From demands to deliberation: participatory budgeting in Pittsburgh (original) (raw)
Related papers
Transformative Deliberations: Participatory Budgeting in the United States
Regular Issue, 2012
This article develops two conceptual models, based on empirical data, for assessing deliberation and decision making within United States adoptions of Participatory Budgeting (PB). The first model is results oriented whereas the second model is process oriented. The two models evince the tension between inclusiveness and efficiency that emerge as U.S. PB tries accommodating the dual goals of improved short-term service delivery and democratic deepening. Each model satisfies one of these deliberate goals better. Results oriented deliberation is more effective at producing viable projects whereas process oriented is better at ensuring that all participants’ voices are heard. Variation suggests that decision-making in PBNYC exceeds citizens’ ability to make collective decisions with rational discourse. Rather, the structural conditions of district constitution, bureaucratic constraints, and facilitator skill impacted decision-making.
The People’s Voice, The People’s Choice: An Overview of Participatory Budgeting in the United States
Chinese Public Administration Review
Participatory budgeting was launched in the U.S. in 2009 in Chicago, Illinois, by a member of the city’s Board of Aldermen (the city council) who used $1 million of his discretionary funds to bring his constituents directly into the local budget decision-making process. By 2018, there were 23 more U.S. jurisdictions with a PB process in place: 12 with PB in selected areas (districts); six with a citywide initiative; five with an initiative to allocate specific pots of money, e.g., CDBG funds (see Table 1); and six with an initiative to bring young voters or high school students into budget decisions. In this descriptive paper, we provide a synopsis of PB initiatives in the U.S. based on publically available information and personal interviews with individuals involved in the PB process. Our paper adds to the literature by providing a review of PB initiatives across the U.S. that will be particularly useful for readers who are looking for a quick purview of the topic or who have limi...
Regular public input into a city's budget is frequently associated with municipal budgeting in Brazilian cities, successes in public engagement that have been emulated around the world. American communities are adopting the practice to varying degrees. This paper will report on a fiveyear old public input program that is taking place in Lincoln, Nebraska, the capital city of a politically conservative state in the U.S. We discuss the processes we use to engage the public about the City's budget. The process includes regular online input as well as face-to-face, deliberative discussions. On occasions, random sample surveys also have been used. The public's input has been helpful to City Hall in budget prioritization, and has even resulted, pursuant to residents' recommendations, in raising taxes to preserve programs rather than eliminating them to balance the City's budget. In an era of concern that the American public will not endorse tax increases, the recommendation was surprising. Our work to date indicates the public welcomes the invitation to participate in governance and responds positively to the opportunity to provide input and is willing to endorse policy options that have been thought to be unpopular by a majority of Americans.
citizen participation in budgeting and beyond: Deliberative Practices and their Impact in Contemporary Cases, 2021
Deliberation has quite a considerable output in urban, social and political theory and has been influencing the local development of cities around the world. It is well documented and scientifically proven that the sociopolitical context plays a crucial role when participatory and deliberative methods are implemented. It determines the abilities of both institutions and communities within the collaboration. Observations from around the world point to multidimensional implications. However, it should be taken into consideration that socio-political conditions create differences in terms of government-governance patterns.
2021
The title of this study reflects the intention of its editors to include texts relating to both theories and specific deliberative practices with participatory budgeting as a leitmotiv in a concise study.The basic questions which the theory and practice of public policy try to answer is the question about desires in democratic conditions and at the same time an effective formula for balancing centralization and decentralization in decision-making processes. Participatory budgeting, as one of possible variants of deliberation, is one of those phenomena of public life, the quality of which depends on the relations of the parties involved. The shape of these relationships only to a limited extent depends on the ways of their current practice, because these methods are causally conditioned, and the causes lie in cultural constructions. That is why these relations are not easy to study; it is difficult to reach that deep, because it is difficult to both model the conceptualization of the problem and the methodological approach to such research. These are one of the most difficult and, at the same time, the most promising research areas of public policy. We hope that this book will contribute to their partial exploration. We hope that our collection of articles will show that governance practices can contribute to strengthening proactive public activities located in the area of the so-called civil democracy.
Overcoming Inequalities in Citizen Participation in Participatory Budgeting
2016
The report considers how to most effectively overcome inequalities in citizen participation in Participatory Budgeting (PB). The report synthesises key findings from the various methodologies employed in the research. This included a focus group with Edinburgh PB leads to gain further understanding of their problems with inclusion, a systematic literature review, case study analysis and expert consultation. Those not submitting applications for funds, participating in the event or voting, are typically those from black and minority ethnic (BME) or lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities, and young people. However, there are inconsistencies in how inclusion is evaluated and a low completion rate of the Equalities Monitoring Form. Within PB processes around the world, a number of measures are employed to increase citizen inclusion, with varying degrees of success: allocation of resources to support participation such as transport or childcare; use of digital technologies; IT support and help to purchase computers; direct communication, particularly with disadvantaged groups; creative community events; scheduling meetings at convenient times; ensuring citizens are active in sessions; and adapting the programme to engage with under-represented groups. There is a lack of evidence on which measures help include which particular groups and to what extent. The New York City PB process seems a particularly successful grant-making approach to gaining inclusion and the São Paulo PB process an example of good practice when mainstreaming PB. In New York, citizens were involved at every stage of the PB process. Community organisations proved particularly successful in mobilising a diverse range of citizens to participate and online engagement was utilised. In São Paulo, the use of segment delegates to represent citizens with protected characteristics was important to ensure that they were included in the process. In both New York and São Paulo, deliberative processes were important features of the PB process. Recommendations To foster inclusion, Edinburgh City Council could consider the following recommendations, derived from the broader literature review and case study analysis, and grouped around the CLEAR framework, an acronym which denotes the key factors which foster greater participation: 1 Can: they have the resources and knowledge to participate Providing practical support such as training, transportation or child care Keeping the event and decision making process as straightforward as possible Introducing deliberative features into the PB processes Like to: people feel attached to their community and the process is made enjoyable Engaging people in the community, in cafes, schools, youth clubs, and holding specific events, such as fetes or BBQs Communicating the success of previous projects and the impact of PB Adopting a variety of facilitation techniques Overcoming Inequalities in Citizen Participation in Participatory Budgeting in Edinburgh 4 | P a g e 4 Involving citizens in the governance of PB, assigning them key roles in the process Enabled to: opportunities to participate Scheduling meetings at diverse times and holding meetings in accessible venues Streaming meetings, including the capability to contribute to live discussions Asked to: mobilised by community and voluntary groups Communications must be easy to understand for the residents. A blend of transparent, mass and targeted communications, both on and offline. Partnering with community groups as a way of fostering outreach. Use purposive or stratified selection methods to make sure minority groups are represented in the process. Responded to: they can see their views being listened to and their input is used Ensuring skilled facilitators are at all deliberations to ensure all voices are heard. Utilising online technologies to assist voting, such as by text message, online or by phone.
Journal of Deliberative Democracy
Although it is difficult to define precisely (Bassoli, 2010), Participatory Budgeting (PB) involves citizens in decision making about how to spend part or all of available government funds, for example by prioritizing expenditure on local infrastructure, usually at a local, precinct or city level. The Porto Alegre PB process, often seen as the exemplar, includes an annual process of representatives participating in the rule development and oversight of the process, civic groups developing proposals for funding, and the broad resident base voting on their preferences, with government accepting the outcomes. A key aim is the more equitable redistribution of resources. While most PB models involve a voting aggregation process, a minority of PBs involve public deliberation alone, where demographically representative participants (usually randomly sampled) collaborate in an intentionally deliberative process, for example, the Deliberative Polling in China (Fishkin, 1998) and the recent PB deliberative minipublic in Canada Bay, New South Wales, Australia. In some PBs, legislative constraints mean that the final decision resides with existing government bodies, while elsewhere changes to legislation have meant that citizen groups have been given the power to make final
Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory
Public Administration Review, 2006
Citizen participation in government budgeting processes is a topic that has received attention for many decades. Despite prescriptive exhortations to cities, research in this area has significant limitations. We identify four elements that are believed to influence the participation process. The variables within each element have received attention in the empirical literature, but no systematic effort has been made to uncover interaction effects and extend theory to make it more robust. We consider the weaknesses of our knowledge, suggest an impact model of citizen participation in budgeting, and identify hypotheses that may be tested in future research.