research-article

Participatory budgeting: the case for engaging citizens in local government decision making

Authors:

Uthayasankar Sivarajah,

Vishanth WeerakkodyAuthors Info & Claims

dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age

Article No.: 47, Pages 1 - 6

https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209387

Published: 30 May 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Infused by the concepts of co-creation, participatory budgeting (PB) allows citizens to participate in the local government's budgetary decision-making process concerning the community-focused programs. Nonetheless, the attainment of PB success has always been challenged by various factors, including ineffectiveness and inefficiency of PB practice, and scant citizens' participation. This research examines the potential of multi-channel digitally-enabled PB platform adoption in overcoming those challenges. To do so, we review the existing literature on citizens' participation and participatory budgeting in several research domains. We found that the adoption of multi-channel digitally-enabled PB platform could overcome such challenges and improve civic engagement. Evidence of the past studies also indicate that the adoption and use of such platforms could have positive political and socio-economic implications on the local community. This signposts that engaging citizen in the government decision-making through such platform yield better impact on governance and public good.

References

[1]

Alvarez, R.M. and Nagler, J. 2000. Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation, The. Loy. LAL Rev. 34, (2000), 1115.

[2]

Alzahrani, L. et al. 2017. Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens' perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review. 26, 1 (2017), 164--175.

[3]

Avritzer, L. 2010. Living under a democracy: participation and its impact on the living conditions of the poor. Latin American research review. 45, (2010), 166--185.

[4]

Baiocchi, G. and Ganuza, E. 2014. Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society. 42, 1 (2014), 29--50.

[5]

Bandara, W. et al. 2011. A Systematic, Tool-Supported Method for Conducting Literature Reviews in IS. Information Systems Journal. (2011), 1 -- 14.

[6]

Bardhan, P. and Mookherjee, D. 2000. Capture and governance at local and national levels. American Economic Review. 90, 2 (2000), 135--139.

[7]

Bélanger, F. and Carter, L. 2011. The Impacts of the Digital Divide on Citizens' Intentions to Use Internet Voting. International Journal On Advances in Internet Technology. 3, 3 and 4 (2011), 203--211.

[8]

Besley, T. et al. 2005. Participatory Democracy in Action: Survey Evidence from South India. Journal of the European Economic Association. 3, 2 (2005), 648--657.

[9]

Boulding, C. and Wampler, B. 2010. Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being. World Development. 38, 1 (2010), 125--135.

[10]

Boulding, C. and Wampler, B. 2010. Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being. World Development. 38, 1 (2010), 125--135.

[11]

Brandtzaeg, P.B. et al. 2011. Understanding the new digital divide---A typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 69, 3 (Mar. 2011), 123--138.

Digital Library

[12]

Cabinet Office 2012. Government Digital Strategy 01 Executive summary. November (2012), 1--52.

[13]

Davis, R. 1998. The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press, Inc.

Digital Library

[14]

Denver, D. et al. 1995. Fishkin and the deliberative opinion poll: Lessons from a study of the granada 500 television program. Political Communication. 12, 2 (1995), 147--156.

[15]

Department for Communities and Local Government 2011. Communities in the driving seat: a study of Participatory Budgeting in England. Final report.

[16]

Francis, P. and James, R. 2003. Balancing rural poverty reduction and citizen participation: The contradictions of Uganda's decentralization program. World Development. 31, 2 (2003), 325--337.

[17]

Gonçalves, S. 2014. The Effects of Participatory Budgeting on Municipal Expenditures and Infant Mortality in Brazil. World Development. 53, (2014), 94--110.

[18]

Jennings, W. et al. 2016. The dimensions and impact of political discontent in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs. 69, 4 (2016), 876--900.

[19]

Kamal, M.M. et al. 2016. Enabling Multichannel Participation through ICT Adaptations for Participatory Budgeting. Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems (San Diego, 2016), 1--9.

[20]

Kapoor, K.K. et al. 2017. Enabling Multichannel Participation Through ICT Adaptation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research. 13, 2 (2017), 66--80.

Digital Library

[21]

Kvartiuk, V. 2016. Does Participatory Budgeting have an Effect on the Quality of Public Services? The Case of Peru's Water and Sanitation Sector. Government Information Quarterly. 8, 3 (2016), 57--78.

[22]

Kvartiuk, V. 2016. Participation and Local Governance Outcomes: Evidence from Ukraine. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 27, 3 (2016), 1123--1151.

[23]

Kvasny, L. and Lee, R. 2011. e-Government services for faith-based organizations: Bridging the organizational divide. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 1 (Jan. 2011), 66--73.

[24]

Lerner, J. and Secondo, D. 2012. By the People, For the People: Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in North America. Journal of Public Deliberation. 8, 2 (2012), 1--9.

[25]

Mitchell, D.J. 2005. The Impact of Government Spending on Economic Growth.

[26]

Moisés, J.Á. 2011. Political discontent in new democracies: the case of Brazil and Latin America. International Review of Sociology. 21, 2 (2011), 339--366.

[27]

Nitzsche, P. et al. 2012. Development of an Evaluation Tool for Participative E-Government Services: A Case Study of Electronic Participatory Budgeting Projects in Germany. Administratie si Management Public. 18 (2012), 6--25.

[28]

Norris, E. et al. 2012. Doing them Justice Lessons from four cases of policy implementation. (2012), 25.

[29]

Norris, E. 2018. Election 2017 : What has happened to major bills and policies. May 2017 (2018).

[30]

Norris, P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

[31]

Olson, M.E. 1969. Two Categories of Political Alienation. Social Forces. 47, 3 (1969), 288--299.

[32]

Omar, A. et al. 2017. Developing criteria for evaluating a multi-channel digitally enabled participatory budgeting platform.

[33]

Omar, A. and Osmani, M. 2015. Digitally Enabled Service Transformations in Public Sector: A Review of Institutionalisation and Structuration Theories. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR). 11, 3 (2015), 76--94.

Digital Library

[34]

Osmani, M. 2015. Examining the antecedents of public value in e-government services. Brunel University London.

[35]

Paldam, M. and Svendsen, G.T. 2003. Social capital and economics. Creation and Returns of Social Capital: A New Research Program. 178--194.

[36]

Pammett, J.H. and Goodman, N. 2013. CONSULTATION AND EVALUATION PRACTICES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNET VOTING IN CANADA AND EUROPE. (2013).

[37]

Putnam, R.D. et al. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?

[38]

Reef, M.J. and Knoke, D. 1993. Political Alienation and Efficacy. Measures of Political Attitudes. 801.

[39]

Rhodes, R.A.W. 2007. Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies. 28, 8 (2007), 1243--1264.

[40]

Roberson, Q.M. 2006. Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations. Group & Organization Managemen. 31, 2 (2006), 212--236.

[41]

Rooduijn, M. et al. 2016. Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies. 43, (2016), 32--40.

[42]

Sanders, L.M. 2010. Making Deliberation Cooler. Good Society Journal. 19, 1 (2010), 41--47.

[43]

Sandoval-Almazan, R. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. 2012. Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly. 29, SUPPL. 1 (Jan. 2012), S72--S81.

[44]

Schlozman, K.L. et al. 2010. Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics. 8, 02 (2010), 487--509.

[45]

Seddon, J. and O'Donovan, B. 2013. The Achilles' heel of scale service design in social security administration: The case of the United Kingdom's Universal Credit. International Social Security Review. 66, 1 (2013), 1--23.

[46]

Shah, D. V. et al. 2005. Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research.

[47]

Shatkin, G. 2000. Obstacles to empowerment: Local politics and civil society in Metropolitan Manila, the Philippines. Urban Studies. 37, 12 (2000), 2357--2375.

[48]

Sissenich, B. 2010. Weak states, weak societies: Europe's east-west gap. Acta Politica. 45, 1-2 (2010), 11--40.

[49]

Spada, P. et al. 2015. Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Policy Referendum in Brazil.

[50]

Su, C. 2017. Beyond Inclusion: Critical Race Theory and Participatory Budgeting. New Political Science. 39, 1 (2017), 126--142.

[51]

Titterton, M. and Smart, H. 2008. Can participatory research be a route to empowerment? A case study of a disadvantaged Scottish community. Community Development Journal. 43, 1 (2008), 52--64.

[52]

Touchton, Michael, Wampler, Brian, Sugiyama, N. 2016. Participation and the Poor: Social Accountability Institutions and Poverty Reduction in Brazil. Political Science Faculty Publications and Presentations, Boise State University. I, I (2016), 52.

[53]

Vassil, K. and Weber, T. 2011. A bottleneck model of e-voting: Why technology fails to boost turnout. New Media & Society. 13, 8 (Dec. 2011), 1336--1354.

[54]

Wang, C. et al. 2017. Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly. August (2017), 1--17.

[55]

Weerakkody, V. et al. 2011. Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 3 (2011), 320--328.

[56]

Wong, S. 2012. What Have Been the Impact of World Bank Community-Driven Development Program? (2012).

Cited By

Klimovský DSecinaro SBaláž MBrescia V(2024) Participatory Budgeting as a Democratic and Managerial Innovation: Recent Trends and Avenues for Further Research 5 Central European Journal of Public Policy10.2478/cejpp-2024-000418:1(52-71)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2024-0004
Madej M(2019)Participatory Budgeting in the Major Cities in Poland – Case Study of 2018 EditionsPolitics in Central Europe10.2478/pce-2019-001715:2(257-277)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2019-0017

Index Terms

Participatory budgeting: the case for engaging citizens in local government decision making
1. Applied computing
  1. Computers in other domains
    1. Computing in government
      1. E-government

Recommendations

Expanding the Design Space of ICT for Participatory Budgeting
C&T '17: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies

This paper analyzes existing practices and supporting technologies for Participatory Budgeting (PB), with a special focus on US-related initiatives, as a mean to understand the current and future design space of ICT for participatory democracy. We ...
Towards increasing citizen engagement in participatory budgeting digital tools
dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age

In this paper, we compile and describe features of participatory budgeting digital tools, and propose a number of potential future directions for those features that could increase citizen engagement.
Case studies of digital participatory budgeting in Latin America: models for citizen engagement
ICEGOV '10: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance

This article presents the study of the relationship between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and local governance in Latin America, mainly using the internet for participatory processes, such as the experiences of Digital Participatory ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

dg.o '18: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age

May 2018

889 pages

ISBN:9781450365260

DOI:10.1145/3209281

Conference Chairs:
Marijn Janssen
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Soon Ae Chun
City University of New York (CUNY), USA
,
Vishanth Weerakkody
Bradford University, UK
,
Editors:
Anneke Zuiderwijk
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
,
Charles C. Hinnant
Florida State University, USA

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 May 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Horizon 2020

Conference

dg.o '18

dg.o '18: 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research

May 30 - June 1, 2018

Delft, The Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
202
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)22
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 17 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Klimovský DSecinaro SBaláž MBrescia V(2024) Participatory Budgeting as a Democratic and Managerial Innovation: Recent Trends and Avenues for Further Research 5 Central European Journal of Public Policy10.2478/cejpp-2024-000418:1(52-71)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2024-0004
Madej M(2019)Participatory Budgeting in the Major Cities in Poland – Case Study of 2018 EditionsPolitics in Central Europe10.2478/pce-2019-001715:2(257-277)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.2478/pce-2019-0017

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents