Participatory budgets : definition, variations and diffusion
BY GIACOMO MORONI
Participatory budgets (PBs) are undoubtedly one of the most diffused and successful participatory initiatives at the local level. Indeed, since its birth in Porto Alegre in 1989, the practice has known a remarkable diffusion all over the globe, characterized by an incredible number of variations in the forms of implementation. PBs can be broadly intended as processes allowing the participation of non-elected citizens in the negotiations and/or deliberation over the allocation of public finances.
This definition can then be operationalized into the five essential elements composing the ideal PB:
Design of the process & stating of priorities
The creation of the process with the setting out of the “rules of the game” in terms of the resources, timetable, and technicalities, together with the priorities of the initiative. It is indeed decided, for instance, whether the PB will be deployed to implement initiatives favoring some specific geographical area or sector of competence of the city (schools, infrastructures, social question…).
Brainstorm Ideas
The moment of collection of the proposals. During this phase, citizens are entitled and required to design draft projects they would like to see realized and send them to the city authority.
Develop Proposals
This passage is characterized by the intervention of the technical
offices of the municipal authority to verify the costs, compliance
with the priorities and feasibility of the proposals, operating a first
selection of the project that will then be subject to the vote.
Cast a vote
The citizens are called to select one or more projects.
Fund winning project
The most voted projects are introduced in the city budget through the vote/decision of the competent city authority, receiving the necessary funding from the allocated resources and then implemented.
However, according to Yves Sintomer, one of the most authoritative voices on the topic, to have a proper participatory budgeting process, these steps must be complemented with some additional requirements. Firstly, the initiative must be repeated over time, to be hence distinguished from referenda or consultations on specific projects. Moreover, in his vision, proper PBs must be characterized by strong points of contact with the public authorities at least at the city level, hence independent initiatives organized by neighborhood associations must not be classified as such. Finally, developing on this aspect, in their structures PBs must include measures and systems to ensure the accountability of the administration concerning the implementation of the outcomes.
From the presentation of this fundamental underlying frame, we are already able to realize how PBs are an extremely versatile tool. Indeed, multiple modifications can be envisaged within the various steps we presented. In this regard, the actual degree of citizens’ empowerment is one of the first and
fundamental variables. Indeed, while in some PBs they are included in the creation of the “rules of the game”, the identification of the priorities and development of proposals, in other cases they are just entitled to vote or merely required to give opinions on draft projects prepared by the local authority.
This aspect is in direct correlation with the final purpose intended to be tackled with the initiation of the practice, which also constitutes an element of differentiation. Indeed, some local administrations interpret PBs as means to achieve substantial societal reshaping by making citizens a “fourth power” in the allocation of the financial resources. This vision hence converts into a consistent degree of empowerment for the citizens, with forms of involvement in all the presented phases. This was actually the approach that animated the first PB in Porto Alegre, which then represented the blueprint for the spreading of the initiative in the rest of South America.
On the contrary, when “the caravels traveled back”, in their journey to the old continent they lost this social justice focus. Indeed, European cities tend to interpret PBs in a milder fashion, approaching the practice as a way to reinforce the existing democratic structure and consolidate the legitimacy of the administration.
Moreover, PBs differentiate themselves also on the basis of the target, indeed, not all of the processes are addressed to individuals. On the contrary, in some cases, they are created to involve NGOs and Civil Society Organizations.
Finally, the technicalities also represent a dimension in which some important spacing i possible. For instance, when it comes to the “cast a vote” phase, we detected a wide range of practices from the election of delegates, to online systems or actual physical ballots. In particular, this online/offline differentiation is another relevant divide. Indeed, some PBs tend to occur only through physical assemblies and actual electoral moments, while other combine online infrastructures, notably for the submission of the proposals
and vote casting, with offline moments (Paris, Cascais). Nevertheless, there are also som Participatory Budgeting processes only relying on digital means and taking place completely online, like the one of Madrid.
From this brief outlining we can clearly realize how participatory budgets are a tool perfectly complying with the widespread will to increase citizens’ participation. Its suitability in this regard is clearly testified by the fact that PBs are appreciated both by the “good governance” discourses promoted, among the others, by the World Bank, as well as the greatest antagonists of this rhetoric (e.g. the World Social Forum).
Another strength is represented by the fact that, as we have seen, there is no fixed paradigm in PBs. Indeed, thanks to its versatility, participatory budgeting initiatives can be easily adapted to different contexts, making it a rather simple tool to be implemented. This viability is attributable also to the relatively low resources needed for its creation since PBs rely on portions of the city’s budgets that would be allocated and spent anyway for investment projects.
Nevertheless, the practice does have some limits. Firstly, PBs can hardly result from bottom-up pushes. Indeed, for their proper establishment and implementation, there is the fundamental need to have a consistent political will, usually at the mayor level. A will which is also of critical relevance to establish continuative and consolidated PBs. Indeed, if the initial political commitment does not convert into a consistent and stable connection
with the city administrative structure, then the participatory budgeting system will vanish following changes in the political guidance of the city. Moreover, because of their “versatility”, PBs also suffer from a certain ambiguity. Indeed, the relative simplicity of establishment entails the risk of generating only facade practices, not leading to any concrete engagement of citizenship.
Concluding, we can state how PBs are an extremely interesting opportunity to concretely involve citizens in the management of local authorities, representing also an effective gateway for the introduction of digital and online systems in the public administration, as done by many European cities (Paris, Lisbon… ). However, to unleash their full potential, participatory budgets, must be real tools of empowerment in the decision making, attached with solid bonds to the administrative structure. Indeed, without a full commitment on the part of the competent authorities in accepting and implementing the will of the citizens as emerging from the process and in absence of a certain degree of integration within the city’s functioning, PBs de facto remain mere moments of consultation and hence wasted chances to foster participation.
