. Gilman (2016a, 73) makes a useful distinction between usual suspects (those already participating at high levels), active citizens (those open to increasing their participation), and new citizens (those who have not previously participated). PB processes largely succeed in the goal of involving more than the usual suspects, including the addition of noncitizens and young persons. PB participant surveys generally report that strong majorities have not previously been involved in community activities, although participants are often regular voters in city elections.
Gilman finds that new participant involvement in New York City programs often depended on how well the steering committees and the so-called usual suspects carried out mobilization strategies to reach out beyond their own networks. Diversity in participation also was higher for the PB phases that required less time. Childcare was a challenge for lower income residents. These findings have been replicated in other PB cities (Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017).
Therefore, the budget delegate pools often include people who have already made time for civic engagement, which translates into lower proportions of traditionally underrepresented groups participating in the most deliberative PB phase. St. Louis, Missouri leaders noted that African American participation dropped significantly when it came to the delegate phase (Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017, 69). Another common result is that budget delegates can have widely varying experiences. Some become frustrated about the time commitment or lack of support for their own proposals, but most find the experience transformative (Su 2017, 2018).
While the quality of deliberation is important to the evaluation of PB success, there is pressure to increase the number of those voting to narrow the gap with turnout in formal municipal elections. The studies that have compared results across multiple jurisdictions pick up tensions between the use of the technology and the high-touch components of PB. Gilman (2016a, 127–28) describes computer software literacy and access problems contributing to the long time required to develop budget proposals. Gordon, Osgood, and Boden (2017) also find ambivalence from stakeholders about the trade-offs between deliberation and the use of technology. The use of technology does appear to boost voting rates; New York City garnered attention for exceeding 100,000 voters in 2017 with enhanced online voting (PBP 2018). Surprisingly, other factors that may contribute to greater participation have been under analyzed. Differences in eligibility criteria over time and outreach strategies that change from cycle to cycle complicate analysis.
The PBP and Public Agenda reports emphasize total participation across the United States and Canada more than participation by jurisdiction. Since the number of PB programs has steadily increased, it takes a more detailed examination of individual programs to determine participation rates. The evaluation reports covering multiple cycles suggest that it is possible to increase participation over time, but that overall participation levels are relatively modest compared to the electorate or the larger number of residents eligible to vote in PB processes.
Chicago, the home of the first PB process, is an interesting case to consider. Alderman Moore’s ward has had the most participation in that city, ranging from about 1,400 to 1,800 voters each year; it is estimated that 30,000 of the 52,000 residents are eligible to participate. Only 292 residents voted in the Chicago TIF project in 2014; evaluators have also described it as a pilot program (Carroll et al. 2016). By 2015–2016, the last cycle for which citywide data are readily available, there were seven wards participating and participation exceeded 5,000 for the first time.
PB in New York City has been implemented on a much larger scale, increasing to thirty-one districts out of fifty-one by 2016–2017, before falling back to twenty-eight districts in 2017–2018. From the first through fifth PB cycles, participation increased from 1,434 to 2,418 per district. Enhanced technology caused a jump to 3,316 votes per district in the sixth cycle or about 2 percent of the population in the participating districts. Vallejo, with heavy reliance on online voting and youth outreach, achieved 5,205 votes in its fifth cycle, about 4 percent of its population. Cambridge has had steady increases in participation, achieving 6,778 votes in its fourth cycle, about 6 percent of its population; Cambridge is one of the most inclusive by opening up voting to residents who are twelve years of age or older. Its PB voters have also tended to be very well educated, even exceeding the already high proportions of college-educated persons in the community. Almost 60 percent of voters in Cambridge’s first PB cycle reported having a graduate degree. That percentage rose to almost 65 percent for the third cycle, compared to about 46 percent for population as a whole (Mundt 2017; Zohdy 2015).
Broadly, it appears that PB processes attract proportionally more participants with college degrees and considerably more women, 62 percent on average in 2014–2015 (Public Agenda 2016d). Both Cambridge and Vallejo succeeded in increasing the percentage of Asian voters over time (Mundt 2017; City of Vallejo 2016b). However, many communities have experienced an overrepresentation of white voters. City of Vallejo (2016b, 22) summed up its “typical online voter” as an “older, white female” and planned to modify its online outreach in future years. New York City appears to have had more diversity among its voters. The participating districts, mostly with Democratic officeholders, have tended to have diverse populations. Outreach efforts led by community groups have been more effective in increasing diversity than council-led efforts (Urban Justice Center 2015).
While there is a good body of knowledge on participant characteristics, it is important to continue this type of analysis into future cycles. In addition, Baiocchi and Ganuza (2017, 13–15) are very much on point on calling for the future research to examine communitywide impacts rather than relying disproportionately upon participant self-evaluations and stakeholder interviews. We do not yet know how PB may affect social capital or community participation in other activities. Self-selection biases also need to be examined. The cities that have adopted PB may have been already primed to expand their civic engagement efforts, as appears to be the case with both Boston and Cambridge; PB cities also have been more urbanized. Vallejo, the first citywide adopter, had a bankruptcy related to management and labor contract issues that sparked its adoption of PB.
PB as a Budgeting Tool
Mostly indirect, limited information is available about PB’s effects on budgeting practices because of the attention on PB as a deliberative democracy innovation. Gilman (2016a, 3) has acknowledged this perspective: “The outputs of PB—specific, executed projects—are less illustrative of…value than its broader outcomes, which include ‘civic rewards’ such as greater civic knowledge and transformed relationships.” When budgeting has been discussed in evaluation reports, it is mostly consisted of descriptions of the winning projects rather than evaluations of implementation issues.
However, Gilman (2016b, 8) makes an intriguing argument that the initial use of PB by large-city elected officials has increased transparency about discretionary fund spending that “sometimes lacks transparency and accountability mechanisms.” The limited evidence available appears to confirm that there are differences in funding decisions when PB processes are adopted. Alderman Joe Moore, who pioneered PB in his Chicago ward, focused more on basic infrastructure when he allocated the funds, assuming those items were most supported by his constituents. Most of the winning projects under PB were still infrastructure items, but he was surprised that residents supported other projects as well—such as community gardens and art projects. An insightful analysis by a research term from Southern Illinois University Carbondale found geographical clustering of projects in Alderman Moore’s ward, including both higher and lower income areas, and more of an emphasis on beautification and parks projects than comparison wards (Stewart et al. 2014). Public Agenda (2016a) analyzed fifty-seven processes in the United States and Canada for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016, finding that school projects received the highest percentage of PB funds, followed by parks and recreation, streets and sidewalks, community and social services, and transportation and traffic. Public safety projects were well down the list but were proposed less often and had a high-winning percentage (Public Agenda 2016d).
PB does not automatically lead to quicker or more efficient completion of projects. PB bypassed city purchasing requirements for artist commissions in Chicago, but other cumbersome processes remained intact (Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017, 38–64). Baiocchi and Ganuza (2017, 103–33) report a high degree of conflict between budget delegates and city administrators in the first year of PB in Chicago, also an indication that PB participants bring different priorities to the table. In addition, new staff resources are needed to guide PB processes and conduct outreach. PBP’s (2017b) Scoping Toolkit recommends that the equivalent of two staff members be assigned to a typical PB process and gives examples of staffing levels from PB cities. A sample PB budget, with some reliance on lower-paid interns, adds up to over US $200,000. That yields a high overhead rate for a million-dollar allocation. Additional research is needed to identify actual costs over multiple PB cycles and any economies of scale when larger dollar amounts are involved. Conversely, it might be possible to implement low-cost versions for more limited PB programs.
The differences between funds devoted to PB processes versus total budgets are a related area of concern. Nabatchi and Leighninger (2015, 312) note that PB is vulnerable to criticism that “citizens are distracted by one small slice of the public pie while public officials and special interests divvy up the rest.” Nevertheless, they conclude that there are positive spillover effects because PB promotes cultures of accountability.
Citywide programs reach wider geographical areas, but those sums can be relatively small as well. City of Cambridge’s (2018) program is US $800,000 compared to a citywide operating budget of US $605 million. Vallejo’s PB program is proportionally more; after the first two years with higher amounts, the program has been limited to about US $1 million per year out of a general fund budget in the US $100 million range. PB advocates do call for an expansion of budget funds subject to PB processes, especially in cities like New York that have had multiple PB cycles (Lerner 2017).
Research generally on public participation opportunities in budgeting has demonstrated that participants evaluate both the budget processes and outcomes as being fairer than traditional methods (Herian et al. 2012). The Cambridge PB survey particularly asked about community impacts and found overwhelming agreement with statements about PB being a tool for social change (80.7 percent) and having positive impacts (89.8 percent). Participants also commented favorably on Cambridge’s practice of posting scorecards on the progress toward implementing each winning project (Mundt 2017).
On the other hand, budget directors tend to be skeptical about public involvement, based more on concerns about public knowledge of local budgets than actual experiences with well-designed participation processes (Hatcher 2015). City managers have similarly reported higher support for public participation than is indicated by practice. In addition, they have less enthusiasm for empowerment strategies as compared to other forms of participation (Godwin 2014; Vogel, Moulder, and Huggins 2014).
It is important, therefore, to evaluate PB from the perspective of public administrators. Much of what is known about public employee views are anecdotal comments from participant surveys and interviews. For example, Greensboro PB advocates feel that part of their eventual success was due to a change in city manager, from one who largely opposed their efforts to one that was more supportive (Alfonso 2017). Vallejo City Manager Daniel Keen’s annual budget message is unique by including a direct, wholehearted endorsement of PB from an administrator. Keen, who retired in late 2017, credits PB with generating support for stabilizing Vallejo’s finances. “We’ve embraced Participatory Budgeting (PB), which brought a new level of community involvement in governance unseen before in California, and perhaps the United States. PB has offered us innovative ways to tackle problems and interesting projects that the citizens were passionate about. It has helped us foster relationships with stakeholders that traditional means of budgeting do not provide” (City of Vallejo 2017, 4).
PB research has sometimes included staff interviews but often just of staff assigned to PB programs or who work for elected officials (Gordon, Osgood, and Boden 2017; Hayduk, Hackett, and Folla 2017; Jabola-Carolus 2017). Only Su’s (2017, 2018) research on New York City specifically includes a wider set of agency and department staff. Staff thought that PB delegates were not knowledgeable about city finances and tended to discourage innovative proposals that did not align with their understanding of organizational missions. There was considerable variation in support and enthusiasm for PB, with support increasing over time within an environment of what Su (2018) calls managed participation.
Public administration scholars can make a strong contribution to PB scholarship by drawing upon their research expertise about public sector employees and administrators. There is a need to ask city managers, budget managers, and rank-and-file employees about their own experiences with PB and public participation practices. This research could extend to examining receptivity to PB and other new forms of public participation in budgeting.
Conclusion
Gianpaolo Baiocchi, one of the founders of PBP, and Ernesto Ganuza (2017, 8) offer one of the most eloquent statements about the potential of PB as a democratic innovation: “In today’s unequal and fragmented cities and societies it is a far from trivial accomplishment to establish settings for discussion premised on the equality of all participants and their common fate in the sense of the common good.” At the same time, they recognize its inherent paradoxes and inconsistencies. The emphasis on structured consensus building in PB processes could result in a “banality of politics” that combines with technology to disconnect the public further from substantive influence or genuine conflicts over community priorities (Baiocchi and Ganuza 2017, 49). Pateman (2012, 15), who has long championed participatory democracy and the democratization of the workplace, 4 observes that participatory initiatives usually do not “disturb existing institutions,” and there may not be the “political will to pursue genuine democratization.” Research findings so far indicate some positive results, but also give credence to these concerns by identifying unrealized potential in terms of participant representativeness and overall participation in PB processes.
The first adoption of PB in the United States was led by and sparked the continued development of a PB global research community. Embedding research within PB processes has resulted in detailed information about participation. The questioning norms of academic research have meant that research designs have been rigorous and transparent, with publication in both professional and academic venues. However, most PB scholars have specialized in the study of deliberative democracy processes, which has left gaps in the research related to community social capital, budget outcomes, and the perspective of public sector employees and managers.
PB is a very enticing topic for academic researchers because it highlights the intersectionality of civic engagement, social movements, and government functions. Baiocchi and Ganuza (2017, 134–61) correctly identify that there is an “utopian undercurrent” to the PB research community that assumes that more democracy is inherently better than other types of reforms. As one reads the PB literature, it is hard to avoid the sense that action research often crosses the line into advocacy. We would do well to follow Baiocchi and Ganuza’s (2017, 15) advice that “greater agnosticism would benefit critical scholars evaluating participatory processes.” We also need to be aware that PB research may be crowding out research on other budgeting and transparency initiatives that have widely diffused to local governments and deserve attention as well.
Supplemental Material
Supplement_Material - Studying Participatory Budgeting: Democratic Innovation or Budgeting Tool?
Supplement_Material for Studying Participatory Budgeting: Democratic Innovation or Budgeting Tool? by Marcia L. Godwin in State and Local Government Review
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Related discussion was previously presented at the 2015 Western Political Science Association Conference, the 4th International Conference on Participatory Budgeting in North America (2016), and the 2018 American Society for Public Administration Conference. Graduate research assistance was provided by Alberto Argueta and Joseph Torres.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The University of La Verne provided funding for participatory budgeting training and research support. It also provides financial support for publications.
Supplemental Material
Supplementary material for this article is available online.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
