Participatory Budgeting

DIALOG GLOBAL Participatory Budgeting Worldwide – Updated Version Study On behalf of No. 25 English version Imprint Published by: ENGAGEMENT GLOBAL gGmbH – Service für Entwicklungsinitiativen (GLOBAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT – Service for Development Initiatives) Service Agency Communities in One World Tulpenfeld 7 D-53113 Bonn Phone +49 228 20717-0 Fax +49 228 20717-150 info@service-eine-welt.de www.service-eine-welt.de Responsible: Dr. Stefan Wilhelmy, Service Agency Communities in One World No. 25 English version in the Dialog Global series published by the Service Agency Project management: Mandy Wagner Text: Prof. Dr. Yves Sintomer, Dr. Carsten Herzberg, Dr. Giovanni Allegretti, in collaboration with Dr. Anja Röcke Coordinators of the 2013 Updated Edition: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti (for the Center for Social Studies, Coimbra University, Portugal), Mariana Lopes Alves (UAB, Barcelona, Spain/ UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) Editing: James Patterson, Mandy Wagner Cover design: Fabian Ewert Design Layout: Fabian Ewert Design Bonn, November 2013 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Dialog Global Number 25 Participatory Budgeting Worldwide – Updated Version Study Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg, Giovanni Allegretti, – with the collaboration of Anja Röcke and Mariana Alves Published by: ENGAGEMENT GLOBAL gGmbH – Service für Entwicklungsinitiativen (GLOBAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT – Service for Development Initiatives) Service Agency Communities in One World November 2013 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 3 Contents Foreword Preface .................................................................................. 6 ..................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................. 1. A Global Perspective 2. What is Participatory Budgeting? 3. How Participatory Budgeting Spread across the World 4. A Typology of Participatory Budgeting 5. .................................................................. ........................................................ 10 ....................................... 11 14 ......................................................... 15 ........................................................... 17 Participatory Democracy 4.2 Proximity Democracy 4.3 Participatory Modernization 4.4 Multi-stakeholder Participation 4.5 Neo-corporatism 4.6 Community Development ...................................................... 18 .................................................... 19 ............................................................... 20 ........................................................ 20 ..................................................................... 24 I. Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America ................ 25 ...................................................... 25 ............................................................ 28 1. Once Upon a Time in Porto Alegre 2. Dissemination within Brazil 3. Latin America Adopts Participatory Budgeting Continent-wide 4. Two Generations of Networks ................................. 30 ......................................................... 33 5. Hybridization ...................................................................... 35 6. Important But Contrasting Results ....................................................... II. The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America 38 ................... 41 ........................... 41 1. The Diversity of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America 2. The Social Impacts of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America 3. Participation – A Way of Achieving Modernization? ....................... 45 .......................................... 48 ........................................... 48 ....................................................... 49 3.1 Information, Consultation, Accountability 3.2 Voting and PB in Big Cities 3.3 Focusing on Internet Participation and Cost Reduction .................................. 49 .................................................. 51 4. Participatory Budgeting and Civil Society 5. The Outcomes of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America III. Africa: Late and Unequal Development 4 9 ................................................... 4.1 Five Continents 9 .......................... 53 ....................................................... 55 1. Early Beginnings and a Proliferation of Experiments in Francophone Africa 2. The Influence of Participatory Budgeting in Lusophone Africa ........................ 56 .................................. 59 3. Anglophone Africa: Hybrid Experiments ................................................... 60 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < IV. Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges ................................ 1. Participatory Budgeting as a Regional Development Instrument (Kerala, India) ...................... 2. China: Between Participative Modernization, Citizens’ Empowerment and Political Reform 3. Korea: A Porto Alegre in the Far East? 4. Japan: Participatory Budgeting for Taxpayers 5. Timid Tendencies in the Rest of Asia 6. Oceania: E-democracy and Community Building V. Learning Processes 63 ............ 65 .................................................... 67 ............................................... 69 ..................................................... 70 ............................................ 71 ........................................................................ 73 1. Networks and Municipal Partnerships: Framework for Cooperation 2. Global Trends Appendix 63 .............................. 73 ...................................................................... 74 .................................................................................. 76 Bibliography ............................................................................ Websites on participatory budgeting ......................................................... Table on countries with participatory budgets at the end of 2012 ................................... 90 ............................................................ 91 ....................................................................... 92 Main Acronyms Used in the Text About the Authors > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 76 87 5 Foreword At the end of 2010 the Service Agency Communities in In Europe too, PB is increasingly being seen as important One World published the first edition of this study, which for local participatory development. In Poland, for instance, met with keen interest among researchers, practitioners legislation has been passed to promote the introduction of and engaged individuals around the globe. The idea of a PB. And in many European countries local governments are study shedding light on the global dimension and forms involving their citizens in decision-making on local expen- of participatory budgeting (PB) was new, and at the time diture, not least due to the pressure they face as a result the study provided a unique compendium of information. of scarce resources. The European Union has listed PB as Today, three years later, PB has become more common a good practice example for the calls for proposals to be worldwide, and its procedures and forms have continued issued by the European Social Fund 2014-2020. By so doing to develop. To keep pace with the dynamic developments it has acknowledged PB as a permanent instrument for the in this field it was time to revise and update the study. future, also in Europe. The team of authors therefore compiled the current facts Yet it is not only the number and the distribution of parti- on procedures and forms of PB, good practice examples cipatory budgeting procedures that have changed over the and dynamics. Our special thanks are owed to Dr. Giovanni last three years. In the course of their research the authors Allegretti and Marianna Lopes Alves, who conducted perti- also found that the six ideal types of PB established in nent investigations among scholars and practitioners of PB the first edition now display changed features that reflect on all continents. today’s dynamics and trends. In other words, this new edition has many exciting new developments and discoveries We were surprised – and pleased – by the number and in store as readers make their journey around the participa- diversity of further developments, and instances where PB tory budgeting procedures of the world. In many respects was introduced for the first time. One finding of this study it is a supplement to the first edition, because the good is that the number of participatory budgeting procedures practice examples presented there should still continue to worldwide is continuing to grow. Some countries, such as serve as models. Peru and the Dominican Republic, have even made the introduction of PB a legal requirement for all local authorities. We are confident that this new edition will find just as many To what extent this will promote a more just allocation of readers and be made available in just as many universities, scarce resources at the local level, and the inclusion of mar- town halls and libraries around the world as the original ginalised sections of the population in local development version. It is designed to motivate municipalities and active planning processes, remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is citizens around the globe to engage in dialogue, and learn already evident how much PB is now seen as an important from and with each other. We hope that in so doing it will instrument for local development planning. help further disseminate and improve PB worldwide. Moreover, PB has also been introduced in a growing num- Yours ber of cases in Francophone and Lusophone Africa. The international learning dialogue has proved a key factor in the development and formation of these participatory budgeting procedures. In many cases, mutual visits and study trips have enabled participants to see how things were Dr. Stefan Wilhelmy done by the pioneers in Brazil, especially Porto Alegre, and Head of the Service Agency Communities in One World / what approaches European actors have taken. Engagement Global gGmbH 6 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Preface This essay represents an attempt to provide an updated (School of Public Administration, Lodz, Poland); Ernesto overview of participatory budgeting (PB) in the world based Ganuza (IESA, Córdoba); Jeremy Hall und Ruth Jackson on a first edition published in 2010. There, our aim was to (NGO PB Unit, UK); Jorida Cila (Co-PLAN Institute, Alba- present and analyze existing cases of PB using a coherent nia); Gianpaolo Baiocchi (Brown University, USA); Hugo definition and typology. The changes that have occurred Swinnen (Verwey-Jonker Institute, Utrecht); Julien Talpin in the past three years have given rise to a need to modify (Paris 8 University); Josh Lerner (Fordham University, USA); some of our previous classifications, as the spread of PB Julia Runesson (City of Örebro); Kjell-Åke Eriksson (SALAR, worldwide has introduced new nuances and hybrid models. Sweden); Lena Langlet (SALAR, Sweden); Lena Tegenfeldt The global panorama and the numbers we provide are not (City of Uddevalla); Lucilla Pezzetta (University La Sapienza, as precise and as systematic as we would have liked. This Rome); MarionBen-Hammo (Region of Poitou-Charentes); essay is designed mainly to facilitate future research on Michelangelo Secchi (Bocconi University, Milan); Paolo the topic. We closed the new edition in 2013, taking into Filippi (University of Venice and Province of Vicenza); Pier account data referring to the end of 2012. The updating of Paolo Fanesi (University of Macerata and Municipality of the report has not been realized within a specific research Grottammare). program, but based on data gathered thanks to colleagues who have collaborated voluntarily in various countries. This 2013 edition: Adriana Goñi Mazzitelli (University of explains the asymmetries and gaps that readers will easily RomaTre, Rome, Italy); Alexander Koop (Bertelsmann Foun- detect. dation, Germany); Anna Przybylska (Centre for Deliberation at the University of Warsaw); Arben Qesku (SKL Internatio- Engagement Global and the Service Agency Communities nal, Albania); Birgir Björn Sigurjónsson, (City Hall of Reyk- in One World, Germany, commissioned this study. Dr. javík, Iceland); Brian Wampler (Boise State University, USA); Stefan Wilhelmy, Head of the Service Agency, together Christina Tillmann (Bertelsmann Foundation, Germany); with Mandy Wagner, were in charge of relations with the Donata Secondo (Participatory Budgeting Project, USA); research team. We would like to thank all our colleagues Karol Mojkowski (SLLGO and Watchdog Poland Civic Net- and partners for their substantial support. Their names are work, Poland); Iolanda Romano (Avventuraurbana, Turin, listed below, distinguishing the contributors to the first Italy);Joe Moore (District 49, Chicago); Jón Olaffsson (Rey- edition from the new ones who have helped to deliver this kjavík University); Luc Rabouin (Mobizen, France); Melissa updated version. We hope that all those who contributed Mark Viverito (New York); Milan Medić (LAG Valis Colapis, to the text have been mentioned. Any mistakes that remain Croatia); Norman Kearney (BPW2, Hamilton, Canada); are ours. Nelson Dias (IN-LOCO, Portugal); Silvia Givone (Sociolab, Florence, Italy); Stefania Ravazzi (University of Turin, Italy); This text owes part of its reflections to the project „Parti- Stefano Stortone (Centro Studi Democrazia Partecipativa cipatory Budgeting as innovative tool for reinventing local and University of Milan, Italy); Stephanie McNulty (Franklin institutions in Portugal and Cape Verde? A critical analysis of and Marshall College, Lancaster, USA); Vicente Barragan performance and transfers“ (PTDC/CS- SOC/099134/2008, (Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain); Virginia Bar- funded by FEDER – COMPETE and FCT). barrusa Gutierrez (IEPALA, Seville, Spain). Europe and North America Africa, Asia and Oceania 2010 edition: Anders Nordh (SALAR, Sweden); Antonio 2010 edition: Ahn Songmin; Akira Matsubara; André Putini (University of Reggio Calabria); Carmen Pineda Nebot Herzog (World Bank); Angelique Habils (UN Habitat); (Spain); Cécile Cuny (Strasbourg University, France); Dorota Anwar Shah (World Bank); Bara Gueye (IED Afrique); Dakowska (Strasbourg University), Elzbieta Plaszczyk Clemens Zobel (Paris 8 University, France); Junhua Zhang; > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 7 Preface Shih Chunyu (Université Zhejiang Gongxue); Justus Mika; Brazil); Melissa Zumaeta-Aurazo (World Bank, USA); Merce- Mamadou Bachir Kanoute (ENDA); Mauria Auxiliadora des Oraisón; Pablo Ignacio Caruso (UBA, Argentina); Pablo Gomes; Ming Zhuang; Mischeck Muvumbi; Mohamed Dioh; Paño (Antigona, Spain); Paolo Spada (Ash Center, Harvard, Mohamed Halfani (UN-Habitat); Nasser AbuAnzeh (Univer- USA; Participedia, Vancouver, Canada); Patricia Garcia Leiva sity of Amman, Jordan); Nelson Dias (In-LOCO, Portugal); (Universidad de Malaga, Spain); Red Argentina de Presupu- Peter Demediuk; Peter Sigauke; Petra Adolfsson; Rolf Solli; esto Participativo (RAPP); Santiago Munevar (Science Po, Rudo Makunike; Rudolf Traub-Merz (FES Shanghai); Saad Paris); Yvonne De Souza. Filali Meknassi (Transparency International, Morocco); Sri Mastuti; Sunny George; Tahar Ledraa (University of Riyad, Special thanks go to Yves Cabannes and Nelson Dias, main Saudi Arabia); Takawira Mumvuma (MDP);Patrick Mutab- authors of several inter-continental studies on participatory wire; Thandiwe Mlobane; Thierry Randriarilala (SAHA, budgeting; to Osmany Porto and his colleagues from Madagascar); Tiago Peixoto (World Bank); Victor Vergara CEBRAP for the constructive critics during a special seminar (WorldBank); on this issue (S. Paulo, Brazil); and to Ernesto Ganuza, who provided many inputs for our research. Special recognition 2013 edition: Ayako Suzuki; Baogang He (Deakin University, goes to Rafael Sampaio, who co-authored the box on the Melbourne, Australia); Daniel Nonze (ASSOAL, Cameroon); growing use of ICT tools. Emmy Mbera; Eva Garcia Chueca (CISDP/UCLG, Spain); George Matovu (MDP-ESA, Zimbabwe); Hemanthi Goonasekera (Federation of Sri Lankan Local Government Authorities, Sri Lanka); Iain Walker (The New Democracy Foundation, Australia); Janette Hartz-Karp (Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Fremantle, Australia); Achille Noupeou and Jules Dumas Nguebou (ASSOAL, Cameroon); Laia Villademunt (OIDP, Spain); Mamadou Bachir Kanoute (ENDA TM, Senegal); Noor Zada and Abdelrazzaq M. Awwad (Partners-Jordan/Center for Civic Collaboration, Jordan), Osmany Porto (CEBRAP, Brazil); Sabiti Kalindula and Thomas Maketa (WB, RDC Congo and Cameroon). Latin America and the Caribbean 2010 edition: Leonardo Avritzer (UFMG, Brazil); Jutta Barth (GIZ). 2013 edition: Adriana Furtado (Observapoa, Brazil); Alexandro Luevano (COPEVI, Mexico); Alfredo Ramos (Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain); Benjamin Goldfrank (Whitehead School of Diplomacy, Seton Hall University, USA); Carolina Lara (Fundación Democracia Activa, Colombia); Cezar Busatto (Prefeitura de Porto Alegre, Brazil); Cristina Bloj (UNR, Argentina); Emiliano Arena (UBA, Argentina); Fernado Umaña; Karolin Reyes (Fedomu, Dominican Republic); Kátia Lima (Rede Orçamentos Participativos, Brazil); Leonardo Avritzer (UFMG, Brazil); Luciano Fedozzi (UFRGS, 8 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction The term “participatory budgeting” has been translated 1. A Global Perspective into dozens of languages. This bears witness to a success story. In the past five years, participatory budgeting (PB) This essay on the dissemination and diversity of PB is desig- has become an issue all around the world, first in the alter- ned to facilitate intercultural exchange between committed globalization movement, then due to a series of internatio- citizens, civil servants, experts and researchers. It identifies nal awards given to the best practices of city management and explains different procedures, describes how and why and democratic innovation, such as those created by they arose and illustrates the analysis with concrete examp- UCLG-Africa in the Africities Forum, by the International les. Specific tools such as transparent budgets, allocation Observatory of Participatory Democracy (OIDP) or by the criteria and/or websites are presented, and potential objec- Bertelsmann Foundation (especially the prestigious Rein- tives of PB are clarified. This is not to say that any rigid hard Mohn Prize). Recently, Carole Pateman, an important blueprints will be provided. The essay is rather designed author in the history of participatory democracy, dedicated for use as a toolbox. We will not paint a more favorable considerable space to a debate on PB (Pateman, 2012), as picture of PB than the reality warrants. Both difficulties and Pippa Norris also did in her study on Democratic Deficit success stories will be presented for what they are. It is (2011), while the distinguished Journal of Public Delibera- only by clearly identifying challenges that the likelihood of tion devoted a special issue to discuss the device (No. 8, responding to them successfully will increase. 2012). Although far less important in its consequences, this phenomenon of expansion and recognition tend to follow The present essay is not, strictly speaking, a research report. the path of technological innovations, such as mobile Nevertheless, it does contain the results of various studies phones, MP3 players and the Internet. This development conducted in Europe and other parts of the world. These is also interesting because PB is a procedure invented and include the “Participatory budgets in Europe” research consolidated in countries of the Global South. It is also project of the Hans Böckler Foundation at the Centre Marc remarkable that PBs are found in a wide range of societies, Bloch in Berlin; studies by the Center for Social Studies cultures and political systems, sometimes non-democratic in Coimbra (Portugal); European Union projects such as ones. Whereas in some cases PB is used to democratize “PARLOCAL” and those organized within the URBAL and democracy, to strengthen civil society or to further moder- URBACT umbrella programs; and also reports of sessions nize already efficient public services, in others it is a tool devoted to analyzing PB held during international meetings for fighting corruption, supporting a slow decentralization such as Africities, the World Urban Forum (WUF), the World process or opening a democratic process in the context of Social Forums (WSF), the OIDP world meetings; and publi- authoritarian regimes. Given the diversity of their contexts cations issued by national and international organizations, and forms, PBs would appear to be an appropriate subject such as the World Bank, the UN-HABITAT program or the for a global dialogue. By finding out more about the vari- Service Agency Communities in One World (a division of ous procedures and their origins, we will also discover more Engagement Global gGmbH – Service für Entwicklungsin- about the society of the related country, region or city. The itiativen, Germany). We have also cooperated with local present essay is designed to encourage readers to embark governments, NGOs and social movements on numerous on this process of discovery. occasions. This provided us with a number of opportunities to participate in citizens’ assemblies and other key moments of PB. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 9 Introduction 2. What is Participatory Budgeting? Figure 1: Traditional forms of participation and participatory budgeting Before beginning our journey around the world, we need to explain in more detail exactly what “participatory budgeting” is. Some readers may already have a clear idea of what the term means, but others in different parts of the world would probably disagree: in order to compare on a world scale, we would like to give a precise definition of what we will analyze. Before we do so, however, we will first look at an anecdote that explains what distinguishes PB from other participatory procedures. The story goes that Source: Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke, 2014. the inhabitants of the French city of Poitiers once requested that their local authority make the Rue Jourdain a one-way “Horizontal” communication of this kind has been obser- street in order to calm traffic in the neighborhood. The ved in Porto Alegre and in other PBs. This is not sufficient city council looked into the possibility and finally gave its as a definition, however, because all other participatory consent. As a result of this measure, however, the traffic devices and methods, such as planning cells, or community was shifted into the neighborhood on the other side of planning can also – in principle – be used for cross-district the street, where soon afterwards the inhabitants also dialogue. To define participatory budgets more precisely, demanded that the traffic be calmed. They proposed that we need to apply further criteria. This would also appear another one-way street sign also be put up at the oppo- necessary given that some of the experiments described site end of Rue Jourdain. The council granted this request here are not referred to as “participatory budgeting” by too, which led to the present situation, in which access to local actors. Conversely, some procedures are listed as par- Rue Jourdain is blocked at both ends. What at first glance ticipatory budgets even though they would not be labeled reads like an example of bungling was later used by the as such in another country. Therefore, we propose a practi- elected political representatives in Poitiers as proof that cal definition of “PB”. citizens’ participation also has its limits, and that the city council has to be the one to weigh up interests and look Participatory Budgeting: Five Criteria for the common good. What the city council failed to see, however, is that the citizens had no opportunity to discuss Basically, PB allows the participation of non-elected citi- the issue of traffic calming with their neighbors. They had zens in the conception and/or allocation of public finances. raised their demands before their respective participatory Five further criteria need to be added (Sintomer/Herzberg/ neighborhood councils, to which only the inhabitants of Röcke, 2014; Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke/Allegretti, 2012): the neighborhood in question are invited. Here, as is the case with many forms of traditional citizens’ participation, (1) Discussion of financial/budgetary processes (PB deals the primary mechanism involved is communication between with scarce resources). All participatory devices may concern citizens in a certain neighborhood and their local authority. financial questions (for example, any participatory process By contrast, PB includes the possibility – as illustrated in related to urban planning will have an impact on costs if Figure 1 – of citizens from different neighborhoods getting projects become bigger or smaller than previously planned). together, possibly through delegates’ committees. In PB, however, the participatory process is centrally based on the question of how a limited budget should be used. 10 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction (2) The city level has to be involved, or a (decentralized) district with an elected body and some power over admi- 3. How Participatory Budgeting Spread across the World nistration and resources (the neighborhood level is not enough). In fact, we can observe a growing number of Undoubtedly, a high degree of “ambiguity” (Ganuza / neighborhood funds in relation to which citizens can decide Baiocchi, 2012) characterizes the way PBs have mushroomed about a concrete amount of money, but without having and travelled around the world in recent years. Some of the any influence on broader-scale issues. In order to clearly promise of its origins has not been fulfilled, but a creative identify PB, we consider only those participatory processes hybridization of different models and tools adapted to local with a similar scale to that of the elected bodies of repre- situations has made it possible to foster different goals. PB sentative democracy. offers a large range of possibilities for innovation with regard to decision-making (Smith, 2009), especially at local level. It (3) It has to be a repeated process over years. Consequently, began with a number of Brazilian cities (including the metro- if a participatory process is already planned as a unique polis of Porto Alegre), where participatory budgets first arose event, we would not consider it to be PB: one meeting, in the late 1980s. During the 1990s the procedure started one referendum on financial issues are not examples of PB. to spread widely in Brazil (Avritzer/Wampler, 2008; Borba/ Lüchmann, 2007; Avritzer/Navarro, 2003). Today there are (4) Some form of public deliberation must be included around 300 experiments, giving Brazil one of the highest within the framework of specific meetings/forums. This densities of participatory budgets in the world, especially if means that if citizens are invited to discuss budgeting in we do not take into account those contexts in which PB is a local councils or in parliaments, we would not view it as mandatory obligation established by law. sufficient, because PB should include specific institutions and therefore a new public sphere. Furthermore, we state PB has also spread to other parts of the continent. This that PB should be based on some kind of deliberation. This includes Andean countries such as Ecuador and Peru, is why we do not consider a survey on budgeting issues as well as Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia and the in which citizens would remain without contact with one Caribbean. This trend has continued since the turn of the other to be PB. However, PB deliberation does not necessa- millennium. Although it has not been possible to obtain rily directly lead to decision-making. the exact figures, right now there are between 618 and 1,130 participatory budgets in Latin America: almost one- (5) Some accountability is required so that the output third of the participatory budgets in the world, which count reflects the public will. We have observed that in many between 1,269 and 2,778 traceable experiments. Undoub- participatory processes, participants never receive feedback tedly, other cases must exist, but they remain “invisible” about whether or not their proposals are accepted. This outside their local territories. Inspired by the Latin American should be different in PB, through annual meetings or pub- experiments, which represent the ideals of good gover- lications where organizers provide information about the nance and a more just distribution of public resources, realization of the proposed projects. people across the globe began to pick up the idea of PB. After Porto Alegre, social movements and representatives of (left-leaning) local governments from Europe began coming to the World Social Forums organized by the alterglobalization movement. As a result, since 2001 a rapid increase has been seen on the old continent, and a number of other experiments began but were interrupted due to local political changes. The core countries were initially > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 11 Introduction France, Spain and Italy (Porto De Oliveira, 2010). In these in 2012, the majority concentrated in Senegal, Cameroon, Latin countries, a high number of municipalities have joined RDC Congo and Madagascar. networks such as those created within the URBAL fundingline in order to establish links with municipalities in Latin This fast development of PBs around the world has led to America (Cabannes, 2003). German municipalities, which the creation of continental networks supporting the disse- tended to form their own networks, originally debated PBs mination of PB. If we cast our gaze further, towards Asia, in the context of a modernization of local government; the where PB has been introduced most recently, PBs – which model was not Porto Alegre, but the city of Christchurch in began to appear in larger numbers around 2005 – often New Zealand, which won a prize for citizen-friendly moder- do not build on previous forms of citizen participation, but nization in 1993 within the “Cities of Tomorrow” network, mark a new beginning. Interestingly, here too an exchange where a lot of German cities and the Bertelsmann Founda- with Porto Alegre is to be observed: at least, the Brazilian tion were active. The influence of Porto Alegre came later. experience plays an important role as a point of reference in the debate, especially for South Korea and China, whose The processes expanded in other countries, especially the local authorities and NGOs have often visited the Brazilian United Kingdom, where participatory budgets have gained metropolis, especially since 2009. In India, the Kerala par- some support from national government, and Poland, ticipatory strategic planning experiment encountered Porto where a national law was approved by the parliament in Alegre during the Mumbai World Social Forum. In this 2009 (Röcke, 2013). It is very encouraging because it gives continent, 58 to 109 experiments were going on in 2012. specific funding for the establishment of co-decisional PB in all villages. With the support of the Federation of Box 1: The growing centrality of ICT Local Groups Leaders (which in 2013 changed its name Although participatory budgeting has existed since the early to “Watchdog Poland Civic Network”), which acts as a 1990s, the use of technological tools was long limited to watchdog for monitoring and tries to upgrade the qua- informational and communicational support (Allegretti, lity of experiments, this gave Poland the largest number 2012b). The first real experiments in which information and of ongoing experiments in Europe in 2012 (324–1,102). communication technologies (ICTs) played a large role within In several countries, local non-governmental organizations PB were only in the first decade of the 2000s. Unsurprisingly, play an important role in supporting the dissemination of Brazil was the first country in which ICTs were used to inno- PBs, such as the PB Unit in the United Kingdom, which had vate participatory budgets and make them more attractive to close in 2012 due to the financial cuts decided on by the and cost-efficient. Today, one can point out seven different national government. main uses of the digital technologies in PBs worldwide: In Africa, development cooperation and international orga- 1) Use of digital technologies to collect proposals nizations had a pivotal role in introducing PB, an instrument for PB: that is now taken into account by the UCLGA (the African The first e-PB experiments in Brazil used this method, the Association of Local Authorities). Nevertheless, cases such most successful case being Ipatinga. Other examples are as the ASSOAL development association in Cameroon Lisbon (Portugal), New South Wales (Australia), New York prove that a stream of grassroots exchanges with Europe (USA), Pune (India), and a majority of German PBs. and Latin America has also developed, which has helped to foster some good examples of PB. Africa has experienced 2) Use of digital technologies for engagement and a real increase in the quality and number of PBs in the past mobilization: three years: there were between 77 and 103 experiments The first attempts at online engagement were made through e-mails, sending invitations to organizations 12 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction and citizens already registered as target-groups of other face-to-face meetings. Thus one can vote either to prioritize services. Afterwards, there were some experiments using the importance of particular work, or to choose work to be SMS messages to engage the public. Nowadays, social net- carried out from a longer list. works, such as Facebook and Twitter, are often the primary form of online engagement and mobilization of citizens 6) Online monitoring: (especially youngsters). Quite often, digital technologies have also been used to monitor the whole process of PBs. In Porto Alegre, for 3) Using digital tools for didactic and playful example, there is an application (app) that allows citizens goals: to watch face-to-face PB meetings using a Smartphone, Sometimes ICTs play a pedagogic role, especially with the and tools to check on the web the status of implemen- younger generation, who feel more attracted by them. In tation of several requests. Moreover, Porto Alegre’s as terms of entertainment, the e-PB in Belo Horizonte (2008) well as Seville’s websites offers numerous digital tools to presented a quiz based on Google Maps with questions monitor the implementation of approved projects, such as about the city. For didactic improvements the city of Ham- cost information, the company in charge, reasons for delay, burg made use of an online budget calculator, which was and current level of achievement. In other examples, such then adapted and translated by the Swedish Association of as Malaga (Spain) and South Kivu (Congo), citizens can Local and Regional Authorities in order to provide a tool for register to receive updates by SMS on approved projects. concerned citizens to send their budget suggestions to the local government. 7) Online overview of PB development: In recent years, several institutions and organizations have 4) Use of digital networks for discussion and developed platforms which help to get an overview of the interaction among citizens: diffusion of participatory budgeting. The Portuguese NGO The first attempts have been using online discussion forums In Loco, together with other partners, established, with (asynchronous) and synchronous chats to allow more Info OP, an international PB observatory. There are also interaction among participants and between citizens and national adaptations of this idea. In Germany, for example, representatives, as in Belo Horizonte (2008, 2011). Further- www.buergerhaushalt.de, run by Engagement Global more social networks have been used to encourage these and German Federal Agency for Civic Education, provides discussions and interactions. An interesting case occurred detailed maps on the development of PB. There is even a in Hamburg (in 2009), when 2,138 citizens sent budget special tool which helps to identify the status of PB imple- suggestions (through the above described simulator) and mentation year by year. 38 wiki documents were created collaboratively using these. Since 2011, Porto Alegre municipality has hosted an important social network (portolagre.cc) to support collec- Throughout the world, academic researchers have also tive action and dynamize social activism. played an important role, either by advising PB experiments created by social and political actors, or by proposing the 5) Online voting: creation of hybrid processes that could merge the main This is certainly the main use of digital technologies in PBs, features of PB with other devices, such as citizens’ juries, especially in the past five to seven years. Several municipali- deliberative polls or participatory processes of strategic ties have tested the possibility of using voting via SMS, such planning, as well as being directly part of some expe- as La Plata (Argentina) and Cascais (Portugal), in addition riments, in action-research communities, documenting to voting by telephone, such as in Belo Horizonte in 2008. study cases, publishing comparative analyses, elaborating Citizens typically vote online on priorities decided in earlier software to support and monitor processes, proposing and > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 13 Introduction Figure 2: Participatory budgeting in the world (2012) Source: Authors’ elaboration. applying evaluation criteria and organizing training sessions do indeed need to be counted as such. Conversely, some for local authorities, international organizations, local and of the self-proclaimed examples turn out to be just pale regional NGOs. copies of PB. That is why we chose to represent “ranges” (rather than precise numbers) for the different countries In the following chapters, the development of PB on the and continents. five continents will be dealt with in more detail, imagining it as a sort of “ideoscape” (Appadurai, 1991), i.e. a model which travels around the world and only exists through its very different locals implementations, which continuously 4. A Typology of Participatory Budgeting contribute to modify the model itself. The process of dissemination described above is merely a first outline, illustra- To help the reader obtain a more detailed understanding ted in Figure 2. Our clear definition enables us to compare of PB around the world, it is necessary to provide some the wide range of experiments which are being carried on guidance in this introductory chapter. In order to have around the planet. For some countries, very precise data some points of reference to distinguish between hundreds are available. In others, however, where fewer interlocutors of individual experiments, it is helpful to propose a typo- were available or where the information supplied is contra- logy. In the past, different typologies focusing mainly on dictory, estimations have to be made. A further problem is methodologies and procedures have been used, and the obtaining more detailed information on procedures that so previous version of this report followed this path. Howe- far only a few people have referred to as “PB”, yet which, ver, such typologies are hardly applicable in very different following detailed discussion and examination of the facts, continental contexts, where PB takes a huge number of 14 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction concrete shapes. This is why this essay proposes six cate- of merely consultative procedures. So we propose to specify gories conceived – through a Weberian approach – as its meanings, specifically targeting experiments in which “ideal-types” which could facilitate the understanding of traditional mechanisms of representative government are the social and political variations of PB experiments. In the solidly linked to direct or semi-direct democratic procedu- following pages, six different models are described, which res, meaning that non-elected inhabitants (and eventually compose a conceptual map on which one can situate empi- their delegates, who are invested with a “semi-imperative rical cases. Concrete experiments tend to hybridize and to mandate”) have de facto decision-making powers, alt- fluctuate between models. As in Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke hough de jure the final political decision remains in the and Allegretti (2012), we named the six models as follow: hands of elected representatives (Romão, 2011). In such a model, inhabitants’ decisions have a “binding” role, which (i) Participatory Democracy is generally sanctioned through a “political pact” by which (ii) Proximity Democracy local institutions commit to respect the participants’ will. (iii) Participatory Modernization This narrower meaning is in line with the visions of most (iv) Multi-stakeholder participation contemporary social scientists and constitutes an explicit (v) Neo-corporatism normative frame. Alongside anti-authoritarian socialism, it (vi) Community Development constitutes the inspiration of our first ideal-type. Obviously, real experiments never completely match these When it comes to defining what concrete elements charac- idealized models, but the latter allow us to classify and terize this model, we could list the simultaneous emergence systematize the puzzling variety of concrete cases and can of a “fourth power” (participants have real decision-making be used to provide orientation, a sort of road map, whose power, different from the judiciary, the legislative and the cardinal points help the observer to not get lost (see Figure executive) and a “countervailing power” (the autonomous 3). The six models we propose are constructed around six mobilization of civil society within the process leads to criteria: the socio-political context; ideologies and political the empowerment of the people and the promotion of goals; participatory rules and procedures; the dynamics of cooperative conflict resolution). It must be underlined that collective action (weight of civil society, existence of bot- the model we defined as participatory democracy tends to tom-up movements and so on); the relationship between rely on the participation of the working class. This dynamic conventional politics and participatory processes; and the can generate a positive equation between conventional strengths, weaknesses and challenges of each participatory and unconventional politics, as the positive action of the experience. two can combine and activate a “virtuous circle” (Ganuza/ Fernandez, 2012). In the following paragraphs the six conceptual models are described briefly in order to clarify the orientation map and In this model, participation usually has real repercussions in to serve as a reference for the other chapters which consi- the relations between civil society and the political system, der concrete examples of PB in the five continents. and in terms of social justice, being that the countervailing power in combination with the political will of the govern- 4.1 Participatory Democracy ment contributes significantly to an “inversion of priorities” in benefit of the most deprived social groups and socially- While choosing this word, we are aware that the term is polarized neighborhoods. In such a model of PB, the logic often used as a “catchword” which refers to the majority and general orientation of distribution is transformed, of approaches that in some way bring non-elected citizens going beyond the mere involvement of marginal groups together in the decision-making process, even in the case in order to list social justice among the guiding-horizons of > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 15 Introduction Figure 3: Typology of models of participation in the World (with the example of participatory budgets, 2011) the experiments (Wampler, 2012). Usually, we notice that The above description can explain why such a model is these effects are most likely to occur in countries of the usually linked to an idea of citizen participation mainly Global South where the awareness of socio/spatial polariza- under a “left-wing flag,” often presented as an alternative tion is stronger, and it is perceived as one of the real limits to neo-liberalism, but also as part of a broader process of to the possibility of harmonious development. social and political reform. Nevertheless, in this model, the modernization of administrative action is not necessarily 16 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction considered a pivotal step, which can weaken the final model is based on “selective listening”: spaces for citizens’ results of the PB experiment, as the cases of Porto Alegre meetings and deliberation are provided, but in the end, and Belo Horizonte in Brazil illustrate. A number of Latin- the traditional elected decision-makers cherry-pick citizens’ American participatory budgets exemplify this model, but ideas to select those which are most likely to be transfor- in other continents, cities such as Seville (Spain) or Dong-ku med into public policies and projects formally approved and (South-Korea) used to share some of its characteristics. The inserted in the budgetary documents. Proximity democracy Kerala experiments in India fitted to a certain extent (espe- is grounded in informal rules and leaves civil society with cially in the goals of empowering deprived social groups), only marginal autonomy. In this perspective, it maintains a but surely it shares with it some dimensions that refer more discretional power of choice in the hands of representative to the community development model described later. The institutions. It constitutes more of a “deliberative turn” of same can be said for Fissel (Senegal), Villa El Salvador (Peru) representative government than an inroad into a new kind and, to a lesser extent, Cotacachi (Ecuador). Beyond PB, this of democracy – a deliberative turn that will perhaps not be model also reflects other citizen participation processes, recognized by the theoreticians as deliberative democracy such as the constituent assemblies in countries like Bolivia, because of the low quality of deliberation which often cha- Ecuador and, to a lesser extent, Venezuela. racterizes these devices. Some authors have argued that the participatory demo- As such, proximity democracy is neither a right-nor a left- cracy model is the most politically and philosophically wing instrument. It is not conceived as an instrument of stimulating one because it combines strong participation social justice. Provided the process is often merely consul- with social justice. However, it can work only under specific tative and civil society does not have much autonomy, the circumstances, and that other models could therefore be emergence of a fourth power or of a cooperative counter- more appropriate in certain contexts. The weakness of par- vailing power seems excluded. In fact, many experiments ticipatory democracy is that it requires a strong political will close to proximity democracy are essentially top-down. This and a mobilized and independent civil society that is ready model often targets and attracts self-mobilized individual to cooperate with local governments. The main challenges citizens, even if community organizations and NGOs often of this model include efforts to successfully link civic parti- play a considerable unofficial role. In order to increase the cipation to administrative modernization, and avoid the risk presence of “ordinary” citizens, several experiments use of co-opting the mobilized members of civil society into the random selection to invite inhabitants to be part of budge- institutional framework (which would cut them off from tary committees. their own grassroots). A low degree of politicization and a low level of mobili- 4.2 Proximity Democracy zation (particularly of the working class) are common denominators of proximity democracy. Its main strength Proximity, both in terms of geographical closeness and is the improvement of communication between citizens increased communication between citizens, public adminis- and policymakers, and the dynamization of the local social trations and local authorities, represents the pivotal element fabric. Its weaknesses lie in the essentially arbitrary way in that contributes to defining the second model. It usually which policymakers “selectively listen” to people’s perspec- takes place in countries whose local governments have tives. The main challenges of this model are to ensure that some real power, but they are somehow marginal within participation is effectively coupled with decision-making: a political culture marked by a “centralist bias,” so that as Alves/Allegretti (2012) demonstrated in the case of Por- local public administrations are not necessarily involved in a tuguese PB experiments, the merely consultative models of strong process of modernization. The proximity democracy PB demonstrate a higher degree of fragility, due to the gap > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 17 Introduction existing between the expectations they generate and the participation, and the fact that cross-bench political con- concrete results they foster; and, in addition, to combine sensus can easily be achieved. The dark side is that it makes proximity with state modernization beyond neighborhood it difficult to introduce broader issues, particularly related level and to avoid the so-called NIMBY (“not in my backy- to social justice. The processes close to the participatory ard”) effect. modernization model often tend to be purely managerial in nature and to become tied by merely technocratic proce- Nowadays, the proximity democracy model seems most dures. For the future, the main challenges to be addressed common in Europe, often supported by councils and funds include how to increase the mobilization and autonomy of (usually reduced amounts of general budgets or their civil society, at the same time developing a genuine poli- investment slice), and oriented towards participation in tical dimension in order to provide politics with renewed “small decisions” about neighborhood equipment and ser- impetus. vices. The same happens in North America, Australia, Korea and Japan, and in several countries of the Global South. A This model has been influential in Germany and to a lesser number of experiments, such as Rome’s XI district (Italy, extent in other countries of Northern Europe. It has influ- today renamed VIII District), Lisbon (Portugal), the French enced other participatory tools than PB, such as consumer region Poitou-Charentes or Dong-Ku Ulsan (Korea), are to charters, score cards, panels and inquiries, as well as hot- be located between proximity and participatory democracy. lines. Neighborhood councils and neighborhood management can become part of this. Countries outside Europe 4.3 Participatory Modernization have also taken advantage of this approach, for example China. All around the world, many municipal authorities of New Public Management strategies and culture seem to be very different political affiliations have introduced PB proce- at the origin of the third model of participatory moderniza- dures that reflect this model. Cases such as Cascais – today tion, in a context in which the state is trying to modernize the best example of ongoing PB in the Iberian peninsula itself (in order to become more efficient and legitimate) or – invest a lot in participatory modernization. Experiments seeks to resist the pressures to privatize. PBs belonging to such as Bagira (one of the three municipalities of Bukavu, this model tend to be top-down, are less party-oriented capital of South Kivu in Congo RDC) but also Zeguo (China) and barely go beyond their consultative value. In contrast or Cologne (Germany), are in between participatory moder- to proximity democracy, modernization is not focused nization and proximity democracy. only on the neighborhood level, but includes also the central administration and its main service providers. In this Box 2: model, participants are considered clients; hence there is Participatory modernization: the case of Hilden no interest in the integration of marginalized groups or in (Germany) the launch of social policies. Civil society has only limited Hilden (Germany): an interesting example of PB aimed at autonomy, and there is no space for either a fourth power promoting participatory modernization. or a cooperative counter-power. Experiments in line with The industrial town of Hilden (population 57,000) in the this model tend to raise the legitimacy of public policies, alt- District of Mettmann is one of the few examples in Ger- hough politics remains in the background. Those targeted many in which the participatory budget can be considered are mainly middle class. The normative frames are based – beyond party affiliations – an established and permanent upon participatory versions of New Public Management. heritage of the city, which clearly marks the local political culture. It was introduced in 2001 within the scope of the The strength of this third model lies in the close link “municipal participatory budget” pilot project of the fede- between the modernization of public administration and ral state of North-Rhine Westphalia. 18 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction The participatory budget is designed first and foremost to with economic forces and where the donors call the tune. make the financial situation of the town and the work of Although participatory procedures may well have decision- the municipality more transparent to citizens. To this end, a making powers, they remain caught in a top-down approach brochure containing the key information is prepared annu- that does not enable a cooperative countervailing power nor ally. At the center of the participatory process is a citizens’ a fourth power to emerge. PBs of this type represent an forum, to which inhabitants are invited by random selec- enlargement of governance mechanisms (whereby private tion. Beyond that, any interested citizen can take part. The economic interests gain an institutional influence in the forum comprises an evening event at which the mayor and decision-making process). In the participatory public–private the treasurer first of all provide an overview of the finan- partnership, civil society is weak and has little autonomy, cial situation of the municipality. Participants can put any even if the rules for decision-making are clearly defined. The questions they may have to the municipal staff members majority of participants in PBs belong to the middle class, present, and can write down any suggested improvements while policies seem to have incorporated the constraints of on the cards provided and leave them in the collection box. neoliberal globalization. International organizations such as At this time, the proposals are not prioritized, but each the World Bank or the United Nations have already played citizen is sent a personal reply indicating whether his or an important role in its dissemination. her suggestion will be implemented, and if so, when. The proposals implemented are basically minor repair measures Its main strength is the linkage between the main to public facilities (buildings, roads and so on), or minor organized structures of society, which facilitates social adjustments to services (opening hours, library services consensus around certain aspects of public policies. The and so on). In Hilden, many interesting tools for making “multi-stakeholder model” includes private companies that the process and communication of data more attractive are fundamental to local development but which tend in have been created during this 12 years of experimentation. other models to remain outside the participative process. Among them, the table-game “Hildopoli” emerged, which However, it is characterized by asymmetrical relationships of allowed school-children to take part in simulations and dis- power and non-organized citizens are excluded. This is why cussions on the municipal budget with their families. In the this model is to be diametrically opposed to participatory meantime, in the face of increasing municipal debt, Hilden democracy. The main challenges are linking participation switched to a budget cut–oriented procedure. In 2012, and modernization, going beyond a simple cherry-picking citizens were invited to comment on a budget cut strategy approach and successfully discussing the most controversial elaborated by external experts. Meanwhile, with face to matters, and balancing the weight of the various stakehol- face meetings seemingly abolished, citizens could use the ders involved in the process. It will also be important for Internet to comment on the 43 recommendations of the the future to carefully imagine how to counterbalance the experts, which sought to save 7.5 million euros in total. pressure to transform NGOs and associations into quasigovernmental organizations or semi-commercial entities. 4.4 Multi-stakeholder Participation The majority of experiments related to this model have taken place in Eastern Europe, for example, the case of The fourth model, “multi-stakeholder participation”, is based Płock (Poland), but it has considerable influence especially mainly on the idea that citizens who get involved in PB are in the Anglo-Saxon world. Some African PBs also partly just part of the broader coalition of actors which animates fit this model, especially when PB is conceived as a driver the discussion on the budget, together with private enterpri- of decentralization and external actors play an important ses, NGOs and local government. In this model, local politics role in funding the experiment, as in some experiments in appear to have only limited room for maneuver, compared Madagascar. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 19 Introduction 4.5 Neo-corporatism 4.6 Community Development It is possible to define a “neo-corporatist” model through The existence of a phase of project implementation by local the role that local government plays by surrounding itself communities rather than by civil servants represents the with organized groups (mainly NGOs, trade unions and main characteristic of the last model. It tends to dissociate professionals’ associations), social groups (the elderly, itself from municipal politics and is a strong participatory immigrant groups and so on) and various local institutions/ process driven as much by a bottom-up dynamic as by a agencies. In the PBs belonging to this model, government top-down one. In this approach, the margins for represen- aims to establish a broad consultation with “those who tative politics to intervene in the transformation of priorities matter” and tries to achieve social consensus through the are usually fairly limited. In this situation, the emergence of mediation of interests, values and demands for recognition fourth institutional and cooperative countervailing powers by the various factions in society. In this model, the political is more likely than in most other models. The fact that the leanings of local governments vary, as do the dynamics majority of PBs inspired to community development are not of modernization of the public administration. Even if the closely linked to local institutions distinguishes this model participatory rules may be formalized, the quality of delibe- from participatory democracy. Usually, the influence of ration remains variable, and local neo-corporatist processes Porto Alegre is blended with older community traditions. are essentially consultative. Even though civil society does Many PBs inspired by the community development model play a considerable role in them, its procedural indepen- have clear procedural rules and a relatively high quality of dence is fairly limited, and they are essentially top-down deliberation. The most active participants tend to be the processes. This is why the emergence of a cooperative upper fraction of the working class, involved in running the countervailing power – or of a fourth power – is unlikely to community associations. In this model, the role of NGOs is occur. The outcomes are more linked to a strengthening of often decisive, especially when they advocate the rights of traditional participation than to a virtuous circle of dialogue disadvantaged or marginalized groups. In a configuration between conventional and non-conventional participation. such as this, the partial substitution of non-conventional At national level, the classic neo-corporatist approach par- participation linked to community activities for conventional ticularly exists for managing the health care system or the participation (party membership and voting in elections) is Socio-Economic Councils. They may be highly formalized, fairly likely. The political inclination of local governments is have real decision-making authority and confer decision- not a decisive factor for this model of PB, whose normative making power to the social partners. frames refer to empowerment, to Saul Alinsky’s community organizing, but also to guild socialism, left liberalism, Paulo The “neo-corporatist” model usually tends to be dominant Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed and sometimes the in Local Agenda 21 processes (where different local stake- traditions of local communities, particularly of indigenous holders meet to discuss common topics but have no power ones (as the Andean “minga” tradition shows). to realize their proposals), or in participatory strategic plans (where governments invite different groups to round table In the field of PB, in the Global North, this model has talks). In the context of PB, this model has had only limited developed mainly in the Anglo-Saxon world, for instance influence, most notably in Spain. International organiza- in Canada (with the Toronto Housing Community or the tions have often played a considerable role in disseminating Guelph examples), or in the United Kingdom, where it this model. predominates (the experiment of Tower Hamlets, London, can be seen as emblematic), but other countries, such as Japan, have also been developing this approach. This model is widespread in the Global South, with cases such 20 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction as the rural villages of Fissel or Gnagagnao (department 43,850 in the wards of Leith and Leith Walk) decided – in of M’bour, Senegal) or work with the poor in suburban collaboration with the local and central Services for Com- metropolitan communities as Villa El Salvador (Peru). Other munities of Edinburgh Council – to explore “the use of PB forms of community development have emerged and have approach as a way to make local democracy relevant to become one of the most widespread instruments of citizen community interests.” participation, from the Community Development Corporations in the United States to various forms of community The partnership is made up of ward councilors, community organizing, both in the North and in the Global South, and council representatives, police, fire service, NHS Lothian, the neighborhood councils in Venezuela. voluntary organizations, Forth Ports and the Port of Leith Housing Association. The experiment was called “£eith The advantages of this model lie in being able to experiment Decides” and used 35 percent of the 2010/11 Community in places where local governments are often weak and Grants Fund (around £16,600). It consisted in some events where, conversely, civil society has genuine independence (held from November 2010 to February 2012) that allo- and a real tradition of organizing. The main weakness lies wed local people to make decisions on Community Grants in the fact that it is difficult to build an overall vision of Awards of up to £1,000 from a choice of projects. The City the town when concentrating energies in discussing small of Edinburgh Council staff supported a Steering Group of local investments; also to be considered a weakness are citizen volunteers and LNP members in planning and publi- the tenuous links between participation, modernization cizing the events through local radio, local press and com- of the public administration and institutional politics. The munity newsletters, websites, flyers, posters, information challenges that such a model faces include trying to keep in libraries, a Facebook page (which increased its hits by the management of community organizations free from 63 percent in the second year) and advertising hoardings. managerial influence and to stop them from turning into “para-public bodies” producing services for public local From the first to the second year the number of participants institutions; moreover, processes of this type often have doubled, exceeding targets and showing a 75 percent rate difficulty looking beyond the micro-local level and contribu- of high satisfaction. Following the success of the first-year ting to the transformation of institutional politics. pilot, the share of the 2011/12 Community Grants Fund allocated through “£eith decides” was increased to 40 per- Box 3: cent. The Preference Voting method was used, asking voting Leith (Great Britain): a pilot for Edinburgh PB? participants to score every project out of five; ballot sheets Bradford, a post-industrial city in West Yorkshire (with a which did not fulfill this requirement were not counted. The population of 523,000) was one of the first places in the targets for the 2012/13 financial year include: (a) setting up United Kingdom to adopt PB within the framework of the performance measures to ensure that voting participants Neighborhood Renewal Program (NRP), a national strategy are representative of the community profile; (b) investiga- aiming at the social, economic and political development of ting greater use of electronic communication; (c) the use of the poorest areas in the country. online and postal voting, particularly for excluded groups; (d) access to information and voting through schools and Many of the new experiments arose thanks to the support libraries. Following the Leith experiment’s success, other and careful networking strategy provided by the NGO “the districts are discussing the start-up of similar processes in PB Unit,” as in the case of Leith, Edinburgh‘s port district. 2013, and there is a debate with Edinburgh City Hall to Here, in 2010, the Leith Neighbourhood Partnership (LNP, engage the entire municipality in PB in the future. one of the 12 umbrella organizations that operate in the Scottish capital city, covering a population of around > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 21 Introduction Table 1. Key characteristics of the six models of citizen participation Participatory democracy Proximity democracy Participatory modernization Multistakeholder participation Neocorporatism Community development Relationship Central role of Central role of Central role of Hegemony of Central role of Hegemony of between state, state state state the market the state the market, 1. Context market and assertiveness of third sector Political the third sector Left-wing Variable Variable leaning of local Variable (but Variable Variable no radical left) government 2. Frames and goals Normative Participatory Deliberation- Participatory Participatory Neo- Empowerment, frames democracy, oriented version of governance corporatism, community post- version of New Public participatory organizing, authoritarian republicanism, Management governance pedagogy of socialism deliberative the oppressed, democracy libertarian traditions, leftwing liberalism Social goals Social justice, Renewal Social Social capital Consensus and Empowerment inversion of of social peace, no reinforced, social cohesion of subaltern priorities relationships, re-distributive economic groups, solidarity objectives growth, affirmative without increased action, redistributive redistributive no overall policies goals redistributive policy 3. Procedures Rules, quality Clearly Informal rules, Rules may be Clearly defined Rules may be Rules may be of deliberation defined rules, deliberative clear, weak rules, average clear, variable clear, average good quality quality weak or deliberative to good deliberative to high deliberation average quality deliberative quality deliberative Strong Weak Weak Weak Variable Strong Yes No No No No (at local Yes quality Procedural quality independence of civil society Fourth power level) 22 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Introduction 4. Collective action Weight of Strong Weak Weak Weak Strong Fairly strong Top-down vs. Top-down and Top-down Top-down Top-down Top-down Top-down and bottom-up bottom-up Consensus vs. Cooperative Consensus Consensus Consensus Consensus Cooperative cooperative conflict No No No No resolution of conflict resolution countervailing countervailing countervailing countervailing conflicts resolution; Countervailing power power power power Countervailing countervailing power civil society in process bottom-up power power 5. Others Link between Instrumental Weak Weak Strengthening Substitution conventional Combination use of (participation is (participation is of conventional (participation and participation a management a management participation develops tool) tool) participatory outside politics conventional politics) Strengths, – Combining – Improved – Linking – Inclusion – Creation – Fits in weaknesses, strong communication participation of private of social contexts with challenges participation between with corporations consensus weak local with social policy-makers modernization; – Dominance – Exclusion of governments justice and citizens broad political of private non-organized and strong – Very specific – Selective consensus interests citizens; community conditions listening – Low level of – Balancing asymmetric tradition – Linking – Combining politicization the weight of power relations – No overall participation to participation – To increase stake-holders; – Linking vision of the modernization; with formal participation autonomy of participation town avoiding risk decision- and autonomy NGOs with – Limiting of co-opting making of civil society modernization; Managerial mobilized process; and autonomy of influence; citizens with state civil society going beyond modernization the micro-local level Countries PB: Latin PB: Europe, PB: Germany, PB: Eastern America, Spain, North-America, Northern Europe, Africa South Korea Europe, China > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Korea, Japan, PB: Limited PB: AngloSaxon countries, countries of Japan, Global Global South South 23 Introduction 5. Five Continents Having looked at participatory budgets around the world, we will now focus in greater depth on individual continents. In all cases we will say something about the overall conditions under which participatory budgets arose. We will possibly identify the key actors, the networks and their objectives. And, of course wherever possible, information will be provided on the effects of PB. We also considered it important to describe concrete experiments and situations that provide practical insights. Observations of this kind, and descriptions of methods, will often be presented in boxes, as we did in the previous section on the different models and typologies of PB. We will begin with a report on Latin America, because that is where PB first began. The next chapter focuses on Europe and North America. Here we can speak of a “return of the caravels”, because PB represents one example of what the industrialized countries in the global North can learn from the South in terms of innovation of public policies and innovative forms of decision-making. PB now also exists in Africa and in Asia (and to a much smaller extent in Oceania), parts of the world to which two chapters are devoted. The conclusion will deal in greater depth with the issue of mutual learning and with more prospective issues. 24 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America I. Latin America is by far the most important continent for PB. The city of Porto Alegre, capital of the state of Rio Grande The mechanism was invented there in the 1980s; in 2012, do Sul (population 1.3 million in the early 1990s), had almost 40 percent of the participatory budgets existing always been diffident towards the central government, and in the world were still situated there and an even larger the standard of living was above average for Brazilian cities. share of the most dynamic experiments are Latin American. Last but not least, it was one of the places where social Nearly everywhere, in this part of the world, the influence movements, and especially urban movements, had been of Porto Alegre has been decisive, even though the origi- strongest in Brazil (Baierle, 2007; Avritzer, 2002). The city nal methodology has been adapted to local contexts and was also a stronghold of the Workers’ Party (PT), which was has sometimes been merged with other methodologies. even more left-wing there than in the rest of Brazil. Furthermore, as the idea of PB has spread throughout the region and has been advocated by new actors such as the After some previous experiments in smaller cities (Bernardo World Bank (which are very different from the leftist net- de Souza, 2004), PB crystallized in Porto Alegre due to a works that first propagated it), the social and political logics “window of opportunity” which opened in the aftermath that the mechanism fosters have become differentiated. of the electoral victory of the Workers’ Party in 1988 (Abers, Overall, the present panorama is no less manifold than in 2000). It was not only the new left-wing local government other parts of the world, as we will see later. that drove the new participatory process. Civil society, and in particular community associations, also demanded stron- We will see first of all how PB was conceived in Porto ger co-decision-making rights. The invention of PB was, Alegre, before looking more closely at its spread across the therefore, the outcome of a conjunction of top-down and rest of Brazil and to other Latin American countries, paying bottom-up processes. The local “presidential system” that particular attention to the networks involved in the process. exists in Brazil provided a strong incentive. The left-wing Then we will analyze how the original mechanism has been city executive directly elected by the citizenry did not have hybridized with various methodologies, and conclude by the necessary majority in the separately elected local legis- surveying the results and the unfolding dynamics. How can lative chamber and needed, therefore, to gain a foothold in we explain the apparent success of PB? Do current practices society. The PB mechanism was a pragmatic invention, and really correspond to the ideals that originally led to its emer- not the mere application of an intellectual or ideological gence? What are the present trends of PB in Latin America? design. By 1993, it had already assumed its most salient features – and by the time the PT lost the office of mayor to the opposition in 2004 after 16 years in power, PB had 1. Once Upon a Time in Porto Alegre been integrated to such an extent that the new government did not dare to abolish the procedure, even though it When PB emerged in Brazil, the context was peculiar. In a has progressively reduced its scope. country with one of the widest income gaps in the world, the 1980s were marked by the transition from dictatorship Three goals have been assigned to PB since its birth in 1989. to democracy. For nearly two decades, the huge social The first was political. The idea was to “democratize demo- movements that shook Brazil had been pressing for political cracy” through grassroots participation and mobilization of and social changes. The new constitution adopted in 1988 the poor, who had been excluded and marginalized by the was very progressive and open to citizen participation, but Brazilian political system, and by waging a struggle against the real functioning of the political system remained cha- clientelism. The second was social. The aim was to bring racterized by corruption and clientelism. about a reversal of priorities in favor of the disadvantaged, and especially those living in the suburbs, who had been almost forgotten in the course of the urban development > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 25 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America process. The third goal appeared only when the hopes of of suggestions. Any individual who wants to participate in some PT leaders for a rapid revolution vanished. It was public meetings can do so. Associations have no privileges, supposed to help establish good governance that would even though they play a key role in organizing and mobili- eradicate corruption and increase the efficiency of public zing citizenry. It also follows that they remain independent of policies (Fedozzi, 1999; Gret/Sintomer, 2004). the city executive, which is their main partner. The legislative local power (the City Council), although it has the legal The mechanism conceived in Porto Alegre is highly complex power to accept or reject the municipal budget, tends to play and a real institutional innovation. The basic idea was to a marginal role in the mechanism. Rules – annually revised involve non-elected citizens in the allocation of public money, with the participants – established that delegates be tightly and provide them with direct decision-making power at the controlled by the grassroots, that they can be removed, have grassroots level, power of co-decision-making at the city a one-year mandate, and their re-election is limited (some of level and a capacity for control at all levels. The participatory these features, conceived to greatly reduce their autonomy pyramid has three levels: assemblies open to all inhabitants and make them very different from conventional elected in neighborhoods, a participatory forum of delegates in the representatives, have been relaxed in recent years). At the districts and a general participatory council at the city level. city level, the PB council convenes once a week for two In addition to the meetings that take place on a territorial hours. Its duty is to ensure that the priorities of the districts basis, specific assemblies focus on thematic topics (such as are taken up in the budget to the largest extent possible. housing, urban infrastructure, healthcare, economic development, environmental issues, education, youth, culture PB in Porto Alegre is not limited to one particular time of and sport). The aim of the assemblies is to discuss priorities the year and is based on a one-year cycle that runs from and to elect delegates who follow up on the development February to December, as presented below. Figure 4: PB cycle of Porto Alegre Source: ONG Cidade, http://www.ongcidade.org/site/php/comum/capa.php 26 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America Most of the discussions concern annual public investment, Table 2: Criteria for allocation of capital even though other topics are dealt with, such as city reve- investments in Porto Alegre nues and structural expenses, such as the salaries of public Regional Thematic Priority servants and recruiting processes for new employees and collaborators. Long-term urban and economic development is beyond the reach of PB, which plays a very secondary Regional Thematic Priority Relative Weight 5 role in this process, although some “bridges” have been First Priority Grade 4 launched since the last Master Plan approved in 1999 in Second Priority Grade 3 order to better coordinate its management and PB in amidto long-term perspective. Third Priority Grade 2 Fourth Priority Grade 1 Population size Last but not least, as well as reviewing the technical feasibility of the public works proposed by citizens, the funds which are available for each of the investment areas are distributed among the districts on the basis of (a) the local list of priorities with the majority “one person, one vote” principle; (b) the number of residents; and (c) the quality of the infrastructure or the services available, with an allocation formula that gives more weight (through a coefficient Relative weight 2 Above 90,001 inhabitants Grade 4 From 45,001 to 90,000 inhabitants Grade 3 From 25,001 to 45,000 inhabitants Grade 2 Up to 25,000 inhabitants Grade 1 Degree of deficiency in infrastructure or services Relative weight 4 that can be revised year by year) to those districts that From 76 to 100% Grade 4 have less (Genro/De Souza, 1997; Fedozzi, 2000; Herzberg, From 51 to 75.99 % Grade 3 2001; Baiocchi, 2005). The embodiment of a principle of From 15 to 50.99 % Grade 2 social justice in such a criterion has been one of the most From 0.01 to 14.99 % Grade 1 original achievements of the experiment. Source: Booklet from the municipality of Porto Alegre, 2005. Overall, even though some serious challenges have had to be faced and have not been completely overcome, the results of Porto Alegre PB have been surprisingly positive, according to the numerous researchers who have studied it. First of all, participation increased until 2002. The social characteristics of those who participate are even more striking: lower income people tend to be more involved than others, women became a majority in the assemblies after a few years, and young people are very active. Even though delegates tend to be somewhat more educated, male and older, they are fairly representative of Porto Alegre’s citizenry (Fedozzi, 2007; OBSERVAPOA, 2013). PB gives the floor to those who had always been outsiders in the political system. It has led to a real empowerment of civil society and, most notably, of the working class (Baierle, 2007). More and more citizens have joined initiatives and > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 27 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America associations in order to successfully present their demands 2. Dissemination within Brazil in the PB process. Clientelistic structures have largely been overcome and the relationship between the political sys- Whatever the challenges and the limits of Porto Alegre PB tem and civil society has much improved (Avritzer, 2012a; may be, it has been taken as a model to copy or to adapt 2012b; 2002). in many places. This outcome was not self-evident even in Brazil, because the Workers’ Party (PT) in the Rio Grande do In addition, PB has led to a reorientation of public invest- Sul was seen as very leftist even by other elements within ments (or at least of those that have been discussed in this the national PT, and because this party was not in power in process: Mororo, 2009) towards the most disadvantaged many municipalities in the 1990s. districts: primary health care was set up in the living areas of the poor, the number of schools and nursery schools was However, progress has been impressive: there were fewer extended, a lot of streets in the slums have been asphalted than 40 experiments claiming the PB label in 1993–1997; and most of households now have access to water supply around 100 in 1997–2000; nearly 200 in 2001–2004; and and sanitation. This has come about because the process 255–330 at the end of the 2000s (at least according to has been invested in, mainly by the working class, and “local” criteria applied by studies that more or less coincide because it has contributed to an improvement of public with our own definition). services and infrastructures. In the early 2000s, only around half of the experiments Another key issue is that the process has led to better were led by PT mayors (de Grazia/Torres Ribeiro, 2003). government. Corruption, which was not very high in Porto The development of PB in large cities has been even more Alegre, has been made more difficult. PB has also been remarkable: in 2001–2004, one-third of the cities with an incentive to public administration reform: a strong more than 100,000 inhabitants and nearly 60 percent of planning office has been created in order to facilitate dis- those with more than 1 million inhabitants were involved; cussion with the participatory council, there has been more 58 percent of the population living in cities with one mil- cooperation between administrations, new budgeting lion or more inhabitants were living in a place where the methods focusing on products have been introduced, and local government had decided to implement PB (Marquetti, the relationship between the administration and citizens 2005). In addition to Porto Alegre, some of the biggest has improved (Fedozzi, 1999, 2000). The main weakness Brazilian cities were involved: São Paulo (population 11 at that level is that the focus on annual investments has million), Belo Horizonte (population 3.1 million), Recife tended to make the long-term perspective a byproduct. (population 1.4 million) and Belem (population 1.25 mil- The risk is that decisions taken in PB will generate long- lion) – however, some important setbacks occurred in these term expenses (maintenance and salaries) that are difficult cities in the second half of the decade. to sustain (World Bank, 2008). Also, funds are sometimes lacking for other planning projects that are not part of the PB was also expanding in smaller towns in more rural areas, participatory budget (Allegretti, 2003). especially in some parts of the Rio Grande do Sul, and on the periphery of major conurbations such as Santo André (population 673,000), Guarulhos (population 1,300,000), or Campinas (population nearly 1 million), three cities near São Paulo. São Paulo was the state in which the number of experiments was the highest. At that time the South and the South-East, which is to say the most developed part of the country, was where most people were being won over 28 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America by the idea. In the North and North East, the experiment (such as Bahia and Espirito Santo) have adopted a similar started to mushroom especially from 2004 onwards. In methodology. During the PB process, citizens’ delegates that area, the preconditions needed to establish successful were also elected to participate in the PPA Board (a council PB had to be put in place, especially in terms of financial with 76 members). accountability, promotion of coordination among services and combating deeply rooted patterns of clientelism and The year 2004 represented a significant turning point in the “caciquism.” history of PB in Brazil. The PT lost some important cities, such as Porto Alegre itself, Sao Paulo, Belem in the North- Of particular importance was the introduction of PB at the East and Caxias do Sul (population 300,000) in the Rio state level in the Rio Grande do Sul after the PT’s electoral Grande do Sul. Some of them, like these last three, decided victory in 1998. The process had only a short life, because to discontinue PB or to substitute it with a lighter consul- it was interrupted when the PT was defeated in 2002. It tative process with a different name (as in Caxias). In other tended to reproduce on another level the methodology places, such as Porto Alegre, the new political leadership invented in Porto Alegre, which caused some problems due decided to continue with it. In addition, the left won a lot to the difficulty of maintaining efficient grassroots control of other towns and developed PB in new places, especially at this level and the fact that state PB tended to by-pass in the North-East, a region that created a PB network that municipal governments. In 2011, after the electoral victory includes a number of very radical and dynamic experiments, of Tarso Genro (who had twice been mayor of Porto Alegre such as Fortaleza (population 2.4 million) and Recife. Until and as a national Minister had been the creator of the 2010 the number of experiments rose only very modera- Social Economic Council) the idea of PB was reintroduced tely, reaching around 300 experiments in the whole Brazil. in Rio Grande do Sul, taking a new shape. Some of the newly-conquered cities which started PB (for example, Canoas, a city of 325,000 inhabitants in the met- Box 4: ropolitan area of Porto Alegre) developed very interesting The system of citizen participation in Rio Grande and innovative models, which tried to correct some of the do Sul limitations that emerged in previous experiments and also One of the priorities of Governor Tarso Genro and his coa- to coordinate PB with the other 10 participatory processes lition (elected at the end of 2010) was to create a state being implemented at the municipal and supra-municipal system of Citizen Participation that could evaluate and levels. Overtime, the number of inhabitants living in a city integrate the multiform tools created in the past 20 years. with PB has decreased, especially due to the discontinua- Unlike in 1998–2002 (under Governor Olivio Dutra), PB tion of the process in Sao Paulo, which has nearly 11 million does not appear to be the main device for participation, residents. even though it enjoys significant participation. A number of other instruments have been created, such as the Digi- But if we take into account the number of experiments, PB tal Cabinet, which in 2013 received several international has increased. Also, PB has gradually become a relatively awards. stable feature of many progressive and modern local administrations in the country, far beyond the influence of any The system of coordination is fragile, but the Multi-annual single party. However, developments in the 2012 municipal Plan (PPA) is widely supposed to be the center of a perma- elections had led to more changes regarding PB scenarios nent dialogue between government and society. Thus a in Brazil. It is important to note that major infrastructural public discussion on the contents of the PPA 2012–2015 programs undertaken by central government since 2004 started in March 2011, leading to a set of 1,626 “demons- have contributed to weakening and marginalizing PB: trations of interest”. Since 2011 other Brazilian States they are extensive but completely top-down and benefit > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 29 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America municipalities through closed channels that do not engage movements in other cities (notably Buenos Aires, where it in dialogue with local societies (Allegretti, 2013). has been experienced only in some districts, and for short periods). In 2010, an interesting PB started in Corrientes We are unsure, at the moment, of the future of the award- (Argentina), a city of 380,000 inhabitants, and a solid winning experiments in Recife and Fortaleza after their PT exchange network (holding an annual meeting) was setup administrations lost elections in October 2012. Meanwhile, in the country. in 2007 the Brazilian Network of Participatory Budgeting was created, in order to support mutual exchange among Some years later, PB was introduced in Paraguay and Chile, the 62 member cities, and with the ambition of attrac- where fewer and smaller cities are involved. In Chile, it is ting new attention and new members. In 2013, Canoas estimated that around 22 municipalities (out of 33 that substituted Guarulhos as coordinator of the Network and have applied a form of PB to date) are still experimenting. in 2014 will host the annual meeting of the International Among them La Serena (190,000 inhabitants), Quillota Observatory of Participatory Democracy. (76,000), Buin (63,500) and Lautaro (35,000) are the best known. According to Chile’s Forum for PB, by 2010, 4.7 percent of the population had had access to PB in their 3. Latin America Adopts Participatory Budgeting Continent-wide locality. The trend is rising, especially since the newly elected mayor of the municipality of Santiago de Chile, Carolina Toha Morales, expressed in her “programmatic Beyond Brazil, this instrument had won over many people in commitment” (December 2012) her willingness to intro- Latin America by the turn of the millennium. It became one duce PB in the Chilean capital (5.5 million inhabitants) for of the most popular instruments of citizen participation in the next four years (2013–2016). the whole subcontinent: between 618 and 1,130 cities (out of 16,000) have introduced PB, some of them among the In Peru, some early experiments began at the end of the most important in this part of the world. This geographical 1990s, such as in Villa El Salvador (population 350,000), a dissemination involves nearly all regions of Latin America “slum town” located in Lima’s suburbs, or in the small port and – to a lesser extent – Central America. However, the town of Ilo (population 63,000), where several participa- higher number of PB projects in this region needs to be tory planning experiments started at the end of the 1990s. examined carefully, because most experiments are concen- National laws introduced in 2002–2003 (and reformed in trated in the Dominican Republic, Peru and Brazil. the following decade) made PB compulsory, both at the regional and municipal levels. Formally, all regions and local PB has started to spread to the Southern Cone, especially at governments have set up a participatory budget, but imple- the beginning of the millennium. Here, between 40 and 60 mentation is far from satisfactory in all cases and there are cities have already implemented it, with different methodo- many “fake” experiments. Due to the lack of independence logies and results. PB first inspired Brazil’s neighbors, Uru- and methodologically coherent research, it is very difficult guay and Argentina, where important experiments soon to estimate the numbers of “real” experiments; there are began in some major cities, such as Montevideo (Uruguay’s probably between 150 and 300 PBs that satisfy the criteria capital, which has more than 1.325 million inhabitants that we have proposed in order to enable international and has been governed by the left-wing Frente Amplio comparison – in other words, possibly more than in Brazil. since 1990), Rosario and La Plata (two cities in Argentina, with populations of 1.2 million and 600,000, respectively), and Paysandú (population 85,000), which is probably the most famous experiment in Uruguay. It has influenced PB 30 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America Box 5: benefit from state transfers. In such a framework, percep- When PB is mandatory: Peru one decade later tions of PB participants and national politicians’ support for The story of PB in Peru is particularly interesting because PB the process are growing (McNulty, 2012) and it is possible is compulsory at all subnational levels of government. This to imagine that “truly participatory” processes (Remy, ambitious experiment is closely linked to a democratization 2011) could progressively increase in number and quality process that was originated in 2000 by the fall of Alberto in the coming years. Fujimori’s authoritarian and corrupt regime. In other South American countries, the development of PB As a consequence of several unexpected positive outcomes has been less impressive (the numbers, which are not very underlined by the World Bank Report (2008), in 2009 the accurate, probably varied between 25 and 40 in 2012, a Peruvian government reformed the law to reduce the eight regression in comparison with seven years earlier). steps originally envisaged. The new Law states that subnational levels have to follow four steps: (a) preparation, In Bolivia, a national Law on Popular Participation was which includes registering and training participating social/ adopted in 1994, together with other decentralization administrative agents; (b) concertation, which gets different reforms, but its implementation varies widely from one actors involved in development planning and prioritizing place to another, and the growth of PB experiments in the “themes” of projects; (c) coordination between the the 327 municipalities seems to have been eclipsed by the different levels of government; and (d) formalization of social uprising that led to the election of Evo Morales to the investment projects, which consist of a meeting at which all Presidency and by the development of other participatory participating agents are given a vote on the final project list. processes - the Constituent Assembly, 2006-2007, being only the most important one (Santos, 2012). The main differences between cities and regions include the interpretation of “participating agent,” intended to In Ecuador, PB was adopted at the beginning of the mil- be a mixture of civil society organizations, members of the lennium by several indigenous towns (such as Cotacachi, Regional or Local Coordination Council and government population 37,000), and by municipalities with a strong indi- officials. Between the “individual model,” which opens up genous component (such as Cuenca, population 420,000). space for individual citizens to participate, and the “corpo- In both cases the commitment to PB has waned since 2010, rate model,” in which participants represent civil society although the new Constitution commits municipalities to organizations (World Bank 2008), the majority of Peruvian higher degrees of participation. In many cases, electoral cases chose the second (McNulty, 2011, 2012), in continu- setbacks have led to the process being interrupted, and the ity with the tradition of participatory planning. left-wing President Correa elected in 2006 is not keen on independent civic participation. The 2010 instructions state that all projects must be linked to development plans and have a significant impact, so that In Colombia, the experiments started later, but are bene- regional projects should cost at least 1 million USD and fiting from a very active national network of exchanges benefit at least two provinces and 5 percent of the popula- between municipalities created in 2008. A number of tion. The World Bank study (2010: 8) estimated that in 2007 towns and cities, many of them located in zones of 36 percent of subnational budgets (around 393 million US conflict, have begun some kind of participatory process dollars) were debated in the participatory budget process. that includes a budgeting dimension. The oldest is Pasto (population 500,000), in the southern region of Nariño, The role of the Ministry proved important in reducing the whose experiment had strong links with the indigenous number of “fake experiments” which would no longer ancestral tradition of mutual-help (Allegretti, 2007). The > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 31 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America process started around 2004 and bypassed political party mechanism is that it usually entails the direct involvement affiliations. Today, the most visible experiments, related of communities in the realization of the projects, – a fea- to the discussion of priorities of the Strategic Master Plan, ture that makes the communal council a special form of are in the country’s largest cities, such as Medellin (around community development. In November 2009, a new law 2,230,000 inhabitants, with strong participation by young reinforced their role and encouraged communal councils people and women), and Bogota (population of 7.5 mil- to form a federation in order to achieve a larger scale. The lion, which started in 2006 with the Progressive Party and aim is development into a direct democratic “communal focuses on high schools). In both cases formal rules have state.” Thousands of communal councils and hundreds of been laid down by municipal by-laws. In Colombia, citizen “communes” exist today, and they have received millions participation has been pushed by the National Constitution, of US dollars, much more than most other participatory which makes it a key principle of the democratic state and experiments in the world. Based on a loose definition of a fundamental right. PB has been specifically quoted as a PB, communal councils and communes should be included, pivotal tool both by the National Development Plan and the as they do share common features with some mechanisms recent transformation of the municipal legal framework. that are officially called participatory budgets in other countries in the South. However, as they are not articula- In Venezuela, some experiments were launched in the early ted with local governments but depend only on national 1990s (for example, in Caroní, population 705,400 in the government, they do not fulfill one of our definition crite- Bolivar Region). Others followed in the early 2000s, thanks ria. This is why this experiment cannot be included within to the favorable framework created by the 1999 Constitu- the framework of the present study. Communal councils tion. The most famous and established is that of Barqui- and communes by-pass local governments, in a context simeto (in Iribarren, population of 1,432,000), which was in which the “communal state,” which has led to social extended in 2012 to Lara State. Despite such experiments, improvements, is economically inefficient and increasingly PB is not particularly important in this country, and other more authoritarian. forms of citizen participation developed impressively under the Chavez government: the “communal councils” and the In Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean countries, “communes,” which share some similarities with PB. the development of PB has also been manifold – and is difficult to assess, due to the lack of coherent and systematic Box 6: research. There are many more cases that have used the Communal councils and communes: a singular label than there are real experiments. Some experiments mechanism of citizen participation in Venezuela have taken place in Mexico city, especially in Tlalpan, Nau- Under Hugo Chavez’s Presidency, a new form of partici- calpan and Iztapalapa (three of the 16 boroughs of the pation was invented in Venezuela. At the neighborhood capital, with 650,000, 800,000 and 1.9 million inhabitants, level, residents can meet and elect delegates in order to respectively) (Munevar 2012), as well as in Ecatepec de propose and realize community projects. Decisions are Morelos (population 1.6 million), but most have been short- taken either by the general assembly of the community lived and their results are mixed, even though the 2010 and/or by the participatory council. The consejos comunales reform of the Law of Citizens Participation in the Federal receive money directly from various offices of the central District of Mexico recognizes PB as a pivotal tool for cont- government or public companies. Local governments may rolling the way in which public resources are used (Gurza also give them funding, but this does not often happen, Lavalle/Isunza Vera, 2010). because they are largely disconnected from local authorities and somehow in competition with them, although In Central America, one of the most interesting PBs is the the division of competencies is unclear. A peculiarity of this one created in San Salvador (population over 300,000), the 32 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America capital of the small Central American country El Salvador, developing. According to recent studies, many of the most in which the left-wing FMLN has shown a real political will interesting experiments are still those that pioneered PB, to develop this practice. In Nicaragua, Law 40/1988 that such as Villa Gonzales (around 33,500 inhabitants), Azua established the municipal framework stated in two articles (87,000 inhabitants), San Pedro de Macoris (217,000) or that local authorities have to engage in dialogue with citi- La Romana (202,000). Severalof these cities saw the ruling zens on the budget, and there were some interesting expe- parties put out of office, but PB was maintained thanks to riments in the early 1990s. Because of the commitment the encouragement given by the national legal framework. of the Danish Cooperation Agency, the municipal legal An interesting case is that of Bani (population 107,900), framework was reformed and this has facilitated interesting where a PB experiment using text messages and other experiments, such as in Nandaime (38,000 inhabitants), mobile technologies is being conducted with the support led by a council of women, and San José de los Remates of the World Bank Institute ICT4Gov program. Out of 154 (10,000 inhabitants), where PB was at the center of the municipalities and 226 local districts, local actors say that discussion of a switch from being a rural community to a most of them could begin a PB process. Although a more center of sustainable tourism. realistic account would probably result in smaller numbers (around 150, according to our comparative criteria), the The Dominican Republic, a “party-centered and conserva- Dominican Republic is probably – together with Peru and tive society” (Morgan and Espinal 2009) at the far right of Poland – one of the countries in which PB density is the all the other countries in the area, is a special case as regards highest in the world, even compared with pioneers such the spread of PB. As in Peru, PB was made mandatory in as Brazil. 2007, as one dimension of a decentralization process. Nevertheless, the dynamic had begun previously in many places, and the legal obligation was no mere top-down 4. Two Generations of Networks imposition. The Federation of Municipalities (FEDOMU) pushed it strongly, imagining that it could force the central In Brazil, Argentina and Colombia, networks remain sub- government to transfer the due 10 percent of budgetary stantially independent of international cooperation. The resources to local authorities, which did not occur in the Argentine Network of Participatory Budgeting relies on the past despite legal obligations. The FEDOMU soon organized strong commitment of national government, which hosts a task-force to monitor BP processes and offer training and the website and makes the organization of annual meetings support to local authorities for experimenting and increa- and the publication of an interesting bulletin for supporting sing the quality of experiments. It also continued national- exchanges possible, while the Colombian National Network level lobbying until PB was inserted as an important tool of Local Planning and Participatory Budgeting can count on of innovation in the new revised Constitution (Article 206) the support of big cities, such as Bogota and Medellin. The approved in 2010. Brazilian Participatory Budgeting Network relies minimally on international funding – and only for specific projects, Although the Dominican system of decentralization is very such as South-South exchange with African cities in 2009. inflexible (Navascués 2011), visible changes are slowly emerging in the system of inter-institutional transfers. And Globally, in the 1990s and even after the turn of the mill- if cities such as La Caleta (50,000 inhabitants) invested only ennium, the development of PB was the result of politicized 2 percent of their resources in 2009 to implement choices networks. The Brazilian Workers’ Party played a crucial role. made through PB, others invested much more, such as PB was part of its agenda and was introduced in nearly all Santiago de los Caballeros (population 678,300), where the cities it governed. Local facilitators of the process from the figure was 44.3 percent, and the importance of PB is one city could be hired in another one, following some > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 33 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America electoral success or due to personal career trajectories. activities aimed at fostering the development of the most Radical NGOs such as POLIS, based in Sao Paulo, offered radical participatory budgets in the region. It promoted a consultancy and led research on PB. In 2004, the team of lot of studies and very influential manuals for practitioners San Paulo’s PB split to help other cities (as Fortaleza) to run (Cabannes, 2004) that have been translated and updated their participatory budgets. by UN-HABITAT in several languages, including Chinese (2010) and Arabic (2009). PGU helped to create networks The World Social Forum (WSF) has also been very impor- that facilitated the exchange of good practices, the produc- tant for horizontal exchanges among political and NGOs tion of practical tool-kits, the implementation of training activists – in Latin America but also far beyond it, as we programs and the diffusion of experiments around the sub- shall see in the coming chapters. The WSF first met in Porto continent. It involved not only major international partners Alegre in 2001, and five out of nine WSFs until 2013 were (UNDP, the World Bank until 1999, the German, British, held in Brazil (four in Porto Alegre, one in Belem). In addi- Swiss, Dutch and Swedish cooperation agencies, specific tion, two decentralized WSFs were held in Latin America (in programs – CEPAL, UNIFEM, URBAL – and other organiza- Caracas in 2006 and again in Porto Alegre in 2010), and tions), but also the most progressive Latin American local regional Social Forums such as the Pan-Amazonian SF have governments. What they had in common was a combina- contributed to the diffusion of PB. The Local Authorities tion of good governance, participation and social justice, Forum for Social Inclusion, which first developed in parallel with PB playing a crucial role. Through the PGU, those local to the WSF in order to create an international left-leaning governments that employed good practices in this respect network of local governments, also played a role. It became received the prestigious legitimacy of the UN. Nearly all major an informal network – called RedFAL – that disappeared in Latin American PBs participated in networks organized or 2011, when the majority of Spanish left-run municipalities supported by the PGU, most notably Porto Alegre. PGU and provinces switched to the right. This first generation has had a strong influence even in shaping some European of networks (which includes those linked to the WSF and PBs through the networking and the technical supporting the Local Authorities Forum for Social Inclusion) was highly tools that it promoted. In 2004, PGU had to close as the UN politicized: PB was, from their point of view, an important decided to continue another program to the exclusion of instrument for political change. The Brazilian participatory all others. This was Cities Alliance, dominated by the World networks tend to retain part of this spirit even in 2013. Bank – a program in which the degree of real innovation (as These politicized entities even interact with international the emphasis on participation) is often variable. In Ecuador, organizations, such as the UNO and the EU. the team of the former PGU created CIGU (International Centre of Urban Management), an NGO which tried to use Box 7: Two important and radical networks for the previously acquired experience, providing information diffusing PB: PGU-ALC (UN Habitat) and URBAL 9 and consultancy on PB throughout the region. After 2011 Two important networks played a major role in the diffu- and the end of some international funding programs, CIGU sion of PB in Latin America (and beyond) in 1997/2010. also ceased its international activities. The Urban Management Program of the United Nations in Latin America and in the Caribbean (PGU-ALC), based in A large number of the PGU actors were also involved in Quito, has been the most important UN program on urban URBAL, the EU cooperation program with Latin American issues. After the 1996 Istanbul HABITAT Summit, it ope- local governments, and especially in its thematic network ned the doors for direct cooperation with municipal local number 9, specifically devoted to “Participatory Budge- governments. A new director, Yves Cabannes, with broad ting and Local Finance.” The URBAL 9 umbrella-network experience with urban social movements, was appointed. – coordinated by Porto Alegre – included two waves of From 1997 to 2004, under his direction, PGU launched sub-programs and lasted from 2003 to 2010, managing 34 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America around 5 million euros; 450 local governments and other UN Volunteers), but also from the Spanish cooperation institutions (such as NGOs and universities) were involved. agency and from the Basque regional government. The program not only contributed to the development of the idea of PB, but also fostered a minimum standard for Many examples could be given in which the intervention Latin American experiments and provided some detailed of international organizations and/or governmental coope- information concerning what was actually going on ration agencies has played a leading role. Even Cidade, a (Cabannes, 2006). Cases such as the short-lasting PB of the radical NGO that was very active in Porto Alegre’s PB and Italian city of Udine were “driven” by URBAL projects. The had a strong international reputation, relied on various last project coordinated by URBAL 9 was intended to bring international partners for its projects, from very different together the cities that had formerly been coordinators of political orientations: the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), projects on PB, in order to create a permanent space and the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the World tools for training on PB. Bank, the left-wing Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Malaga-based PARLOCAL project. The World Bank is now Both the OIDP (International Observatory of Participatory the most important body publishing research on PB at the Democracy) of Barcelona and the local observatory of Porto continental level. It is funding some of the most interesting Alegre (Observapoa) were created thanks to URBAL pro- projects, and the new Porto Alegre local government (as jects, then gained autonomy and are still operating today. well as the Rio Grande do Sul governing coalition) partly relies on its advice. This has implications, as we shall see in Conversely, the new generation of networks in Latin Ame- the conclusion of this chapter. rica tends to be far less politicized and to rest on a more “neutral” and even – sometimes – “technocratic” legitimacy. It is worth noticing that in the Dominican Republic, 5. Hybridization international institutions and European cooperation agencies have been pivotal in strengthening PB. The German Along these new paths, the mechanism invented in Porto cooperation agency GIZ (formerly GTZ) has played a crucial Alegre has become hybridized. At least five tendencies role in cooperation with FEDOMU and CONARES, a natio- should be noted. nal agency for the reform of the state, together with some Andalusian local governments (Malaga sub-region, the city The first is the most common. Often, PB has become less of Cordoba and the Andalusia Fund of Municipalities for complex and radical. Officially, the original Porto Alegre International Solidarity, FAMSI). Although some local actors mechanism remains the point of reference, but elements are were also engaged in a bottom-up process, the impres- sometimes left out. There is either no thematic dimension, sive development of PB in this country would have been or no permanent participatory council; often, the available inconceivable without this “neutral” and broad network. funding is far less than in Porto Alegre, perhaps reduced This is a good example that helps us to understand the to 1 or 2 percent of the municipal budget. In other cases, kinds of network that operate in the latest generation of the process is only consultative and has no binding power. PB in Latin America. On a smaller scale, GIZ is very active This often happens when the initiative is only top-down, or in Colombia, and the same type of cooperation is going on when the political leadership is not fully convinced that it in Chile, where a national network has been set up (the should play the game – such as when it is forced to comply Chilean Forum of Participatory Budgeting) supported by with a national law, as in the Dominican Republic or in Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The global program Peru, or when a new administration comes to power that on gender budgeting in Latin America and the Caribbean does not want to abolish PB but reduces its scope, as in has received support from two UN agencies (UNIFEM and Porto Alegre itself; or when a local government wants to > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 35 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America implement this fashionable mechanism, but conceives it based on PB districts. A Geographic Information System primarily as a communication tool rather than as an inst- (GIS) is an ICT tool that captures, stores, analyses, manages rument to enable real social or political change. Such “PB and displays data, linking them to their locations, thus mer- lite” tends to be situated between participatory democracy ging statistical databases and maps and allowing interactive and others, usually proximity participation or community queries and user-created searches that visually clarify the development. data distribution in a given territory. GIS was first applied to PB in the South, where it was used in various creative ways, A second and very common hybridization process occurs mainly the representation of popular demands and appro- when the Porto Alegre instrument is combined with ele- ved results. In many European cities (Seville or Modena, ments of participatory strategic planning, a procedure for example), GIS has been used to create maps of works which is well-known in Latin America and found frequently funded by PB so that citizens can “visualize” its results and in Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. In many cases, a muni- the distribution of funded choices. cipality that had previously implemented participatory strategic planning discovers PB and tries to introduce it In Belo Horizonte, the municipal government published in combination with existing practice. Some experiments a study in 2008 on the distribution of the 1,000 public lead to highly original results, especially when strategic works funded through PB since 1993. Using the Geogra- planning is the result of an autochthonous process and phic Information System, it was calculated that 80 percent supported by a strong political will. This is the case in some of the city’s population was living within 500 meters of of the most famous Latin American PBs, such as Villa El infrastructure financed by a participatory budget. In 1996, Salvador in Peru, Santo André and Belem in Brazil, Cuenca the spatialization of social/economic data was used by the in Ecuador and Medellin in Colombia. In other cases, the town hall and the Catholic University of Minas Gerais to implementation of PB and participatory strategic planning create the “quality index of urban life” (IQVU), whose more has been more or less concurrent. Sometimes, the second than 50 parameters are used to better distribute municipal dimension is introduced in order to deal with long-term resources among the 80 infra-urban statistical areas of the issues, which the Porto Alegre mechanism, focusing as it territory. Since 2000, PB has been used to allocate resour- does on annual investment, is barely able to address. To ces to each district in proportion to its IQVU: the lower the a limited extent, this has happened in the Rio Grande do index, the higher the level of resources allocated to improve Sul capital, especially in the “city congress” that met every its quality of life. four years (the last in 2011) and was supposed to provide a long-term vision, although this was not systematically A third hybrid form combines PB with community develop- articulated through PB. Other innovations, such as the ment structures. This has happened in terms of two pro- Geographic Information System, have been more inventive cesses. In some places, community organizations previously and have influenced PB itself. played an important role and it has been necessary to rely on them when introducing PB. This was the case especially Box 8: Participatory budgeting and the use of in indigenous municipalities in the Andean countries: in Geographic Information Systems: examples that Cotacachi (Ecuador) or Pasto (Colombia), PB has overlap- use the spatial dimensions of participation ped with traditional community meetings and leadership. When the Observatory of Porto Alegre (OBSERVAPOA) In other places (Ortis and Crespo, 2004), NGOs and inter- was created in 2005, one of its main tasks was to develop national organizations have implemented the “traditional” social, economic and environmental indicators and repre- model of community development for the poor, which sent them on easily understandable maps, reorganizing all focuses on involving communities in the implementation of the statistic data through a Geographic Information System projects, but have merged it with some features of PB. This 36 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America has been influential most notably where NGOs and inter- One of the most interesting examples is the Rosario expe- national organizations started the PB process, sometimes riment in Argentina. managing more money than the local government itself (common in the poorest countries). In Villa El Salvador, the Box 9: Participatory budgeting and gender PB design has made it compulsory to involve neighborhood mainstreaming: the Rosario experiment communities in the implementation of public works: this In the Argentine city of Rosario (1.2 million people) PB star- has been a condition of obtaining public money. This model ted in 2002, following a methodology adapted from Porto influenced the Peruvian law of 2003, which creates a bridge Alegre (Roeder, 2010). In 2003, the municipality decided to between PB and local development planning, focusing on develop gender budgeting and has been supported by the social organizations instead of individual citizens. UNIFEM gender budgeting program since 2006. The idea is to increase women’s participation in PB and more generally A fourth – and far less frequent – form of hybridization has in citizen activities, to make civil servants (both men and occurred between PB and gender mainstreaming. Policies women) sensitive to and train them in gender issues, to designed to provide improvements in relation to gender merge PB and gender mainstreaming, to develop gender issues usually involve activities directed towards target equity and to combat gender prejudices. Progressively, all groups: women who are not in the job market, women districts have been involved in the experiments and a gro- with young families, immigrant women, female members wing number of projects are being adopted, most of them of the workforce, or even women in general – but leaving training programs and, to a lesser extent, public campaigns. men out. Gender mainstreaming was first introduced at the In 2008, nearly 20 projects were developed, at a cost of third World Conference on Women in Nairobi in 1985, and around 3.17 million pesos (more than US$ 800,000). The was launched officially at the Beijing Conference in 1995. most interesting aspect of all this is the likelihood that its Its aim is to tackle the root causes of inequalities between effects will be sustainable because it induces a mental men and women. The objective is to change the traditional change, a new way of framing public issues in relation to gender roles and promote gender equality. These policies gender. In order to empower women and foster gender encourage the development of comprehensive programs equity, women’s involvement in PB is an important but not that target both men and women, and seek to change a sufficient condition; the projects must aim to transform traditional views. The latter is well expressed in Spanish relationships between men and women within the process, and Portuguese by labeling the responsible service as the and training, no less than political will, should be a crucial “secretaria de la mujer” (or “da mulher”), the “department dimension (UNIFEM/UNV, 2009). for women” (with the singular form often being used). The programs also systematically analyze concrete measures in Last but not least, PB sometimes has been transformed terms of their impacts on both men and women by raising through the use of new technologies. It is fashionable to issues such as whether sports facilities that are built tend to add the internet to innovative practices in the age of new be used mainly by boys rather than being gender-neutral. technologies, and so-called e-participation has often been Another important aspect is gender budgeting, which is included as a marginal dimension in PB. Most often (as intended to measure how public budgets support gender shown in Box No. 10) , the web is only a tool that eases the differences and how they reinforce or change the respec- circulation of information, and in places with wide access to tive roles of men and women. Strangely enough, although the internet, a “serious” PB is often a PB on which detailed they are characterized by elective affinities, PB has not mer- information can be found on its official website. In other ged with gender mainstreaming very often, although Latin places, the process is more interactive, and the internet America is the most advanced continent in this respect. plays a complementary role, along with assemblies, for > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 37 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America making proposals in the PB framework. Some experiments voters had only one choice and it was also possible to are highly promising. vote by phone. A total of 173,000 persons voted in 2006 (nearly 10 percent of the Belo Horizonte electorate), and Box 10: E-participatory budgeting: innovative 124,000 in 2008 – compared with 38,000, 34,000 and practice in Belo Horizonte (Brazil) 44,000 voters for the district PB in 2005/2006, 2007/2008 One of the most interesting e-participation experiments is and 2009/2010. The increase in participation with online the e-participatory budget of Belo Horizonte in Brazil. With voting was clearly a success in the first edition, but later 2.3 million inhabitants, this city is the sixth largest in the on was affected by the lack of control over double voting country and an important political center. Its PB is one of the and voting-by-phone, which obliged the municipality to oldest in Brazil: it began in 1993 and its methodology has introduce a series of strict rules that ended up discouraging been innovative. Notably, it has included an autonomous many participants in the last edition of e-PB in 2011. Over housing PB designed to deal with this important issue. It is time, the deliberative dimension has been virtually lost and based on a two-year cycle, a feature that has inspired other the digital participatory budget today looks more like a refe- experiments in Brazil, and emphases popular control over rendum “lite” or a “strategic choice” than a “traditional” the real execution of the public works chosen. In 2006, PB. This peculiar structure has made the Belo Horizonte a digital PB was added as a third pillar, repeated in 2008 digital PB an internationally recognized good practice and and 2010. The digital PB has three goals: to modernize PB has inspired many other cases, albeit adapted to different through the use of ICTs; to increase citizen involvement in contexts (Peixoto, 2008). the process; and to include big investments, concerning the whole city, in the PB process. In fact, most Brazilian PBs face a double problem: participation remains relatively 6. Important But Contrasting Results limited (1 to 3 percent of people living in cities, somewhat higher in smaller towns) and the biggest investments tend In 30 years of PB in Latin America, major albeit contrasting to remain outside their reach. The idea is to organize an results have been achieved. Some important debates have online vote open to all residents older than 16 in order divided PB supporters: does PB necessarily rely on indivi- to prioritize some investments that require more than the dual participation (often called “universal” by those who amounts available at the district level. defend it), or can it be community-based? Who takes the final budgetary decision to be presented to the communal Citizens have to access the e-voting platform through the council, the PB council or the local government? Is there city’s official website, which provides information on the social control and inspection of works once the budget has various public works. For covering the risks linked to digital been approved? Is the neighborhood level the only one that divide, a bus equipped with computers was organized and matters, or is there a place for a citizens’ discussion at the moved around the city, targeting poor areas. Decisions are city level? Are the resources that are allocated to PB too made by majority, with no preference given to socially dis- limited, risking that it become mere scarcity management, advantaged areas. In 2006, R$ 25 million (around US$ 14 or can PB claim to improve citizens’ control over significant million) were made available to the digital PB. The amount public resources (although that, in turn, risks an atomiza- was increased to 50 million (US$ 28 million) in 2008, so tion of public decision-making in neighborhoods)? Does that one public work (a beltway around a very important PB have to be institutionalized by law – be it at the city, square) could be selected. the regional or the national level – or does it have to rely instead on rules that local government and participants The methodology was somewhat different in 2006, when decide each year or even remain “spontaneous,” with no voters could cast 9 votes, one per district, and 2008, when fixed rules (Cabannes, 2006)? 38 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America Nevertheless, one first effect is recognized by nearly all otherwise positive self-regulation has in some cases been actors and observers and explains a large part of the interest “diverted” or “perverted” by new forms of clientelism this process has raised. When it is implemented seriously, developing in civil society (Langelier, 2011; 2013). PB increases the transparency of the use of public money as well as popular control, and therefore reduces corruption The third outcome we could list is crucial: in Latin Ame- (Kuriyan et alii, 2011) Investments and services tend to be rica, PB has demonstrated that it can become a powerful discussed openly in this new public sphere, instead of being instrument of redistribution to the poor. This feature has negotiated behind closed doors. For this dimension, lessons been underlined by various qualitative field-work studies. In learned at Porto Alegre can be generalized. Corruption is a the slums of Porto Alegre and other cities, observers note problem everywhere, but the Corruption Perceptions Index the progress due to this new practice, whether in housing, proposed by Transparency International shows that PB has paving, basic sanitation, land use regulation or education. spread most in those Latin American countries in which A series of quantitative studies have added new elements the corruption index is particularly high (Transparency to this analysis. In 2003, a Brazilian researcher worked out International, 2011). In this context, PB seems a promising a methodology that showed that the poor neighborhoods and long-lasting contribution to solving a difficult problem. in Porto Alegre have tended to receive much higher invest- Econometric studies suggest that municipalities that imple- ment than the well-off ones. With the same methodology, mented PB were likely to have less corruption and make together with other colleagues, he later demonstrated that fewer budgetary mistakes than municipalities that did not the same thing was going on in Sao Paulo, Belo Horizonte implement it (Zamboni, 2007). and Belem (Marquetti et al., 2008). The combination of the mobilization of the lower class and of the distributive A second result concerns clientelism, which is an impor- criteria in the PB process significantly reorients the distri- tant aspect of relations between civil society groups and bution of public resources. However, this result had to be politicians. The features of PB that help to fight corruption qualified: the resources that have flowed in the PB process are also a powerful way of reducing clientelism, because have been going mainly to the poor, but what proportion negotiations and deliberations happen in public and of the public budget is accounted for by the funds alloca- require a horizontal dialogue between citizens, rather than ted to PB (Mororo, 2009)? Is PB only a niche phenomenon merely “private” vertical exchanges between politicians or does it help to reorient public policy overall? Does it and electors. Here again, academic studies confirm what contribute to a fragmentation of investment, due to the local actors say about their practice – at least when PB is grassroots pressure to allocate resources to small public “for real,” when it is not only consultative and when the works? Does PB contribute to improved tax collection? Is it investments discussed are significant, which is not always efficient in the long run? These issues have been addressed the case. In the most dynamic experiments, the change by econometric studies that have focused in particular on is radical and clientelism tends to vanish (Avritzer, 2002; Porto Alegre, but that have also analyzed Brazilian PB more 2009). When one takes into account the distorting impact broadly, comparing cities with and without PB. The findings of patron–client networks on Latin American politics, this are striking. Living conditions have improved more in muni- outcome is far from marginal. This positive result has to cipalities with PB (in terms of poverty rate, access to potable be balanced with one important limit, however: as Porto water, access to sanitation and so on) than in those without Alegre and many other experiments show, the inner logic (and this is true even when one ignores the vote for the left, of the political system itself – with its struggles for power, in other words, the direct political pressure for a pro-poor often motivated by self-promotion rather than by a preoc- policy). This is especially the case in the medium term, when cupation with the common good – does not necessarily PB has been implemented for a decade or more. PB does change as a result of PB. It must be underlined that the not lead to a fragmentation of public investments. What > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 39 Transforming Politics, Transforming Society? Participatory Budgeting in Latin America PB does not generate, contrary to some expectations, is At the opposite end of the spectrum, even ignoring the an effect on taxes. It does not have a consistent impact (numerous) “fake” experiments, many Latin American PBs on fiscal performance (Baiocchi et al., 2006; World Bank, are mainly top-down and are not based on the indepen- 2008). This feature has also been demonstrated for Peru by dent mobilization of civil society. They control only a limited a World Bank study (2010). amount of money, which means that they cannot really influence the overall distribution of resources. They rely on A fourth outcome, although less frequent, has to be noted. methodologies that do not give any real decision-making When PB is articulated with a broader concern for the power or control to community organizations, which modernization and the efficiency of public administrations, means that they are highly unlikely to empower the poor. the two processes can reinforce each other. We will return They do lead to more transparency, more social accountabi- to this aspect in the following chapters. lity, more responsiveness and less corruption, together with some “pro-poor policies” that help to mitigate somewhat PB outcomes in Latin America make it understandable that the huge inequalities of Latin American societies. Formally, an innovative mechanism invented in Porto Alegre by lef- while they may be inspired by the Porto Alegre methodo- tists and grassroots community movements has won over a logy, in fact their situation is different. Today the World large spectrum of actors, far beyond its original geographi- Bank, which decided in 2000 to foster “pro-poor policies”, cal and political context. PB is still part of the World Social wields a strong influence over these PBs. Forum Agenda, but it is now also included in the pro-poor development programs of the World Bank. However, when Between these two ends of the spectrum, numerous PBs we look at their overall dynamics, not all Latin American PBs are being led by left-leaning actors, or by NGOs that really have the same profile. want to change the development model, but lack the bottom-up mobilization and a global political perspective. At one end of the spectrum we have the Porto Alegre Furthermore, everyday life is tending to reduce what used experiment. The interaction between a strong political will to be an innovative practice to routine. This is why some and bottom-up movements, a methodology that really radical actors who were involved in the first PBs have stron- implies a devolution of power to community organizations, gly denounced these “PBs lite” that seem to have lost their the possibility of good deliberation through the building soul (Baierle, 2007). Often these actors have to some extent of participatory councils, criteria of distributive justice and been left behind by the success of what was originally their the mobilization of the poor: the participatory democracy invention. model, which in Latin America has much in common with the community development model, has led to the development of “empowered participatory governance” (Fung/ Wright, 2001). It has been part of a broader and deeper transformation of society and politics, and the massive inequalities that formerly characterized the continent have been called into question (Santos, 2005). To a certain extent, the invention and diffusion of PB can be seen as one dimension of a larger process that has shaken Latin America, pushing the continent away from dictatorships with neoliberal policies and toward democracies in which new governments try to promote other kinds of development. 40 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America II. Having examined PB in Latin America, let us now look more important role was played by those who attended the Local closely at its spread further afield. Europe and North Ame- Authorities Forum for Social Inclusion, a parallel event of rica are especially important in this regard. For once, deve- the World Social Forum. lopment cooperation is being turned around. Countries of the Global South are showing the industrialized nations We can indeed speak of a return of the caravels in the of the North how they can use a new form of dialogue. sense described above. Whereas in 1999 it was still possible Metaphorically, we might say that the caravels on which to count the number of PBs on the fingers of one hand, by the discoverers sailed to the New World at the beginning 2005 the number of cases in Europe had reached 55. And of the modern age have now returned. this trend continued. By 2009, their number overall had risen to more than 200, due largely to the sharp increase in On board they have brought back with them an innova- Italy, as well as in Spain and Portugal (where Lisbon, around tion that brings citizens, elected officials and civil servants 548,000 inhabitants, was the first European capital to have closer together. The demand for it appears to be strong: a a city-wide PB with electronic voting). Since 2008, PB has relatively high degree of electoral abstinence and political also started in Northern Europe (Norway and Sweden, then disaffection are generating pressure on political systems in Iceland in 2010 and Finland in 2012), while in 2003 some the Western world (including the many countries of the started in Eastern Europe. If we look at the combined popu- former Soviet bloc) to demonstrate its legitimacy, and in lations of the towns, cities and districts with PB, we see that many countries local governments are struggling with the curve is similarly steep. The figure increases from fewer financial problems, exacerbated by the current financial than 350,000 in 2000 to 3.6 million in 2004 and over 8 crisis, especially in Mediterranean Europe. Municipalities in million in 2009. Europe and North America are responding to these multifaceted challenges by developing various procedures. In In 2009 the majority of around 150 PBs in Italy were inter- these procedures, Porto Alegre is no longer central as an rupted, mainly due to the abolition of the local property inspirational model; a range of other models have emerged tax on first homes that Berlusconi’s government passed (Sintomer et al., 2011) that often go back to older tradi- unilaterally. A large-scale compaction also happened in tions and governance models that have little in common Spain in the aftermath of the 2011 municipal elections, with the radical vision that inspired the Porto Alegre PB. In when the 85 percent of municipal governments practicing this chapter, we will first of all present the general spread PB lost the elections, and the new ruling coalition did of PB in Europe and North America. We will then discuss not want to maintain their PB “flagship projects.” Never- its effects on social justice, local government modernization theless, the number of PBs in Europe continued to grow, and civil society empowerment. thanks to the contributions of Portugal, Germany and the United Kingdom and (since 2009) first of all thanks to the “Solecki Law” in Poland that involved more than 1,000 1. The Diversity of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America rural and rural-urban municipalities in co-decision-making with regard to the local budget. In 2012, Spain and Italy experienced a partial recovery, due to the role of the independence-seeking Basque party “Bildu” – which listed PB spread rapidly in Europe, a development that was trig- PB as one of its priorities in the management of the several gered mainly by the social forums in Porto Alegre. These municipalities won in the elections of 2011 – and to some were attended not only by representatives of initiatives and new local governments. non-governmental organizations (NGOs), however, but also by local politicians from various countries. A particularly > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 41 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America Reykjavík (with around 120,000 inhabitants) is an interes- Global gGmbH and the Federal Agency for Civic Education ting case; it launched its PB in 2010. In the Icelandic capital are playing a major cross-party role. the process was due to a desire of the new mayor (a TV actor and presenter) to establish effective government and Particular mention has to be made to the use of ICTs in the put local governance in line with national level, at which German context. Cologne, but also Bonn, Potsdam, Trier there had been several participatory experiments, including and Essen are examples. the drafting of a new Constitution by an elected committee of 25 citizens, after a process of deliberation based Box 11: on random selection of participants in two large citizen E-participatory budgeting in Cologne assemblies. One peculiarity of Reykjavík PB is that it takes Since 2007 the city of Cologne (population 1 million) advantage of the high rate of broadband availability in the has used an extensive online participatory budget for its country, mixing district assemblies with widespread use of bi-annual budgeting. A debate was organized in the form internet-based tools that allow deliberation among citizens of blogs (Engel, 2009). All participants were able to add to grow fast; in this perspective voting is an “open process” their comments to proposals and prioritize them; this and citizens can change their voting priorities at the last means that Cologne has adopted and further developed minute, according to how the public discussion on needs Lichtenberg’s voting method. In the first cycle, a total of and priorities evolves. around 5,000 proposals were received for the three areas “greenery,”“roads, paths and squares,” and “sports.” The One notable aspect of the European panorama of PBs is the council had previously provided scrupulous responses to the diversity of approaches. Adaptations of the participatory first 100 proposals received for each of the three areas. The democracy model could be found mainly in Spain and Italy. various proposals and additional comments were posted Also widespread on the Iberian Peninsula are participatory on the website, and could also be read in conjunction with budgets that incorporate elements of the multi-stakeholder the responses published by the council and committees. participation model. The most widespread participatory bud- International organizations see the procedure in a highly gets in Europe, however, are those that closely resemble the positive light and have awarded the city prizes for it. In sub- proximity participation model. Examples of this have deve- sequent years, Cologne continued with PB. Unfortunately, loped mainly in France, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Norway the process could not be linked to face-to-face meetings, and Italy. Initially, in Western Europe it was generally social even though this has been proposed for some time. It democratic or post-communist left-wing parties that were seems that busy citizens in bigger cities prefer to use the involved in disseminating PB. Conservative governments, internet. Municipal governments indicate having spent 17 too, are now actively involved – and in Sweden, Germany, million euros on awareness raising in the first round of PB. Portugal and Poland, PB was a cross-party phenomenon In the following cycles, the city – as with many Germany from the outset. Various networks and organizations have municipalities – has had to face serious financial challen- also supported the introduction of PB. In Italy, the “Nuovo ges. Hence, only about 1 million euros were spent on PB Municipio” network has played a major role (Allulli, 2006), in 2010. PB continues in Cologne, with some changes: in although since 2006 the support of Latium and Tuscany 2012 the possibility of giving “negative scores” to some for the development of participatory processes has been priorities was eliminated, because of its negative effects. the most important lever for the growth and dissemination of new PB experiments (Picchi, 2012; Sintomer and Talpin, In other countries, networking is mainly done by civil 2011). In Germany, networks linked to the modernization society initiatives, for instance the PB Unit in the United of local government have been important, while Germany’s Kingdom (an NGO/think thank active until 2012, formerly Service Agency Communities in One World/Engagement the Community Pride Initiative) or the In-Loco association in 42 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America Portugal, which is actively cooperating with the Portuguese a strong role in budgeting, configuring a sort of community Center for the Training of Local Civil Servants (CEFA) and development model of PB. with various other institutions, national and international. The strategy has proved effective: it has sustained the matu- In Eastern European countries, PB has initially been promo- ration of more than 30 PBs experiments in the country, ted mainly by international organizations. More so than in and has favored a shift from merely consultative processes Latin America, it is often the World Bank, UNDP, USAID, GIZ into co-decisional arenas. Such a change of paradigm made and other development organizations that organize parti- possible the birth of such important experiments as that of cipatory procedures in cooperation with local partners. PB Cascais (206,000 inhabitants). thus often comes from outside, the primary objective being to mobilize citizens and promote good local government. In Spain, there is a strong municipal network of PB expe- Processes of this kind often begin with the transparent pre- riments, which in 2007 was responsible for the approval paration of public budgets, as in Russia, Armenia and the of the “Antequera Charter,” which defined the main cha- Baltic states (Shah, 2007). In a number of cases, a clear PB racteristic that a PB must have in order to act as a radical structure is displayed, such as Svishtov (30,600 inhabitants) instrument of cultural and political change (Ganuza/Fran- in Bulgaria, Elbasan (population 126,500) in Albania, and cés, 2012). After the elections of May 2011, the shrinkage some Croatian, Romanian and Russian experiments that in the number of Spanish PBs weakened that association, began in 2012–2013. In 2011 the Slovakia capital Bratislava but in 2012 it merged with Portuguese municipalities in a (460,000 inhabitants) became the second European capital new Iberian umbrella-network, supported by the region of (after Lisbon) to have a city-wide experiment. After a pilot- Andalusia. Conversely, stagnation in the number of French project organized with the NGO Utopia, in the second year experiments may be explained, among other things, by the the number of public assemblies and internet voting were lack of facilitating networks. expanded, establishing the goal of allocating 1 percent of total expenditure, as in some Hungarian and Japanese The Association of Municipalities and Regions in Sweden experiments. It focused on small community projects that (SALAR/SKL) has been very active internationally, and since seem to represent a hybrid model between proximity demo- 2008 has been able to promote seven PB experiments at cracy and community development. The experiment led to home, plus one in Norway (SALAR, 2011; Allegretti/ Lan- a huge debate in the country, especially on the internet, glet, 2013). One important case is Orsa (6,800 inhabitants) and many grassroots groups demanded that it be expanded whose PB, despite being consultative, provides an interes- to other municipalities. ting online budget simulator (elaborated by the technicians of SALAR participatory networks) and a serious structure One notable feature of the first wave of participatory for feedback and monitoring to increase the accountability budgets in Eastern Europe is that most PBs involve pilot and responsiveness of the public administration. In Finland, projects that were often halted after international support besides the late start of interest in PB, the rapid growth came to an end. There may be various reasons for this, of pioneer experiments owes a lot to the interest of the although many reports speak of a high degree of skepti- University of Tampere and a group of activists/researchers cism among citizens (Driscoll, Lakowska and Eneva, 2004; who coordinate the Open Spending Initiative in Finland. Co-Plan, 2005). The major exception is Poland, where a The organizers’ idea is that such new experiments could vigorous public discussion on PB has taken place among renew participatory traditions that used to exist in Finland, civil society organizations, and where the NGOs Stocznia for example, in the northernmost city of Finland, Rovaniemi and SLLGO (the national association of local leaders that (around 61,000 inhabitants), in which regional boards have is now called Watchdog Poland Civic Network) are playing the important roles of trainer and catalyzer in dialogue with > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 43 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America the National Parliament, which organized special sessions (nearly 130,000 inhabitants) started a kind of PB process for discussing PB in 2012. SLLGO won an important case in within the framework of a UNP program, shaping a sort the Supreme Administrative Court as a result of which the of public-private partnership between the city, PKN Orlen personal data of all people taking part in decision-making (Poland’s largest oil company located in Plock), the Levi concerning “Solecki fund” PBs could be publicly displayed Strauss Company and representatives of some local NGOs as part of relevant information related to the investment of (Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke, 2014). In 2009, a different PB public resources. pilot experiment was carried out in two districts (Orzepowice and Boguszowice, 20,000 inhabitants together) of Box 12: Rybnik, in Silesia Province. One year later in Sopot (39,000 A new type of PB in Poland inhabitants, in Pomerania) a bottom-up consultative PB was In 2012, Poland had the highest number of PB experiments born under pressure from the towns’ inhabitants; it dealt in Europe. In February 2009, a law was passed after close with approximately 1 percent of the city’s expenditure. dialogue between the government and social organizations Other urban experiments are going on and PB is flourishing. (mainly with SLLGO, the Watchdog Poland Civic Network). It applies to the 2,173 rural and urban-rural municipalities In North America there is a strong tendency towards in the country and promotes the so-called “Solecki Funds,” “home-grown” experiments that draw on the tradition of special resource packages that local administrations submit community development, in other words, the promotion of to direct democracy in villages, giving people the chance disadvantaged districts by self-organizing interest groups. to change their environment, voting on a priority list of Some features have nonetheless been introduced with actions with binding force. The law does not create com- direct reference to Porto Alegre, and bottom-up activities pulsory obligations, but provides incentives, engaging the are certainly to be observed here (Lerner/Wagner, 2006). A government to reimburse resources to the municipalities couple of years ago, United States had no real experiments in the proportion of 10 percent to 30 percent, depending that we would define as PB, while Canada had started on the number of inhabitants and the level of local wealth. three experiments: the city of Guelph (the first example, Since 2009, over 20,000 village meetings have been held starting in 1999), the district of Montreal called Plateau and PLN 375 million (85 million euros) has been devoted Mont-Royal (both around 100,000 inhabitants) and a sec- to co-decision-making. The number of experimenting local toral experiment in the Toronto Community Housing Cor- governments grew to more than 1,100 and, in 2011, poration (TCHC). By 2012, the situation had turned upside expenditure on PB represented 0.3 percent of all local down: the Canadian city of Hamilton (520,000 inhabitants) government expenditure in Poland. started a new PB in its Ward 2 (population around 38,000), but the Toronto and Montreal experiments were stopped The participatory processes activated by the Solecki Law in 2010 and 2009, respectively, while in the United States could be described as a model of community development, some very visible PBs have started up, mainly located at although they engage local authorities in an important “ward” or “electoral district” level (in any case, they are active role in discussions with citizens instead of just devol- sub-municipal). ving decision-making to local communities. However, local differences are considerable. In Chicago and New York City, these processes have enabled more than US$20 million to be subjected to co-decision- There is no state incentive to experiment with participatory making through public deliberation. The US experiments are procedures in urban areas, but several pilot experiments supported by local organizations such as the Participatory are ongoing in cities administered by different political Budgeting Project (PBP), a very dynamic not-for-profit orga- alliances. In 2003 the petrochemical industrial city of Płock nization. Chicago’s PB started in 2009, with US$1.3 million 44 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America from the 49th Ward for public deliberation that could be used only for particular infrastructural investments. The experiment has spread to other five wards. The success of 2. The Social Impacts of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America this experiment must be regarded with caution, however, especially because participants are mainly white and more One of the greatest successes of PB in Latin America is its affluent, and not much has been done to enlarge the par- social impact. But what about Europe and North America, ticipation of marginalized groups (Lerner/Secondo, 2012). where social problems, although very important, are less New York is currently the biggest US experiment in PB. It salient and limit discussion to smaller slices of the budget? started in 2011, with a US$6 million budget, that represents While municipalities in Germany remain relatively skeptical around 0.06 percent of the city’s budget. This is part of with regard to the Porto Alegre experiment, mayors in the discretionary funds granted to New York councilors to Spain and Italy have followed it up. The common feature be spent on their constituencies (or electoral districts): this of these approaches is that PB focuses on investments and explains why the areas in which PB takes place in New York projects that are prioritized on the basis of social justice do not coincide with the administrative borders of the city’s criteria. One of the best known examples was the Spanish boroughs, but cross different neighborhoods. The amount city of Seville, along with a number of smaller municipali- (to which four different councilors, three Democrats and ties in Italy. One alternative to the participatory democracy one Republican, contributed) was split among 27 projects approach is offered by experiments that focus on districts selected by more than 6,000 voters, and a total of 7,736 in particular need of social development, in which projects participants (PBP report, 2012). Most winning projects were can be elaborated together with the relevant population allocated in the area of “environment, health, and public on a participatory basis. How can participatory budgets be safety,” followed by art, culture and education. Some stra- employed for purposes of social development and how did tegies have led to diverse public participation: decentralized these procedures emerge? meetings, different dates and times, and the provision of some services such as care centers for children and serving In Europe, the strongest social effects of PB are to be found food. Location seems important, and holding assemblies in two small Italian municipalities. These are the town of in religious institutions or in partnership with immigrant Grottammare on the Adriatic coast and the municipality events has helped low-income citizens and migrant groups of Pieve Emanuele located not far from Milan, each with to participate more (Lerner/Donovan, 2012). just over 15,000 inhabitants. In both cases, following a change of government in the early 1990s in the wake After other experiments started in single districts of other of numerous corruption scandals, an era of participatory U.S. towns and - in the case of the Californian municipality politics was ushered in that led to neglected districts being of Vallejo (116,000 inhabitants) – at the city level, in Sep- upgraded and corruption being largely pushed back. In tember 2013 the San Francisco’s mayor announced he will these two cases, participation led to fundamental changes, undertake an online co-decisional PB in 2014, and one of demonstrating the possibility of adapting Porto Alegre in the first acts of the newly-elected democratic mayor of New Europe (Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke, 2014; Amura/Stortone, York, Bill De Blasio, was declaring that the PB experiment 2010). But does this also apply to big cities? The success done in the last three years will be gradually scaled-up at stories of Grottammare (which started PB in 1994, the first city level. town to do so in Europe, and then upgraded it in 2002) and Pieve Emanuele (where PB started in 2003) led to the two municipalities playing an important role as models for the further dissemination of PB in Italy, where over 150 further experiments with participatory procedures > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 45 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America have since emerged, many of them receiving support In fact, the participatory democracy model has tended to from specific funding created by the Latium and Tuscany be diluted when imported to Europe. To better understand regional governments, which played an important role as this, we can look at the Spanish city of Seville in Andalusia, “multipliers”. Until 2009, Modena and Parma (both around whose population of more than 700,000 for some years 190,000 inhabitants), Bergamo (121,300 inhabitants) and made it the largest municipality in Europe with a PB. In Reggio Emilia (around 170,000 inhabitants) were among Spain, in which around 100 participatory budgets existed the most important big cities in Italy to implement PB, in until the local elections of 2011, Seville was one of the many cases, however, limited to some boroughs, before most ambitious examples, thanks to its application of allo- these were abolished by the central government between cation criteria (Ganuza, 2010; Sintomer /Ganuza, 2012). 2008 and 2010 (Sintomer/ Allegretti, 2009). Rome also had Until 2011, PB in Seville involved 14 municipal departments five boroughs that experimented with PB for several years: and was worth around 25 million euros, while the budget among them, borough XI (around 200,000 inhabitants) as a whole – including municipal enterprises – amounted to was the pioneer in 2004 (continuing intermittently until more than 862 million euros (around US$ 1 billion). After 2009) while the borough IX (126,000 inhabitants) had the the 2011 elections, the process quickly disappeared, alt- most mature experiment in terms of organizational model hough it was retained formally. Nevertheless, it is important (Angeloni et al., 2013; Talpin, 2011). to describe some of its organizational features. Although Pieve Emanuele’s experiment stopped in 2007, As in Porto Alegre, the procedure applied by the Andalu- after the leftist coalition lost the elections (and despite the sian capital resembled a pyramid. The base was formed fact that PB had been inserted in the municipal statutes), by a division of the city into 15 zones. Here, citizens used its legacy went to other experiments. After 2006, Grot- to meet at forums, which were usually held at community tammare merged PB with other participatory procedures centers. At these forums, ideas for projects were developed centered on making citizens count in discussing and influ- and proposed. Proposals involving funding below 30,000 encing revenues; thanks to the effectiveness of its expe- euros (around US$ 37,000) were classified as district pro- riments, in 2010 the city received more than 10 million jects. Projects that exceeded this amount were treated as euros from a bank foundation – which was involved with proposals for the entire city. Delegates were elected at both inhabitants in the dialogue on the project as a whole – as neighborhood and city levels, whose task was to examine a gift to build a multi-use social center. At the end of 2012 proposals put forward by citizens’ forums, and decide on there were around 20 participatory budgets in Italy (con- their final order of priority. This prioritization involved social centrated mainly in Tuscany and in medium-sized cities). criteria based partly on those of Porto Alegre. A distinction Italian municipalities are passing through a very difficult was drawn between “general criteria” that can be mea- financial period, so that PB will not be able to count on sured objectively and “supplementary criteria” that were large amounts of money and its implementation is planned assessed personally by the delegates. For each proposal, to happen incrementally through pilot projects in certain between 0 and 15 points were then awarded in each cate- wards. Several social movements and citizens’ groups have gory, on the basis of which a prioritized list was drawn up been lobbying for PB in their territories, proof that it has and passed on to the city government and the city council. obtained recognition among civil society organizations. These criteria were designed to influence the prioritization However, the social transformations that took place in of proposals so that selected groups and areas could bene- Grottammare and Pieve Emanuele have not really been fit to a particularly high degree. In Seville, primarily projects reproduced elsewhere. were implemented that promoted social, ecological and democratic goals in areas where existing infrastructure was weak. 46 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America Table 3: Allocation criteria of Seville’s participatory budget A. General criteria Investment and maintenance Programs and activities • Basic infrastructure (lighting, • Population affected asphalting, water supply etc.) • Condition of the social infrastructure in • Access to basic services the zone affected by the participatory • Population affected budget • Absence of public social programs B. Supplementary criteria • Area (district, zone) affected • Support of democratic and humanistic • Ecological sustainability values, such as tolerance, peace, • Integration into the architecture of solidarity etc. the city (or district) Source: Ayuntamiento de Sevilla, 2004. Alongside these criteria, the role of citizens in Seville should Box 13: also be highlighted. Committed citizens organized into Toronto Community Housing pressure groups were involved in the preparation of PB In Europe and North America, the community model forums in the districts, as well as in the briefing of their perhaps offers an alternative to PB as a means of improving moderators. These preparatory meetings were used to social justice. Various experiments exist in the “Anglo-Saxon discuss awareness-raising strategies, the structuring of the world”, one of the most interesting being the process citizens’ forum and the distribution of materials. Second, experimented with at the Toronto Community Housing citizens were to some extent able to modify the PB proce- Corporation. The city of Toronto has its own corporation dure and adapt the allocation criteria. For example, in 2010, for community housing, known as Toronto Community a large group of children – who in the past had participated Housing (TCH). Its 164,000 tenants and 58,500 residen- in a participatory process for presenting proposals for PB, tial units (6 percent of the local housing stock) make TCH but were unable to vote because of their age – managed Canada’s largest social housing provider. It has a budget of to organize themselves and their families and teachers so CAD$ 572 million (around US$ 558 million). A large pro- that a change in the ruling document was approved and portion of its expenditure comprises fixed costs. In 2001, children above the age of 10 were entitled also to vote for TCH started a participatory budget for tenants, maintained the priorities of city PB. However, despite the clear rules until 2010, when the new Mayor of Toronto abolished it. governing Seville’s PB and the fact that this procedure helped empowering civil society, its social justice effects are Due to its pyramid-shaped structure, the procedure at not at all comparable to those seen in Latin America. In the first glance resembles the Porto Alegre scheme. Spread poor district of Polígono Sur (officially 32,000 residents), PB across its housing stock, there were 27 tenants’ councils has distributed in a standard year 10.90 euros per resident, that received residents’ suggestions and proposals. Each compared to a city average of 8.70 euros; the formal dis- tenants’ council then agreed on five projects for its district. tribution criteria led to a supplement of 70,000 euros for A committee comprised of delegates from the tenants’ the district, although the establishment of sports facilities councils also decided on two further projects for the or street repairs could cost hundreds of thousands of euros. TCH as a whole. This committee’s task was to appraise the feasibility of the various projects and their concrete funding requirements. The delegates were also mandated > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 47 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America to support the implementation of the projects approved. Oder rivers does seem to have followed its own path. This Through this procedure, decisions were taken on the use path is no less original and in fact has played a pivotal role of CAD$ 7 million (around US$ 6.8 million) every year. This in participatory modernization in Europe used to involve mainly “proximity” measures, such as minor repairs to buildings, the maintenance of greenery or the building of children’s playgrounds. There was, however, 3.1 Information, Consultation, Accountability a key difference compared to Porto Alegre. Unlike in the Brazilian flagship municipality, funding no longer had to The first participatory budgets arose in Germany around be approved by the municipal council or the TCH. These the turn of the millennium. Among the first municipalities funds were managed by the tenants directly. Since many of involved were small, such as Rheinstetten (20,500 inhabi- the tenants come from socially disadvantaged groups, the tants), Emsdetten and Hilden (see Box 3). In these munici- participatory budget benefited them in particular, and also palities, participatory budgets were introduced within the had an important pedagogic value in accustoming them to scope of pilot projects such as the “Cities of Tomorrow” dealing with public decision-making in their interest. The network (1998–2002) and the “North-Rhine Westphalia activities funded by the participatory budget were usually participatory municipal budgeting’ initiative” (2000–2004). flanked by measures in the health sector and other social These cooperation arrangements were modeled on the sectors. Further participatory instruments were also used, community planning experiment of the city of Christchurch especially in the domain of planning. Two tenants also used in New Zealand, whose “participation for modernization” to sit on the TCH board, which comprises 13 members. The approach was important to the initiators in Germany. agency also started an interesting PB with its 1,400 emplo- Given the financial challenges faced by the municipalities yees in 2008 to let them decide how to use the resources in a period with high levels of municipal debt, citizens were devoted to training of personnel and managers. expected to appreciate this “difficult situation”, although it was also hoped that they would put forward their own proposals for improved administrative services. 3. Participation – A Way of Achieving Modernization? By virtue of this focus on the modernization of local government, many PBs in Germany involve social discus- When people began discussing the Porto Alegre PB experi- sions implemented in three steps: information, consultation ment in Germany in 2001/2002, many were initially highly and accountability. The first step is to inform citizens of the skeptical. Some pointed out that the social problems there municipality’s financial situation by supplying them with were not on the same scale as those in Latin America. Fur- brochures and organizing public meetings. The folders try thermore, some put forward the perhaps stronger argument mainly to answer the following questions: Where does a that German municipalities were suffering a financial crisis, municipality get its money from, and which services are and that this would make participation in public investment financed from these different sources? Consultation, which an absurdity. After all, what was there for citizens to discuss often takes place in the form of a citizen assembly, but if no money was available or resources were pre-allocated may also be supplemented by surveys and online debates, or meager? All these reasons led to an understanding of is designed to gather suggestions. Citizens are asked to PB that was not based on allocation issues. In Germany, suggest improvements to swimming pools, baths, libraries, PB came to be understood rather as a way of facilitating green areas, sports facilities, street cleaning services and improved public service delivery. although there were a so on. What municipalities are looking for here is citizens’ number of cases in Latin America where participation was expertise that can be formulated on the basis of citizens’ linked with modernization, PB between the Rhine and the day-to-day experience with these facilities and services. 48 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America One employee of a municipality with a participatory budget facilities or the upkeep of greenery with instruments that once spoke of the “citizen as business consultant” in this are far less complex than traditional PB. Online participa- context. Another form of consultation is based not on speci- tion emerged as a way out of this efficiency problem and fic services, but on a discussion of income and expenditure. has since become a key element of PB. In fact, it reduces The municipality of Emsdetten, for instance, discussed with participation costs for citizens, as well as organizational citizens various options for offsetting the budget deficit costs for institutions. In 2012, there were cases in which and invited them to develop corresponding proposals. The participation took place either largely or exclusively in the next step – accountability – involves the municipality giving virtual domain. One example that has received international feedback on which proposals have been taken up by the recognition is Cologne’s (population 1 million) PB. council and which have not. Hilden, for instance, replies to every proposal with a personal letter notifying the citizen In many places in which public forums are still organized, submitting the proposal of its outcome. online participation is important. For example, the city of Potsdam (population 160,000) counts more than 4,000 3.2 Voting and PB in Big Cities participants in its PB, but if one were to visit the meetings, one would encounter only two- or three-dozen citizens. From 2005, PB in Germany underwent further development. Similar observations have been made in Münster (popula- One reason for this was that Capacity Building International tion 290,000), which initiated a PB in 2011. Citizens seem helped to launch a debate on the Porto Alegre experiment to have a rational attitude toward online participation. On in Germany. Second, there was now also a will to try out one hand, it is the easiest way for them to participate. PB in larger towns. To this end the Federal Agency for Civic On the other hand, PB has been reduced to simple online Education, in cooperation with the foundations of the poli- voting. The space for discussions seems to be used less and tical parties represented in Germany’s federal parliament, is more concentrated on the defense of single projects than commissioned the development of a special procedure. on general discussions of budget orientations and priorities The new conceptual approach carried forward the existing between sectors. approach by developing it further (bpb, 2005). It was less about investment and more about the participatory evalu- Participation via the internet has been integrated in diffe- ation of services and the economic management of public rent ways in the PB model of participatory modernization. funds. What is new, however, was that citizens were able After using it for online-voting and online discussions in to prioritize their proposals by voting; the task of selecting Lichtenberg, Potsdam and elsewhere, the internet has also the most important proposals was no longer left to the been used in PB on cost reduction. Here, the idea of moder- municipal administration. This procedure was first tried nization is centered on solutions for municipalities’ financial out in practice in the Berlin district of Lichtenberg (popu- stress. The approach is thus contrary to Porto Alegre in that lation 252,000). It was subsequently adopted by Potsdam it focuses on possibilities of cost reduction rather than on (population 150,000), and then incorporated into other new projects or other issues of spending policy. In cities participatory budgets. such as Essen (population 570,000) or Solingen (population 160,000), citizens can comment on local government cost 3.3 Focusing on Internet Participation and Cost Reduction reduction proposals, or make their own proposals to reduce spending or find new sources of income. In this way, citizens become aware that municipalities are under financial Another reason why PB was developed further might be that pressure. PB offers them an opportunity to avoid budget the first methodology was relatively inefficient. It is possible cuts in sectors that are considered important. On the other to collect suggestions for improving library services, parking hand, there is a risk that citizens become involved only to > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 49 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America legitimize budget cut strategies that have been previously received the PB proposals when they had to vote on the decided on and cannot be changed anymore. budget plan (Municipality of Essen 2010). In the following year, the procedure was repeated, but participation was Looking at recent developments, one can summarize that significantly lower. Essen’s government has decided not the focus on the internet and budget cuts has changed the to continue with PB, as the city is now free from financial PB landscape in Germany, which after Poland is the Euro- stress. Citizens are now invited to participate in other areas pean country in which the most experiments take place. (Municipality of Essen 2012a; 2012b). Other tendencies, such as the introduction of grants, are marginalized. All in all, the focus of German PBs seems to When analyzing German participatory budgets with a focus be on modernization and, in some ways, also on proximity. on modernization, some interesting effects can be obser- In these models, the question of power delegation is less ved. These include recognition of the expertise of citizens, important, even marginal. who then play an active part in helping to shape public service delivery processes. Another relevant outcome is the Box 14: submission of proposals for more efficient management Internet participatory budgeting on costs of public funds. Such effects are either invisible or non- reduction in the German city of Essen existent, however. At least, some procedures aimed to Many German cities constantly spend more money than favor budget cuts reveal information that had not been they receive. In order to prevent uncontrollable fiscal stress, made public before. In Essen, for example, citizens were local governments are obligated by law to elaborate plans also informed about the salary of managers of municipal for cost reductions if structural deficits reach a certain level. enterprises; additionally, citizens in Essen obtained infor- This has been the case in the city of Essen (population mation about the compensation that supervisory board 570,000), situated in the Ruhr, the former industrial coal members of these enterprises receive. region of Germany. In this situation, the local council did not want to decide alone on spending cuts and submitted By contrast, other modernization outputs, such as cross- proposals on cost reductions for citizens’ debates. For this departmental cooperation, faster administrative processes, reason, an internet platform was created in 2010. In detail, changes in management structures or improved monitoring 78 proposals representing 381 million euros were presen- of local government tend to be found in other European ted to the public. People could make comments and cast countries (Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke, 2014). At the same their votes on preferred priorities. In this way, government time, we should not forget that it was primarily the cases wanted to find out which measures were supported and in Germany that prompted the debate on PB and moder- which were not. Furthermore, citizens could also make nization in Europe. A first step in this direction was the their own proposals for budget reductions or additional creation of greater transparency on PB choices, an issue revenues. Based on voting, more than 3,700 registered that became important for several cities. One example can participants supported budget cuts of 117 million euros. be found in Seville, Spain, where the financing of projects This was nearly half of the amount under discussion. People through PB is shown separately in the published budget. tended to avoid budget cuts primarily in social areas and education (support rate: 11 percent), while acceptance was higher in cases concerning expenditure, politicians or the public administration (support rate: 85 percent). In the end, however, local councilors approved the full amount of cost reductions, representing 500,000 euros in total. Only small changes were possible, because local councilors had 50 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America 4. Participatory Budgeting and Civil Society start to appreciate PB and its potential. In Guelph, during the 1990s, money was obtained from a provincial government program and participatory consultations were held In addition to social justice and the modernization of local with the stakeholder community on how to use it. Positive administration, PB has also often been associated with experience was obtained using this approach, which led to the mobilization or even the empowerment of citizens. the establishment of a coalition of community initiatives In Brazil, this also led to a strengthening of representative that transferred the procedure to other districts. Thematic democracy. This occurred through the reduction of corrup- proposals and territorial projects are first proposed by the tion and patronage-based relationships that resulted from organizers. These proposals are discussed and prioritized in the increased transparency and autonomy of community community forums. The final decision on funding is taken initiatives within PB. In Latin America, in experiments by community assembly delegates. In other words, the citi- influenced by community development, citizens are highly zens concerned actually do manage the money themselves active. Nevertheless, the process is organized mainly out- – frequently with the assistance of a mandated commu- side political institutions, which is why a strengthening of nity manager. For each project, a quarter of the funding representative democracy is not necessarily to be expected. needed must be obtained by the groups or beneficiaries What balance can be drawn in this respect in Europe and themselves. More than 1,000 people participate in this pro- North America? cess annually, a large proportion of them from low-income groups (Pinnington/Lerner/Schugurensky, 2009). For them In a large majority of European PBs, local governments and their children, activities are financed in their districts, took the decision to introduce this innovative participatory such as festivals, leisure activities, education measures and procedure. Frequently, however, initiatives based on com- minor construction works. munity development follow a somewhat different route. They emerge from within a culture of self-help, which is A different PB has also existed in the Plateau Mont-Royal widespread in the United Kingdom and North America, district (population 101,000) of the Canadian city of Mont- partly because state welfare provision is weaker there than real between 2005 and 2009. It emerged from a movement in western Europe or Scandinavia. The nature of these initi- that was driven and led largely by civil society organiza- atives ranges from relatively informal neighborhood groups tions (Rabuin, 2009, 2013). As early as the late 1990s, to professional organizations. Community organizations these organizations invited the mayor of Porto Alegre, Raul acquire funding for their activities from external sources, Pont, to discuss the introduction in their home city of a which often means programs run by the regional or nati- procedure based on the Brazilian model. Initially, a corres- onal government, or in the case of Europe the European ponding proposal was rejected by the city government. A Union. city conference organized by civil society activists in 2005, at which both Brazilian and European experiments were In the Canadian city of Guelph (population 100,000), presented, helped persuade the mayor of the borough that located 100 km west of Toronto in the state of Ontario, PB was a good idea. She had also been persuaded by trips community groups initiated a participatory budget that was to Brazil during the World Social Forum. The key impetus initially independent and then gradually won over the city for introducing such a procedure came in response to the government as a partner. Something similar happened in continued pressure exerted by community organizations, several UK cities (such as Newcastle, Manchester, Salford especially the Centre of Urban Ecology of Montreal. Alt- and Edinburgh), where only when the Community Pride hough there were no allocation criteria and the process as network decided to apply PB decision-making criteria to the it was represented a compromise, community groups were funding received by local government did many politicians > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 51 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America able to influence the procedural rules. In 2009, however, ballots to distribute across the proposals, as they see fit. the new mayor decided to stop the process. The list of priorities produced in this way is then passed on to the regional government. Altogether, in these parts of the world, mobilization for PB is not self-evident. Possibly, it is easier for citizens to In 2011, another dimension was introduced, with repre- become engaged if they have already practiced partici- sentatives of different schools coming together at regional pation at school. The fact that this is possible in principle level who could have a say on issues linked to the redistri- has been demonstrated in various experimental settings. bution of PB funding among the different structures, taking In the second half of the 2000s, a growing number of into account the uneven conditions of schools in urban and initiatives involved students in PB. The most comprehensive urban areas. In addition, Poitou-Charentes created a PB for experiment to date is being conducted in high schools in familial and rural housing for students, which discusses the French region of Poitou-Charentes (Sintomer, Talpin, a budget of 265,000 euros a year, trying to improve the 2011). quality of everyday life in these places. Box 15: Following this example, other regional governments in Participatory school budget in Poitou-Charentes France (such as Nord-Pas-de-Calais) have started to emulate (France) this process in their territories, but with less emphasis on PB in high schools in the French region of Poitou-Charente co-decision-making. started in 2005 – thanks to the political will of the regional governor – and by 2012 it had already approved more PBs specifically targeting young people or schoolchildren are than 2,000 projects voted on by more than 150,000 parti- growing in popularity, especially in Europe. After the well- cipants. The experiment involves a total of 93 public high know, Spanish experiments of Cordoba, Santa Cristina de schools and some private institutes (Sintomer/Herzberg/ Aro and Laboraforo in Seville (a separate process targeting Röcke 2014) in a region that counts more than 55,000 young people which in 2010 modified its PB rules, giving high-school students. In this procedure, participants can all children above 10 years of age the right to vote on the decide on a total sum of 10 million euros (around US$ city’s PB), another successful experiment took place in the 12.3 million) per year; they can put forward proposals for small Italian city of Colle Val d’Elsa, where schoolchildren small-scale projects and investments worth a maximum of can discuss how to use 15,000 euros per year, receiving 150,000 euros (US$ 184,000) each. The total school bud- special financial support from the Tuscany Region in order get of the region amounts to 110 million euros (around to raise the quality of education. In Europe, the majority of US$ 135 million). In each school the participatory budget, PB processes targeting young people are concentrated in which involves all members of the high school community Sweden (Örebro, Uddevalla, Upplands Vasby) and Portugal and also the students’ parents, is based on two forums (São Brás de Alportel, Lisbon, Cascais, Alfandega da Fé, lasting approximately two hours each. The first meeting Oliveira do Hospital, Marvila, Trofa, and Condeixa-a-Nova, (November/December) begins with an explanation of how around 17,000 inhabitants, that in 2012 devoted 150,000 the participatory budget works. In a second step working euros to a participatory budget targeting young people groups are formed to discuss projects designed to improve aged 16 to 35). While in New York, Vallejo and several day-to-day life in the school. Finally, representatives of each UK cities (for example, Newcastle Upon Tyne, 280,000 group present their respective results in plenary. After the inhabitants) special measures are devoted to the involve- proposals have been reviewed by the regional government, ment of children and young people in PB, in Germany the a second meeting is held (January/February) at which the Bertelsmann Foundation is supporting the development of proposals are prioritized. Each participant is given ten PB experiments for young people (Rietberg, Wennigsen). 52 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America In November 2013, the Boston City Government signed 2012). A growing number of PBs have been able to take a contract with the Participatory Budgeting Project for advantage of this initiative. In 2012, Tuscan PBs represen- launching a “Young PB” (the first in the United States) for ted around 70 percent of Italian processes. The region of 2014. Emilia Romagna was inspired by the Tuscan Law on Participation and recently approved a similar legal framework to Box 16: promote participation. Scaling-up PB: the regional level PB is still used mainly at municipal and sub-municipal level. Some experiments in Latin America have taken place at provincial or regional levels or in states that are part of a national federation, but it is mainly in Europe that PB has 5. The Outcomes of Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America involved this level (Sintomer, Talpin, 2011). Besides school PB in the Poitou-Charentes Region, France, one of the first Barely a decade after they came into existence in these examples was Malaga Province, in Spain, which between regions, what conclusions can we draw about participatory 2005 and 2011 elaborated strategies to encourage the budgets in Europe (and to a lesser extent North America)? development of municipal participatory budgets in small As regards social justice, we can hardly speak of a new municipalities, supporting PB in 23 of the 101 municipal series of Porto Alegre’s nor the strong diffusion of the governments in its territory, six of them surviving the politi- participatory model. Unlike in Brazil and Latin America, cal shift of 2011 (Garcia, 2009). In the same period, Barce- PB here has not led to a reversal of priorities to benefit lona Province promoted a different kind of network among weaker social groups. The most that has been achieved is local cities experimenting with PB, structuring dialogue and a higher level of justice in the territorial redistribution of mutual self-learning among 11 municipalities. public resources. Is there perhaps less of a need for social justice in the old continent? There do exist various methods Some of the most effective experiments with promoting by which socially disadvantaged groups and individuals can PB at regional level have been in Italy. The experiment in be promoted through PB. One is to apply criteria that favor the Latium region (2005–2010) discussed with citizens 5 socially deprived neighborhoods in the allocation of public million euros of investment every year in a specific sector of funds. The second involves community development. Here, action suggested by participants; offered training in PB to the funds are managed by the citizens themselves, who are local authorities and civil servants; and for some years pro- also actively involved in implementing the corresponding moted a call for projects, supporting local experiments of activities. In Europe, this approach has been successfully participation applied to economic and financial local issues applied primarily in the United Kingdom. It has also taken with 11 million euros a year in more than 200 different firm root in North America. One challenge is that the municipalities of very different sizes and political colors volume of funds made available to date usually remains (Allegretti, in Sintomer and Talpin, 2011). too low to be able to correct any broader deficits in social justice. Another Italian region, Tuscany, approved a participatory Law on Citizens’ Participation in 2007 (modified in Participatory modernization within the framework of PB 2013), which provided a call-for-projects to benefit local can take place in various ways. One way in which parti- institutions and social organizations committed to shaping cipants are able to develop and specify proposals provides participatory processes, supporting it with special funding extensive scope for joint discussion. In the Berlin district and an independent authority that supervises the quality of Marzahn-Hellersdorf, for instance, citizens have been and evolution of processes throughout the region (Picchi, able to put forward detailed proposals because they have > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 53 The Return of the Caravels: Participatory Budgeting in Europe and North America several opportunities to meet in working groups. In Tuscany PB also can help to strengthen civil society. Even if there (Italy) in 2012, several new PB experiments helped volun- are still no examples of a strong general change in social teers to interact with randomly-selected citizens to work relations in Europe and North America, there are numerous in small groups on proposals and increase the deliberative cases in which less spectacular empowerment effects are quality of the processes. Experiments in Lisbon and Cascais clearly visible. All in all, these experiments with PB forma in Portugal focused on the preparation of technical staff puzzle. Despite these contrasted results, PB is still develo- and employees to play an active role in raising the quality ping quickly at European level and – albeit much less – in of PB. If we compare the outcomes of the Latin American North America. and European experiments, it appears advantageous to link PB not only to local government modernization, but also to In the latter continent, it is likely that participatory bud- gender mainstreaming and social balance. geting will have a fast development in the next years, especially after the second National Open Government Plan With regard to the mobilization and empowerment of civil of United States – released in December 2013 – included society, as well as the “democratization of democracy “in a large chapter devoted to the importance of PB and its Europe and North America, PB has led to far less radical dissemination (see www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ changes in the relationship between civil society and the docs/us_national_action_plan_6p.pdf) state than it has in Latin America. It is also difficult to demonstrate a link between the introduction of PB and a global increase in electoral turnout, or an improvement in electoral results for governing parties, although some cases (such as that of the 49th ward in Chicago) seem to present fairly clear evidence of the existence of such a connection. The difficulty of establishing a clear cause/effect relationship between PB and political results is due also to the fact that in many cities PB is not the only participatory tool, so that possible electoral success cannot be strictly related to it, but to the overall “dialogic management style” of the local government. Usually, in those municipalities with a PB procedure, an improved electoral outcome resulted only in cases in which the process was well received by citizens and accompanied by a successful overall performance by the local government (Sintomer/Herzberg/Röcke, 2014; Spada, 2010). Nonetheless, in some cases, as in the United Kingdom and Portugal, PB can attract people who have no trust in the party-based representative democracy system. For example – as proved by the comparative project “OPtar” – in the major ten cities of Portugal with PB, more than 25,7% of participants do not use to vote in elections, but they trust the participatory process and its clear rules (Pereira, 2013). 54 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < III. Africa: Late and Unequal Development In Africa, where PB development has been more recent, institutions in Africa tells another story: these experiments the models developed and the weight of transnational are often “catalysts” supporting and even accelerating the transfers present a fast-evolving picture. Development effectiveness of decentralization reforms. The latter came took on momentum when the Federation of African Cities to be merged with strong principles of transparency and and Regional Governments (UCLGA) took an active role responsiveness (in many countries embodied in national in promoting training and visibility with regard to PB at its administrative reforms, as requested by international triennial international meeting “Africities,” held in Dakar in donors). They also guaranteed respect for the pre-existing December 2012. This continent has been able to draw on traditions of citizen participation in many areas in Africa. a great deal of interchange with Latin America and Europe, This is perhaps why since 2005 we have seen a visible which over the past 15 years have stressed the importance acceleration of the process, supported by powerful insti- of PB as an innovative tool for improving governance. The tutions, such as the World Bank (Goldfrank, 2012) and the scarcity of research and the difficulty of many local actors UN (especially the HABITAT agency, based in Nairobi). It is in overcoming the silence imposed by communicational impossible to deny the existence of an element of “neo- and technological barriers or their marginal location in the colonialism” in the way in which the idea of PB entered the global flow of information make it difficult to draw a syste- African political debate. However, the diversity of actors matic and inclusive panorama (Lieberherr, 2003). However, has led to local adaptations that are difficult to classify. one feature is clear: in a continent where representative PB has merged with other tools, whose main objectives democratic structures and Western-like institutional cultu- are the “demystification of budgeting,” the “traceability of res are weak, PB remains highly dependent on the action investments” and “consensual development of planning” of international donors and NGOs, even though some in the sense of multi-stakeholder participation. These aims social movements and a number of local authorities have also include a multitude of governance principles linked to engaged in it. The path that has largely been followed in the improvement of decentralization and the achievement Africa is the one that the Latin American radical movements of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. had warned against. It also differs from the European case, where local government has had a major role. During the The main limitation of these practices is often their “donor- first decade of the new millennium, “alter-globalization” based” perspective, which considers the transparent networks have exerted a strong influence. However, in a management of budgets a “donors’ right,” designed to region heavily burdened by social, economic and political guarantee their formal goals in relationship to the inter- problems, the innovation that PB represents could be an national community, rather than a “citizens’ right” which important source of hope (Allegretti, 2002). could increase the overall level of democracy by widening access to decision-making. Over 50 percent of the resour- In Africa, a step-forward became possible in the second half ces invested through PB by African cities usually come from of the 1990s, when larger political reforms drew attention external resources (Badiane, 2011). Such an approach can to a wide range of management tools that might create ignore the positive contribution of the traditional or “neo- scope for participatory democracy (Olowu, 2003). The slow traditional” authorities linked to indigenous communities rhythm of the process by which PB took root on the African (which are often pivotal actors in social development, continent was due partly to the scarce resources provided especially in rural areas), and impose models that mainly to local levels by very centralized institutional cultures, as benefit NGOs or new local elites. At the same time, the well as to limited decentralization, which was initially felt mixed nature of African PBs could play a positive role, gene- as a necessary premise for an innovation that had mainly rating new hypotheses for poverty alleviation strategies and been developed at local level in the rest of the world. consolidating decentralization through new contextualized However, the encounter between the first PBs and local tools. This could lead to new models that conceive of > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 55 Africa: Late and Unequal Development democratization as a substantive issue based on resource Box 17: redistribution, access to education, knowledge and power WUF, Africities and the World Social Forum (Sintomer, 2010), and the “right to the city”. Since 2003, two recurrent international events have regularly promoted knowledge about PB, giving particular visibility to experiments in Africa. The first is the World 1. Early Beginnings and a Proliferation of Experiments in Francophone Africa Urban Forum (WUF), organized by UN HABITAT to promote regular world-wide discussion of issues such as housing, environment, governance or urban and rural management. The difference between this Forum and Summits such The first African experiments that used the term “parti- as HABITAT I (Vancouver, 1976) or HABITAT II (Istanbul, cipatory budgeting” appeared in 2003–2004 in western 1996) is that it is open to events proposed by so-called francophone sub-Saharan Africa. They soon had close con- “development partners,” such as NGOs, community-based tacts with Latin America. The rural municipality of Batcham organizations, local authorities, researchers and enterprises. (population 215,000) in western Cameroon benefited from In this new framework, several networking and training collaboration with ASSOAL (Actions of Solidarity and Sup- events on PB have been organized, starting in 2004. The port to Organizations and Freedoms, which developed from first African experiments were represented in 2006. an association of book-lovers), an NGO which had helped create “local observatories on electoral engagements”. Similarly, the Africities forum, organized by MDP and the Through international networks such as the International African section of United Cities and Local Government Alliance of Inhabitants and the France-based Démocratiser (created in 2004, bringing together African mayors and Radicalement la Démocratie, it learned about the concept mayoral associations from all over the continent) became from Brazilian experiments. In 2003, ASSOAL negotiated a central space for fostering interchange among PB its participation in a pilot project for PB with the mayor of actors in Africa, and lobbying for support from European Batcham and Edzendoun (a rural municipality 60 km from cooperation agencies and international institutions. At Yaoundé). In the year in which Cameroon’s capital hosted the 2000 forum held in Windhoek, Namibia, the ministers the pan-African forum “Africities” ASSOAL organized a who attended endorsed the Victoria Falls Declaration of special session on PB together with the Municipal Develop- 1999, in which PB was recognized as a key instrument for ment Partnership (MDP, a mixed agency partially supported achieving good governance. In subsequent years, sessions by UN Habitat) and the PGU-ALC. Such networking pro- on PB have been organized by international organizations duced a “Charter of intentions for the promotion of PB in such as UN-HABITAT, the World Bank Institute and UCLG Africa”, signed by five mayors in Cameroon, the coope- Africa. One particular success took place in the 2012 event ration agency of Brazilian municipalities, UN-HABITAT, held in Dakar, at which several official conferences on PB MDP and others. This important moment was followed by were able to attract more than 400 participants. On these several international training events organized by internati- occasions the International Observatory of Participatory onal and national organizations and NGOs. The biennium Democracy (OIDP) strongly engaged in the promotion of PB 2011–2012 represented a very important moment for PB in experiments, which were in the frontline of the monitoring Africa with continent-level recognition provided by the Afri- work of the new pan-African Observatory of Participatory can branch of the international association of cities (UCLG). Democracy, launched on this occasion by ENDA (Senegal). Some best-practice awards have been given to African PBs. Finally, during the event, a partnership agreement between local government representatives from Cameroon and Brazil 56 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Africa: Late and Unequal Development was signed to pursue South-South Knowledge Exchange newly-elected mayor, who was also a tribal chief, saw PB (SSKE) on ICT-enabled PB between the two countries. as providing added value. The number of participants in public decision-making meetings has risen to 5 percent, Similar events focusing on PB practices were also held at the implementation of public works has been accelerated several World and Regional Social Forums (Mumbai 2004, and Batcham has become a point of reference both for the Bamako and Athens 2006, Nairobi 2007, Malmö 2008, country and for francophone Africa. A number of events Tunis 2013). The highest number of networking events on have been organized and 27 municipalities (out of the PB was achieved in 2011 at the Dakar World Social Forum more than 430 that exist in Cameroon) have been running and during the parallel Forum of Local Authorities for Social PB experiments with a high average quality, while others Inclusion, opened by the President of Senegal. started meetings on the 2013 budget (Dumas Nguebou/ Noupeou, 2013). At a national level, the Charter was for Cameroon the beginning of the first two African participatory budgets Since 2011, ASSOAL has been involved in close coopera- that were directly related to Latin American experiments tion with the World Bank Institute (WBI) to address the (through ASSOAL consultancy and training for local faci- challenges related to the linkages between ICTs and local litators). The rural municipalities of Batcham (population governance, considering inclusiveness as an indicator of 215,000) and Ezendouan (13 villages, population 12,000) legitimacy and working on how ICT could aid in processes started PB in 2004, when the Law on Decentralization was of inclusion. In the first year, the ongoing ICT-mediated PB about to be revised to increase municipal competences. process in Yaoundé involved 45,000 citizens (out of around They adopted similar methods: social mapping was orga- 269,000), and the reduction of information costs was a key nized, followed by a broad information campaign, the factor in this success. Thanks to such experiments, ASSOAL formalization of commitments by the municipal councils started grow and be recognized by several francophone and the training of local volunteers, technicians and elected African countries as an important multiplier of PBs far bey- officers. The promulgation of an Internal Ruling Act for PB ond the borders of Cameroon. It has played an important marked the formalization of a methodology that more or role in training and counseling local and provincial autho- less adopted the Porto Alegre model, coupled with ele- rities in South Kivu, a province of the Democratic Republic ments of participatory strategic planning. Exchange with of Congo (RDC), where – at the beginning of 2011 – the other African experiments has played an important role in governor proposed to implement a PB experiment involving elaborating the methodology. In the five years of experi- eight local authorities (the three municipalities that consti- mentation with PB, a Multimedia Centre, a Professional tute the capital Bukavu and five rural territories governed Training Centre (Batcham Chefferie), street connections by traditional authorities). Barumbu (150,300 inhabitants and plans for basic infrastructure have been funded and north of Kinshasa) and Kalamu (315,342 inhabitants) pro- implemented. In addition, archaeological and tourist sites cesses developed due to strong pressure from civil society were identified, mapped and developed. In a country in organizations. It allowed requests for further decentraliza- which an average of 75 percent of municipal resources tion in a country whose administrative systems rely on a are devoted to current expenses, these investments were dual track (appointed – and not elected– politicians in the made possible both by savings made through transparent cities and traditional customary authorities in the country- management and constructive partnerships with inhabi- side) which is not able to make public officers accountable tants, and by an increased attractiveness for international for how they spend public money (Allegretti/Mbera, 2013; donors. In the past three years the Batcham budget rose Mbera, 2012). by 49 percent, bringing investment up to 35 percent. The 2007 elections led to a change of mayor in Batcham. The > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 57 Africa: Late and Unequal Development In Senegal, the story is not very different. The first and Dapélogo (35,700) and Diébougou (42,000). In Benin, an most internationally known experiments are those of Fissel interesting feature of the PB experiment of Adjarra (around (population 42,000) in the Mbour Department, and Matam 60,000 inhabitants) is that local authorities have noticed an (population 20,000) in eastern Senegal, on the border with increase in “fiscal civic behaviour,” that is, a reduction in Mauritania. Fissel is a rural community consisting of 28 the evasion of local taxes since the first year of the experi- villages. In this area of long-standing democratic traditions ment in 2003 (ENDA, 2006), similar to what happened in (which in 1996 hosted the first Senegalese community Congo (Allegretti/Mbera, 2013). radio), the participatory budget was created in 2003, following a request by RECODEF (a representative organization In Madagascar, where the decentralization framework of Fissel civil society) to open financial decision-making to was clarified by law in 1995, six rural municipalities laun- villagers. It was supported by the NGO IED Afrique (Gueye, ched pilot PB activities in 2008, supported by two dozen 2007). The most important feature of the experiment civic and professional institutions, and others took place was the gathering together of representatives of several in urban areas, such as the municipality of Fort Dauphin homogeneous groups (women, young people, the elderly) (population 59,000), the fifth administrative district of the in a second phase. It proved to be very important in offset- capital Antananarivo. An important role was played in the ting traditional exclusionary practices based on criteria of dissemination of innovations by SAHA, a rural development gender, age and culture, and in empowering traditionally program funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and marginalized persons (Allegretti/Freitas/Pereira, 2014). The Cooperation. The most renowned example of PB in Mada- same NGO was asked to work in other rural communities gascar, that of the rural municipality of Ambalavao in the and was able to create a local PB model that was consoli- center of the country (population 9,000), demonstrates the dated in 2008 by two important handbooks circulated all problem of pre-existing municipal debt and the difficulty over francophone Africa: Le Budget Participatif en pratique of mobilizing people, especially women. Since 2006, and (integrated into the regional program Réussir la Décentra- despite a political change, there has been a qualitative lization) and Le Budget Participatif en Afrique – Manuel de growth in the organization of a system that tries to involve formation pour les pays francophones, coordinated by the people at village level. The municipality has managed to NGO ENDA TM with UN HABITAT (Kanoute, 2007). The raise the budgetary contribution of local taxes in land from Matam experiment, which started in 2005, is remarkable 8 percent to 52 percent. It has also involved several vil- because it attempts to mobilize resources from the diaspora lage communities in service delivery and implementation (by creating links with emigrants from Matam who live of public works. Today, the Local Governance Program of elsewhere in the world), and to involve immigrants from the World Bank is collaborating with the Swiss Agency for Mauritania who are now residents. The experiment gives Development and Cooperation to increase the interchange families a central role in discussing the relationship bet- between the various Malagasy participatory budgets and ween revenues and expenditure. The Spanish cooperation other experiments abroad. A network (Plateforme nationale agency is presently working on an important national-level sur la redevabilité sociale) has been created, which is discus- initiative for PB, following a national workshop organized in sing a “service quality standard” that could help guarantee 2006 in Dakar with the Association of Senegalese Mayors. better results. The improvements in communication include In Senegal, 19 PB experiments worked on the 2012 budget the publication of mayors’ salaries and an increasing use of and 28 began on the 2013 budget. oral and video methodologies to help non-literate people get involved. Specific measures are also being undertaken In Burkina Faso, three new experiments have been imple- to facilitate other vulnerable groups’ access to participatory mented since 2010, with the support of local civil society arenas (Smoke, 2007). Dozens of experiments are being organizations in Ouahigouya (120,000 inhabitants); carried out and their number is growing. In December 58 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Africa: Late and Unequal Development 2012, the PB of Ampasy Nahampoana, a small rural muni- and civil society members and supporting the design of cipality with 4,000 inhabitants in the Toliara Region, won local models of PB. In 2009, a new phase was launched the special award for the best African PB established by with an international conference presenting examples of PB UCLGA (the African branch of the United Cities and Local from Latin America and Portugal. The project was aimed at Government Association). According to the rules of the guaranteeing continuity between the new tool and previ- prize, PB experts that work for the small municipality will ous participatory practices. In 2009, the first pilot process be made available and funded by UCLGA to support other started in the municipality of Paul (population 8,500), a cities experimenting with PB through peer-to-peer learning. rural area with a strong potential for tourism. Elections changed the local government and the process was inter- To date, besides the fragility of formal democratic institu- rupted. The same happened in other towns. Despite all the tions, the major difficulties in implementing PB in franco- efforts of the international partnership to introduce PB in phone Africa have been linked to two issues. The first is the Cape Verde into the routine of local government, it became lack of resources to implement prioritized citizens’ demands, the “hostage” of a very polarized political situation, which which has been partially solved by making communities includes tensions between central and local government. co-responsible for delivering services and supporting the construction of public works, thus integrating elements By contrast, the situation in Mozambique is no longer of the community development participatory budget. The deadlocked (Dias, 2013). Here, the most significant existing second huge difficulty lies in making participatory budgets experiment, that of the capital Maputo (population 1.2 the main communication channel between communities million), started in 2004 as part of the electoral program of and the municipality and to overcome the former patron- FRELIMO, the left-wing party that led the fight for national clients paradigm. One of the most important challenges for independence (Nguenha and Weimer 2004). After a city the future is to increase community training, so that people delegation took part in the Africa Regional Seminar on Par- better understand the complexity of public decision-making ticipatory Budgeting organized in Durban by MDP-ESA, UN and the role that every actor plays in the success of partici- HABITAT, the World Bank Institute and the Swiss Agency patory processes. The creation of grassroots observatories, for Development and Cooperation, the municipal council of as in Cameroon, could also be interesting. the Mozambican capital announced that a more organized PB pilot process would be launched in the Catembe district. After a period of collapse (Nguenha, 2013), PB was reshaped 2. The Influence of Participatory Budgeting in Lusophone Africa in 2011 with the help of international organizations such as the World Bank, in collaboration with experts from the In-Loco Association of Portugal, as a sub-municipal experi- Although Brazil and Portugal have many participatory bud- ment in two-thirds of the city’s districts, with decentralized gets, the innovation is still underdeveloped in lusophone meetings in different neighborhoods. This “new model” Africa. In 2005, UNICEF in Cape Verde signed a first coope- allocated around US$ 850,000 to PB. Other Mozambican ration agreement. Later on, a project for implementing PB municipalities have incorporated some principles of PB, was coordinated by the General Direction of Local Admi- such as the participatory planning system in Dondo (popu- nistration (a national government body) and supported by lation 71,600) and other processes co-funded by the Swiss the UN Fund for Good Governance. In 2007, the project Agency for Development and Cooperation. Dondo became involved In-Loco, a Portuguese NGO, which at the time was one of the reference points in the training companion coordinating an important EU-funded national project for manual (edited by UN HABITAT and MDP) and won several training local authorities in PB in Portugal. In Cape Verde, international awards in recognition of its local participatory In-Loco has been training politicians, municipal workers management innovations. In Dondo, the strong influence > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 59 Africa: Late and Unequal Development of the community development model in the discussions on the budget plan is balanced by the connection with invest- 3. Anglophone Africa: Hybrid Experiments ments that are co-decided by citizens and private-sector actors, which is what we called a multi-stakeholder model. In countries influenced by their former French or Portuguese Today, the United Cities and Local Government Association colonial administrations, the mayor plays a central role, as is leading a peer-to-peer project between Dondo and some in Latin America and in the majority of continental Europe. Brazilian cities, in order to exchange practices on the articu- For this reason, and due to ideological or cultural influen- lation between participatory planning and PB experiences. ces, PB found a channel through which it could rise and spread in line with the original Porto Alegre model, which Box 18: focuses on the budget as the main object of discussion. By The “Training Companion”: an active tool to contrast, in Anglophone Africa two things make it more spread participatory budgeting difficult to clearly define what PB is and to identify con- In 2005, a survey promoted by UN HABITAT among its own crete examples. On one hand, the inherited administrative in-country staff and partners from local government and colonial structure bequeathed a local government system civil society gave shape to the idea of a Training Companion in which elected officials have more limited political power for Participatory Budgeting (UN HABITAT/MDP). An expert compared to mayors elsewhere, and in which a higher group meeting in Nairobi – attended by over 30 stakehol- level of discretional control over local budgets is provided ders from 13 African countries and some Latin American to technical city managers, as well as central/ministerial institutions – opened a process for generating a learning institutions (UCLG, 2008, 2010). In addition, in this area tool that would include specific ongoing examples in seve- of influence PBs are often of a “hybrid” nature, although ral African cities. A regional workshop held in Harare by in the majority of cases, experiments could be similar to NDP in March 2007 mobilized resources for pilot measures the community development model of old Anglo-Saxon designed to make the Training Companion more effective tradition. Here the discussion of the budget usually merges (Masiya, 2009). The two-volume manual (published in 2008 with other participatory or consultative processes, which in separate French and English versions) clearly states that it have different and parallel objectives, such as physical and does not aim to achieve a unique model of PB, but rather to economic planning, resource protection or rural develop- benefit different local territories, taking advantage of eco- ment strategies. Moreover, several tools for controlling the nomies of scale in advocacy and capacity-building efforts. financial performance of local and regional authorities have It is the result of broad interregional collaboration. It is also been developed. They are somewhat similar to PB, but are clear and easy to read, being based on simple concepts designed mainly to strengthen transparency, accountability and illustrative examples that respect the diversity of sub- and citizen control over budgets (McNeil/Malena, 2010). It regional settings. The Training Companion is available as an is in this area that MDP-ESA (based in Harare), UN HABI- electronic version, which increases its accessibility. TAT (based in Nairobi) and other important institutions have being promoting the incorporation of PB principles into local governance. Since 2006, these actors have been working to establish the Training Companion and other tools to disseminate the concept that emerged from some Latin American experiments. This has led to the gradual hybridization of autochthonous African attempts to create a dialogue on financial and budgeting issues between representative decentralized structures and citizens. 60 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Africa: Late and Unequal Development In the 2000s, Zimbabwe, one of the many African countries In the past decade, Tanzania has developed only hybrid whose constitution does not recognize local government, experiments in response to the current national allocation has been providing interesting examples of “bottom-up” system, which is “inefficient, cumbersome, and non-trans- participatory budgets. In this authoritarian pseudo-demo- parent” (Shall, 2007). The same is happening in Zambia, cracy, where legislation advocates consultation rather than where no formalized participation mechanisms exist and participation (Tawanda, 2012; Shah, 2007), PB often emer- civic participation in policy and budget decision-making ged from a “confrontational relationship” between citizens processes is rare. The case of the Namwala District Council and institutions. In 2002, Marondera (population 46,000, (around 85,000 inhabitants) is an interesting case linked to east of Harare) accepted that it would satisfy requests made the Community Development model. Organized into Area by inhabitants and local stakeholders after being caught up Development Committees (ACDs), it started at the end of in the hyperinflation spiral induced by high debt resulting 2010 and considered PB to be a “stimulating environment” from water supply and sanitation contracts (Chaeruka/ in which to support other governance reforms. In the vision Sigauke, 2008). In Mutoko rural district, PB began in 2003 of the district administration and the MDP-ESA that support in response to strong civil society protests. Resources of the it, the creation of a revenue data bank system together governmental Pilot Program on Developing Local Gover- with the trust in local authorities created by the practice of nance were used to train facilitators and elaborate a social PB in the first year was able to increase the district income map of stakeholders active in the area. In the central city of by about 50 percent (allegedly the traditional apathy of Gweru (population 300,000), the PB process is implemen- the business community was reduced, contributing to a ted by ward development committees and budget formu- 95 percent rise in its financial commitment). Among the lation workshops that are open to representatives of civic services prioritized by the area Development Committees groups. These participate in the five-year planning process in 2011 the first was the renovation of the water supply and suggest tariff levels, adjustments to salaries and capital system, which in 2012 was implemented through the pro- expenditure priorities. curement of a drilling rig and 42 boreholes in different part of the territory. The major difficulty for fostering a serious In Uganda, where the 1995 Constitution explicitly endor- PB with real decision-making power in Zambia is that fiscal ses citizens’ participation in planning and where a specific transfers from the central government are unpredictable Local Government Budget Call Circular fosters transparency and councils have little information concerning funding and the standardization of data collection, the concept of policies, the criteria adopted in allocating grants, or the community-based monitoring and evaluation is a central reasons for delays in releasing funds. feature of the planning and budgeting process. The most renowned PB is Entebbe (population 115,000), the former The situation is not dissimilar in Kenya, one of the most colonial capital on the northern coast of Lake Victoria, stable African representative democracies (Mika, 2004). A where a process was initiated in 2000. It consists of a Local Government Act and Local Authorities Transfer Fund one-month period for visiting each of the 24 villages and Act state that a participatory planning process is needed sub-wards in order to ascertain local conditions, problems, before submitting the Local Authority Service Delivery needs and priorities, in the run-up to the annual budget Action Plan and receiving national funding (Kundishora, process. A similar process happens in Kasawo and Soroti, 2004). In big cities such as Nairobi (population 4.5 million), where community radio actively contributes to the bud- priorities from different wards and constituencies are har- get cycle discussion. Here, the “wish list” elaborated by monized in a citywide consultative forum attended by three community members does not lead to prioritization and representatives from each ward. Other interesting participa- discussion of resources and revenue generation (Babcock tory mechanisms are the “barazas” public meetings (called et al., 2008). by traditional chiefs to educate citizens on public policies) > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 61 Africa: Late and Unequal Development and “harambee” committees (self-help groups that identify exist are still not provided with workable rules, they do not priority projects and raise funds to implement them). In foster the creation of new institutional structures and they this framework, experiments with participation in budget rarely tackle racial divisions. The social impact of a partici- approval date back to 2001/2002, but their consultative patory mechanism that was conceived in Latin America as role is limited. a pivotal tool of civic pedagogy and maturation has so far been rather limited in this region of the world. South Africa is the major regional power and one of the most dynamic representative democracies on the continent. This is more or less true for all the Anglophone African Here, participation is defined by the Municipal Structures countries. Although participatory mechanisms (especially Act of 1998 as a responsibility of executive committees. those linked to planning) try to involve citizens in budge- It is, however, strictly linked to a “basic needs” approach tary issues, elected officials and administrative staff are only and promotion of the socioeconomic development of each weakly committed to using these mechanisms to really fight community, and tends to focus mainly on the planning pro- social inequalities or to empower individual participants cess, the performance management system and strategic and communities (Munzwa et alii, 2007). The difficulty of decisions on service delivery (Leduka, 2009; Smith, 2004). relating the “spurious” African PBs (which are often labeled A minimum advisory process of opening the budget up to this way by external actors such as researchers, consultants citizens exists all over the country, even if some local autho- or international institutions) to the Latin American and rities are more committed to it than others. In some cities, European ones, and even to many of those taking place in such as Mangaung/Bloemfontein (population 380,000) or French- or Portuguese-speaking African countries, is quite the Metropolitan Ekurhuleni Municipality (population 2.5 evident, even though the “circulation of models” has grea- million, Gauteng Province), the local government added tly increased in the past five years. to the Integrated Development Planning Representative Forum a special “budget conference”, designed to involve As far as Northern Africa is concerned, where local govern- stakeholders in increasing coherence between the budget ments usually have limited competences and responsibilities and the actions provided for in the Integrated Develop- (UCLG, 2008, 2010) and where representative democracy ment Plan. Some promising projects have failed due to is often “under control”, it remains an open challenge for political change. Johannesburg, the main city of South the future. In fact, up to now, almost no initiative has been Africa (1.1 million inhabitants, in a metropolitan area of undertaken to promote PB, beyond some training semi- 4.4 million), will restructure its PB experiment in 2013 (it nars promoted in Morocco by Transparency International started in 2007) by opening it up to more neighborhood (Casablanca, 2007) or ENDA (Rabat, 2011; Tunis 2013) and meetings and to all citizens. If this change is pursued it some side events at the Africities forum (Marrakesh, 2009; could represent an important step-forward for the whole Dakar, 2012). The only country that showed an interest country, going beyond a tradition centered mainly on con- in implementation has been Egypt, in the last period of sultative meetings (lekgotlas) organized in many cities by Mubarak era – a context not very favorable to citizen parti- the Budget Office and the Mayor Cabinet Office as arenas cipation and promising for fake experiments. The downfall of “multi-stakeholder participation”, or at least of a mix of the regime stopped the experiment and the UNHabitat of this model and the “community development” one. handbook 72 answers to frequently asked questions on PB, Overall, even if participation during the budgeting process translated into Arabic and presented at Africities in Decem- has somehow become a legal requirement for South Africa ber 2009, cannot be used anymore. For 2014, the NGO (as happens in Kenya and other English-speaking African “Action Associative” promoted a network of five cities in countries), this has not yet resulted in the configuration of Tunisia, which formally committed to experience PB during real participatory budgets. The rudimentary processes that the democratic transition phase. 62 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < IV. Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges In Asia, which is home to nearly half the world’s population Research Foundation organized a visit to Porto Alegre, and and contains 23 of the 40 largest metropolitan areas on international networks contributed to the diffusion of the the planet, PB emerged even later than in Africa, although idea in the second part of the 2000s. it has since undergone important growth. In contrast with other continents, the processes were initially mainly autochthonous and local, even though their principles and methodologies have a lot in common with those of America or Europe. They implied a critical questioning of the ties 1. Participatory Budgeting as a Regional Development Instrument (Kerala, India) between politics, the economy and administrative reforms. Often, the actors conducting these experiments were not The first and most famous Asian participatory budget – aware of what was going on in other cities and countries. although it did not use this term – took shape in 1996 The methodology and political significance of the experi- in Kerala, developing at a state level with the active parti- ments still differ sharply from one place to other, making cipation of municipal and provincial institutions. The idea it difficult to take a panoramic view. In addition, political came from the younger party leaders of the Marxist CPI-M structures are much more heterogeneous in Asia than in party to avoid the decline of the Left United Front in a state Europe or Latin America, with a spectrum that includes in which communist parties and the moderate left-wing federal and centralized states, constitutional monarchies Congress Party take turns at government. Promoting citi- with parliamentary governments, unitary presidential sys- zens’ participation in decentralized budget planning could tems and single-party states. The diversity of cultures and not be achieved without a prior capacity-building phase. standards of living is striking. A common factor has been In 1996, the Kerala People’s Campaign for the Ninth Plan that the birth of PB took place in a period of accelerated was launched, mobilizing more than 10 percent (a third of economic development, and to a lesser extent in a phase of whom were women) of the 31 million inhabitants of the progressive decentralization (UCLG, 2008, 2010, 2013). All region. Participants could decide on almost 40 percent of in all, however, the PB landscape in Asia is a kind of mosaic. state revenues during the period 1996/2001. It covered the Its contributions to the international debate are diverse. whole territory, with 991 rural villages (grama panchayats), International exchange increased in a second phase, but 152 block panchayats, 53 municipalities, 14 districts and it is not certain that this will help unify the panorama, five corporations (the various levels of local government). because their impact is quite different from place to place. Two main elements made this campaign a real – and par- The term PB first came into use only around 2005, with ticularly dynamic – example of PB, despite the fact that it explicit reference to Brazil. The first actors who came into was not originally in contact with Brazilian experiments. direct contact with the European or Latin American debates First, it mobilized citizens through a cyclical process, sup- were those in Kerala state (India), whose experiment recei- ported by 373 state-level trainers, almost 10,500 trained ved international recognition from left-wing scholars (Fung/ provincial-level resource persons and 50,000 trained local Wright, 2001; Santos, 2005) and alter-globalist movements, activists (including 4,000 retired administrators). The laun- and was widely discussed during the World Social Forum ching of the process was a political decision, but it opened held in Mumbai in 2004. Then came those of Indonesia, the door to a huge social movement that gave shape to where Transparency International invited some trainers to the experiment. Nowhere else has PB been a channel for explain how the Brazilian model was working in 2003. In such a mass mobilization. Second, people elected delegates 2004, representatives of Sao Paulo’s PB office were invited to follow the process at every phase, having a decisional to South Korea. Since then, China has become the focus say in prioritizing, implementing and monitoring the con- of a growing Asian interest in PB, as well as the center of sensually-elaborated demands to be inserted into local and international exchange. In 2005, the China Development supra-local development plans. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 63 Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges The participatory procedure comprises five steps: (i) a 2002–2003. However, PB remains subordinate to other wide range of local assemblies (or grama sabhas, which instruments, such as the Citizens’ Report Cards, a form of attracted more than 2 million citizens) with strict rules, such written submission/petition which is supposed to improve as reduced speaking times for politicians and experts and administrative behavior – a procedure which is recom- small groups, in order to facilitate discussion and involve mended by, among others, the World Bank’s handbooks people not accustomed to speaking in public; (ii) data of citizen participation (Clay, 2007). The main limitation collection and collective writing of the local panchayat of this experiment is that it has not been able to have a and Urban Development Report (PDRs), which serve to major impact beyond the small area in which it has been stimulate discussion at “development seminars” attended implemented and there is no evidence after 2007 that this by people’s delegates (around 20 per ward); (iii) drafting has happened elsewhere. Other experiments have taken of project proposals containing the technical requirements place in the Bangalorean constituency of Malleswaram and and financial planning details by the “task force” created in Pune (around 3.1 million inhabitants), in the Deccan at the development seminars; (iv) approval of the Plan by Plateau. District Planning Committees; followed by (v) implementation, monitoring and evaluation, in which citizens also take Box 19: part. In its 16 years of existence, the “plasticity” acquired The case of Bandarawela in Sri Lanka by the Kerala participatory experiment (as already recog- In Sri Lanka, since 2004, an interesting experiment has nized by Chaudhuri/Heller, 2002) enabled it to survive the been developed in Bandarawela municipality (Uva province) political changes which several times changed the political and the regional Asian branch of United Cities and Local hue of the state government (Jain, 2005), even though Government has made it known worldwide through the this experiment could be considered dead in 2012. In the 2010 online Observatory of Inclusive Cities of the Commit- Indian academic and political debate, controversy still exists tees of Participatory Democracy and Social Inclusion. This concerning whether the Kerala experiment could be con- city of 38,300 inhabitants implemented a program called sidered a real experience of PB, and scholars defend the “Grama Proboda” in which citizens could decide on the idea that the Kerala experiment tended to lose its capacity allocation of funds. Although the decision-making rules are to influence budgetary issues directly. In any case, this par- not clearly formalized, more than 100 projects (in areas ticipatory process has contributed to a unique situation, in such as road rehabilitation, leisure facilities and infrastruc- which some standards of living, such as life expectancy or ture works, such as drainage systems) were approved. The child death rate, are comparable to European ones – in an project started in 2004 but benefits from small amounts economy which tends to grow less than the rest of India. (some tens of thousands of US dollars). The Bandarawela city is characterized by a multiethnic population, with many In the years following the media explosion at the beginning social and language barriers imposed on minority ethnic of the Kerala experiments, other cities in India proposed groups living below poverty line. less ambitious and extended processes which – after processes of exchange with Brazilian and European cities had In 2009, a law was approved by the parliament of Sri Lanka developed – were termed “participatory budgets”. The that emphasized the importance and encouraged the experiment held in Bangalore (8.4 millions inhabitants, in implementation of participatory planning and budgeting. Karnataka state) appeared to be one of the more solid. It However, it does not oblige public administrations to do emerged from the PB campaign organized by Janaagraha, them and leaves local authorities autonomy to decide upon a community-based organization which – following a field models and mechanisms to promote civil society participa- visit to Porto Alegre in 1998 – worked hard to convince tion. the local government to experiment across 10 wards in 64 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges 2. China: Between Participative Modernization, Citizens’ Empowerment and Political Reform leaders, whose ability to put to good use the innovative proposals made by some Chinese scholars or international networks varies widely. Such innovative experiments allow leaders to quickly climb up the hierarchy, which means that Although China shares some economic and social features they will move elsewhere if the experiment is successful. with India, its political structure is completely different. The Therefore, the sustainability of the process at local level is growing interest in PB is mostly initiated by local govern- not easy (Wu/Wang, 2012; Leib/He, 2005). ments. The concept was discovered around 2005, and interest seems to be growing in the wake of the so-called Box 20: “sunshine finance” revolution, which elaborates principles Three logics at work in China of budgetary transparency in order to improve the perfor- Baogang He (2011a, 2011b) argues that three main “dis- mance of its government system. In China, where local tinctive logics” are behind China’s PBs: “administration, authorities receive only 32 percent of their incomes from political reform and citizen empowerment”. Each one central government (UCLG, 2010), there is a high poten- denotes “different conceptualizations and understandings tial in terms of “flexibility” of resources to be allocated of PB, constituting different frameworks in which PB pro- through PB. In such a huge country, where information on grams and activities operate”, generating and reproducing innovative experiments does not easily circulate, the major behavioral patterns and leading in different directions. In difficulty of identifying examples of PB is the ambiguity the “administrative logic”, which is a variation of the par- of the Chinese concept of “participation”. In a context ticipatory modernization model, PB is supposed to help to in which information often remains the monopoly of the strengthen and improve the administrative process. When executive and the Communist Party leaders, the notion this logic dominates, the ideal of citizenship “is likely to be is not necessarily related to the direct involvement of the diluted and even lost other than in terms of the possibility people in public policies. It is often used for practices of for some public scrutiny of budgets”. The “citizen empo- inter-institutional dialogue involving members of the legis- werment logic”, which can be interpreted as a variation of lature (the Local People’s Congress deputies have traditio- the community development model, seems to be privileged nally been excluded from the definition of the municipal by activist citizens and NGOs who “regard citizen partici- budget), information disclosure, public notification and – in pation in the budgeting process as a political right, and the best case – legislative hearings, public opinion polls, demand the power to decide the allocation of budgets in inquiries and surveys. local communities” as a means to change the relationship between the state and citizens in favor of the latter”. The In China, participation often implies negotiations with “political reform logic” tends to be very specific to China organizations such as private enterprises, residents’ com- and to be situated outside the global typology proposed in mittees or the new universe of NGOs, while only a few the first part. Its focus is “to rejuvenate the local People’s experiments are based on the active involvement of “ordi- Congresses in China to make them work more effectively nary” citizens. This new trend includes examples that can and to make the deputies more powerful”. The participa- be considered PBs that fit with the criteria we laid down tory improvement of public administration could even be at the beginning of this text and that would match more used in order to narrow contestation (He, 2011a, 2011b, closely the meaning of the term in Europe, Latin America 2013). In this approach, PB could become an attractive or India. Although the future is not clear, this could also instrument in other state-dominated administrative mecha- contribute to the modernization of public administration nisms such as the Feedback Unit in Singapore and the and to a democratization process at the local level. This, Law of Complaints in Vietnam (Rodan/Jayasuriya, 2007). however, remains dependent on the will of the local party In China, the three logics are not clear-cut, but they often > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 65 Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges intertwine. In any case, the administrative logic of PB has for citizens and interest groups to express their concerns, been understudied and lacks critical scholarly analysis and while reducing conflicts of interest and the perception of solid empirical data. Much of the literature on PB in China corruption in the selection of priority projects in the local (Ma/Niu, 2007; Su, 2007; Zhang, 2007; Chu, 2008) and budget for 2005. A total of 275 people were selected to many journalistic reports have focused on experiments in participate in a deliberative poll through random sampling political reform and citizen empowerment. designed to create a diverse and representative microcosm of the people, including usually “disinterested” persons The lack of serious field work makes it difficult to classify (Sintomer, 2011). Of these, 269 completed the initial ques- so-called participatory budgets, such as those held in Wuxi tionnaire who later served to verify how the “informed (population 1 million, Jiangsu Province) Wuxi (Jiangsu), deliberation” modified their views and skills. The main goal Ha‘erbin (capital of Helongjiang Province) or Shanghai. A of the deliberation day was to discuss how to spend the very interesting Chinese PB is that of Wenling, which has annual budget and examine citizens’ preferences among promoted PB in several of its districts (Hsu, 2009). One of the possible projects listed by the local officials. The total them, Zeguo, has become famous, using the methodology cost of the 30 projects was 136 million yuan (US$ 20 mil- of “deliberative polling”, a “world première”, with the lion), but only less than one-third could be spent on them. support of some scholars at Stanford University and the In light of budget constraints, the participants were asked Ford Foundation (He, in Sintomer et al. 2011). The result to carefully examine each proposal in 16 small groups, dis- is a hybrid type of policy-oriented “deliberative polling”1, cuss their merits and identify key questions for competent which shares some features with the consultation on public experts to answer in plenary sessions. The moderators of finance model. It has undergone several transformations each table were teachers selected from Zeguo Number Two in the course of time and then has been repeated, and High School, trained for the event. At the end of the day, Wenling City offers one of the most interesting and diverse participants rated 30 projects on a scale of 0 to 10. The examples of citizen participation in China. experiment was repeated in the following years (He, 2013). Local authorities still take the legally binding decisions, but Box 21: they accepted most of the citizens’ proposals in the final Participatory budgeting implemented through budget (He, 2009). The process is now explicitly seen as and deliberative polling in Zeguo (Wenling) termed a PB model. It has grown from year to year, and one Zeguo is an industrial township of Wenling City (popula- of the most striking innovations has been the introduction tion 1 million), located in Zhejiang Province. Its jurisdiction of some particular “affirmative action” criteria: a quota for covers 97 villages, having a permanent local population employers and personalities has been introduced in order of almost 120,000 persons, as well as a floating (migrant) to enhance their participation in the process. As in Porto population of the same size. In December 2004, in coope- Alegre, the process remains focused on spending. Incomes ration with the Centre for Deliberative Democracy at Stan- are not discussed, although they can be problematic: in ford University, a Chinese scholar working in Australia was many Chinese towns and cities, they depend heavily on the chosen by Communist Party leaders to give technical advice sale of public land to private entrepreneurs. This is a very to the local government. The idea was to provide a channel controversial social issue, because this process is causing the expulsion of millions of people from their houses in 1 66 Deliberative polling is a procedure invented by J. Fishkin (2011), in which hundreds of citizen randomly selected meet and deliberate on a public issue, with public hearings of politicians, experts or NGOs activists, discussion in small groups and in general assembly. They are polled at the beginning and at the end of the process, and the result can be characterized as the informed opinion of the people involved. The Zeguo experiment adapted some features of this scheme. rural areas. One of the main actors in the Zeguo experiment, the Chinese professor Baogang He, was also the protagonist of an Action Aid International project in Chinese villages, > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges for which he organized four deliberative polls (2006) the support of the Communist Party for the process is still involving 47 elected village representatives and 25 stra- uncertain and an excess of opening up and visibility could tified randomly selected inhabitants’ representatives. In jeopardize the entire experiment. those cases, the rule negotiated with the local executives was that the results of the second survey performed at a deliberative workshop should be integrated into the local plan and budgeting documents. The idea of working on 3. Korea: A Porto Alegre in the Far East? new participatory experiments in rural areas came from the notion (which dates back to the political reforms of the In Japan and South Korea, two rich members of the mid-1990s) that in a country which is still predominantly OECD, the social, economic and political context has little rural, administrative reforms in rural institutions should be in common with India, and even less with China. Here PB considered crucial. has emerged as a tool for tackling problems linked to the shrinking of resources, incomplete decentralization and In China, today, most PBs are still limited to small-scale the lack of accountability and responsiveness of elected experiments, and in many cases, the processes that called institutions to the needs of their citizens (particularly the themselves PB are merely consultations with the local poor). In South Korea, citizen participation has a strong People’s Congress and are not open for local citizens. It tradition, as mass mobilization was a decisive factor in the is difficult to understand whether the 30 experiments that progressive democratization of the country in the 1980s. the UN-Habitat listed in its Chinese edition (2010) of the It has been strengthened by three legislative reforms: the 72 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions on Participatory 2005 Local Referendum Act, the 2006 Act on the Local Budgeting fit the criteria we have applied to the rest of Ombudsman Regime and local petitions against the abuse the world. However, it is clear that the increased interest of local finance and the 2007 Local Recall system, by which in budget transparency and, more specifically, in PB is elected mayors and councilors may be removed from office. growing. Chengdu (Sichuan province) is now promoting What added value could PB represent in this context, where the largest scale PB in China and possibly one of the most decentralization has been conceived as a curious mixture interesting for the future. This important economic and of deconcentration and devolution, and local authorities cultural center, with 14 million inhabitants living in rural have far less autonomy in practice than suggested by the and urban areas, started implementing PB in 2011 in the Constitutional Article 117 (1987) and the recently amended 2,300 villages/communities included in the city territory. legislation (1994–1995)? More than 2 million booklets (called “A Happy Story in Minzhu”) with easily understandable information on the The answer is certainly linked to the context in which the budget were published in 2011 and to date 50,000 small size of local government debt and the borrowing capacity projects have been approved, 90 percent of them in basic of local government was placed under tight control by the services and infrastructure for local economic development central government in 2000. Today, South Korea is proba- (village roads, water drainage, gardening, irrigation and bly the most complex Asian country in terms of PB, having water supply), farming and business training (Cabannes/ the largest number of experiments (Pan Suk Kim, 2011). Zhuang, 2013). A special feature of Chengdu PB is that The concept was initially introduced in a bottom-up process it revitalizes village councils, communities are entitled to (through NGOs as the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Jus- ask for small loans and Budget Oversight Groups of elec- tice), but its diffusion has been stimulated on a top-down ted villagers control implementation. Its main challenge is basis by the national government. The key principles were to expand to the townships and the urban area; but this imported from Brazil and re-elaborated locally, giving birth transformation may have to happen gradually, because to a slimmed down version of the participatory democracy > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 67 Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges model. In July 2003, the Ministry of Government and for Participatory Democracy and the Ulsan Coalition for Home Affairs issued “guidelines for citizens’ participatory Economic Justice. A task force and an advisory committee budgeting” to all local governments (Rhee, 2005). The first were set up to propose the initial design. This met with experiments started in 2004. The Buk-gu (northern district) reluctance among many officials and council members, as of Gwangju Metropolitan City (population 1.4 million) well as skepticism among citizens. After a broad discussion, was in the front line to become the Porto Alegre of Korea the Ordinance of Participatory Budgeting was enacted, (Kwack, 2005), followed by Dong-ku district in Ulsan and whose main goals were to improve financial transparency (one year later) by the northern district of the same city, and accountability, and strengthen participatory democracy and Suncheon municipality. In August 2005, the Ministry (Songmin, in Sintomer et al., 2013). PB consists of locally- of Government and Home Affairs proposed a revision of based meetings in which every resident in the area can the Local Finance Law, stating that mayors “can enact and participate, and a city assembly that gives a pivotal role to execute the procedures for citizen participation in the local a citizens’ committee on PB (subdivided into five thematic budget process”, and inserted a list of instruments that committees). This committee is appointed partly by means could fulfill this goal. The Daedeok-gu of Daejeon Metro- of open recruitment and partly through recommendations politan City and Ansan-si of Chungnam-Do prepared their made by community organizations. All members are trai- legal framework in 2005, while many other cities waited ned in their tasks at a so-called “participatory budgeting for the “Standard Local Bylaw for Citizen Participatory Bud- school”. In the past five years, 306 programs have been get”, which was provided in 2006. The number of experi- proposed; 37.9 percent of them were included in the draft ments rose to 22 in 2006, and reached 75 (out of 241 local budget and another 25 percent were categorized as long- authorities) in 2008. Since then, there have not been many term projects to be implemented gradually. In the second developments, in terms neither of quality nor quantity, as part of the cycle, the thematic committees prioritize the depicted by Pan Suk Kim (2011), although some new cases projects, while a central role for consolidating budget – such as the Yeonsu Gu District in the city of Incheon proposals is played by a PB council (which includes five and Suwon (1.2 million inhabitants, capital of Gyeonggihad representatives from each thematic committee, the District province) – recently started an experiment (2011), training Head of Dong-ku and his four high officials). citizens and civil servants also in materials translated from European and Latin American PB. Today, the Hope Institute The budget proposal is given final approval in a third stage, in An-guk Dong is an important player in the South Korean by the plenary of the citizens’ committee. The feedback PB, which organizes local training courses to qualify social phase happens after every cycle: an evaluation meeting is and institutional actors on PB. held to judge PB performance. The suggestions are elaborated by an advisory committee (composed of district council Box 22: members, professors, NGOs and high public officials), which How does participatory budgeting work in Korea? states the new rules for running PB for the next fiscal year. The case of Dong-ku The Dong-ku PB has undergone continuous development. Dong-ku (Ulsan municipality) is the most famous partici- For example, the number of meetings and the criteria for patory budget in South Korea. This self-governing district assigning members to the citizens’ and thematic commit- is home to around 186,000 of the 1.1 million citizens of tees have been changed. Ulsan metropolitan city, an industrial town located on the south-eastern edge of the peninsula. In 2004, PB was The proliferation of participatory budgets in Korea and the proposed by the newly elected district head, a member of adoption of bylaws have not necessarily led to very creative the Democratic Labour Party. This came in response to the processes (Kim/Kim, 2007). Despite some homogeneity request of local NGOs, such as Ulsan People’s Solidarity of rules, which tend to imitate the minimum standard of 68 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges ministerial documents, the quality of PBs is uneven (Hwang, Center also offers a hotline to prevent central government 2005; 2008). However, a number of tools (such as internet agencies and local government offices from abusing their surveys, online bidding, cyber forum, online bulletin boards, budgetary duties through citizen participation. The nation- public hearings and seminars) have been provided in order wide ICT infrastructure, but also the high ICT literacy have to foster non-exclusive processes for all citizens in every been behind the success of the D-Brain. phase, and the tradition of citizens’ budget schools and budget policy seminars is one of the most important South Korean contributions to the global debate on PB. Two of the main constraints which limit the growth of many 4. Japan: Participatory Budgeting for Taxpayers experiments are the reduced timeline for discussion (largely determined by the national framework for budget approval The constitutional monarchy of Japan shares some prob- deadlines) and the rigidity of local budgets. These are so lems with Korea, such as the strong influence of national dependent on non-negotiable transfers from the state that parties on local elections, the decline in local election turn- participatory processes often become a way for govern- outs (below 50 percent), the increase in officials’ corruption ment to pass on difficult decisions to the people and let cases and the rigidity of national transfers to local bud- them deal with it instead of a way to put the local creativity gets, which still represent over 60 percent even after the of citizens to good use. Although in South Korea a specific Omnibus Decentralization Act and the 2005–2007 “Trinity knowledge-exchange network on CPB doesn’t exist, several Reform” of local finances that empowered municipalities experimenting cities have been in touch through the “Lear- (UCLG, 2008). In Japan, local governments have wide ning/Educating Cities” network. functional responsibilities and account for over half of total public expenditure and 10 percent of GDP. This strong for- Box 23: mal role goes hand in hand with extensive power given to The Korean D-Brain citizens to demand local referendums, the improvement or It is worth underlining that in 2010 the Republic of Korea abolition of ordinances, audits and even dissolution of the was ranked first in both the e-Government Development local assembly, as well as dismissal of the mayor, council Index and the e-Participation Index from the UN Glo- members or officials. Despite this, in the 47 prefectures and bal E-Government Survey. Taking advantage of such a 1,798 municipalities, citizen participation in public policy situation, in 2007 a tool called the “Digital Budget and decision-making is not very frequent, especially in the field Accounting System” (or “D-Brain”) was adopted and has of financial planning (Matsubara, 2013). The first attempt been a leading model for innovative digital budgeting ever to involve people in budget issues met with the active since. The D-Brain is “an integrated web-based system involvement of some grassroots organizations, which were providing the public real time analysis on government’s allowed to legalize their status in 1998. After 2003, various fiscal activities including budget formulation, execution, processes involving citizens and grassroots organizations account settlement and performance management” and in the discussion of public budgets were launched. The so allowing a more efficient fiscal policy. In several Korean Coalition for Legislation to Support Citizens’ Organizations cities, the D-Brain offers an important tool to web-based distinguishes several types: disclosure of the budget-making PB systems from budget preparation to auditing. Citizens in process (sometimes merely a process of information trans- South Korea can control the process of budgeting even in fer); counter budget-making by citizens’ committees; public cities which do not have co-decisional spaces: this happens consultation on the budget; direct budget management by through internet surveys, online bulletin boards, online citizens; and participatory transfer of 1 percent of resident bidding, cyber forums, public hearings and the so-called taxes to non-profit organizations (Matsubara, 2013). “budget participation corners”. The Budget Waste Report > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 69 Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges The most distinctive example is the city of Ichikawa, where 2009, Ichikawa organized a “1 percent summit”, which the participatory budget uses 1 percent of resident tax gave rise to a whole network of cities that are interested revenues for non-profit projects. In 2004, the mayor (who in participating together in this very peculiar version of the in Japan is elected separately from the local assembly and community development participatory budget. In 2010, must propose the budget to the council) approved an ordi- the annual meeting was held in Ichinomiya and in 2011 in nance based on a Hungarian model. Through participation Saga (population 240,000; Saga Prefecture). In 2012 nine he hoped to gain the support of citizens for his budgetary cities were particularly active in the network. The Summit policy in a difficult financial situation. Ichikawa is a slee- is intended to jointly identify ways to hybridize different per community next to Tokyo, with 474,000 inhabitants models of PB and stabilize Japanese experiments, which are (230,000 of whom are taxpayers and a quarter are com- very fragile, because they are highly dependent on the will muters) and a transit of 540,000 persons/day. The idea of and policies of mayors. Even if it mainly affects programs, organizing a participatory process for the potential amount without involving facilities and public spaces, the Japanese of 3.8 million yen (around US$ 40,000), which represented model of PB remains interesting because of its capacity 1 percent of tax revenues, was to support and revitalize to empower communities. It represents a variation of the the non-profit sector. Every taxpayer is entitled to vote by community development model. Other different models of internet, and can choose up to three organizations to be PB in Japan are being developed recently (Koga, 2013). funded, according to his/her needs or wishes and on the basis of activity plans put forward by the non-profit organizations and discussed in public assemblies (sometimes with the use of drama and other artistic means). A special 1 per- 5. Timid Tendencies in the Rest of Asia cent committee, which screens plans and funded activities, has also been created. The local government distributes There are few – and often soon interrupted – experiments the money according to the votes. The process stimulates with PB in other Asian countries. In Indonesia, PB has been the grassroots community organizations, requiring them promoted by umbrella-NGOs such as the Indonesian Forum to make their mission and fundraising approach better for Transparency in Budgets through campaigns designed to known, and promotes citizens’ interest in the use of their enhance budget awareness among local communities and taxes and in the budget mechanism. Five years after the local authorities, but also to promote participatory practi- process was launched, voter turnout was around 5 per- ces as a catalyst of democratization within an authoritarian cent (around 9,110 voters), but has not opened up other political environment (Sri/Mastuti/Neunecker, in Sintomer segments of the budget to citizens’ decision-making. The et al., 2013). Exchange with PB actors around the world organizations which propose activities have jumped from has been promoted with the support of UNDP, the Asian 81 to 130, and the funded amount has risen from 12 to Development Bank and other international institutions, 20 million yen (US$ 130,000 to US$ 210,000). Interesting mainly with an anti-corruption focus. In a country where choices have been made by citizens of projects benefiting no formal mechanism for direct citizen participation exists, vulnerable groups, such as a swimming program for men- many organizations act as watchdogs, monitoring develop- tally retarded persons. ment projects or local budgets. With the lack of substantive reforms on the government side since 1999 and 2000, only Other Japanese cities have been stimulated by the Ichikawa a few experiments have managed to respond concretely experiment, and some have decided to open up voting to issues raised by civil society. The program has resulted to non-taxpayer groups, such as Eniwa, a new town of mainly in a gradual establishment of “preconditions” for 68,000 inhabitants in Ishikari district (Hokkaido island). PB (Allegretti, 2003; Antlo, 2004; Raza/Thébault Weiser, The term “participatory budgeting” is coming into use. In 2006), which seems still to be at a very early stage. 70 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges In Bangladesh, the only reported PB experiment is fairly assemblies (including the vote of priorities by citizens) hap- “spurious”, being more part of a participatory planning pened under the supervision of State representatives, due to exercise than a specific tool (Rahman, 2004), while in the the temporary “suspension” of mayors during the months constitutional monarchy of Thailand, a few cities have int- before new municipal elections. In the end of 2013, the roduced PB as a daily management tool and experiments NGO “Partners-Jordan. Center for Civic Collaboration” were launched at the beginning of the century when the started to collaborate with three new experiences of PB term “participatory budgeting” was still unheard of. In in the Palestinian territories, under the supervision of the Khon Kan (population 130,000), a dynamic center in the German Cooperation Agency (GIZ). north-east, PB was adopted as a means of addressing the growing level of public resistance and conflict regarding local development projects, and to respond to a strong demand for civic participation, which had emerged from 6. Oceania: E-democracy and Community Building the active participation of local residents in the constitutiondrafting process in the late 1990s. No co-decision-making In Oceania, the term PB is not frequently used by policy- takes place, but consensus is often reached through delibe- makers, although some academic institutions have been ration (Suwanmala, 2004). promoting studies based on an international perspective. In New Zealand, the debate on the issue is very young, alt- In the Middle East, plans to extend PB experiments to Arab hough the community planning experiment in Christchurch countries were attempted in Yemen, Palestine and Jor- (started in 1993 and awarded a prize by the “Cities of dan, in the framework of a “knowledge transfer” project Tomorrow” network) had been the inspiration of some of entitled “The Arab Initiative for Equitable Budget” invol- the first German PBs. In 2012, the growing interest in PB in ving – between 2008 and 2010 – several NGOs with the this country was due to the Pacific Centre for Participatory support of the Rady Institute at San Diego State University Democracy and to the Green Party, which – together with and the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI). Jordan the local committee of IAP2 – organized several training has produced the most sustainable commitment. In this sessions and conferences with foreign experts on the issue, country, where women have voted only since 1974 and and some experiments may begin in 2013. political parties were recognized only in 1992 and are still very weak in comparison with the tribal organization of In Australia, where a high degree of autonomy and local society, cooperation with foreign countries on specific policy differentiation exists among the different states development projects is an element of strength. The first (UCLG, 2008, 2010), the debate on PB has a longer but two experiments, which took place in 2009–2010 within asymmetric history. Taking advantage of a tradition of stu- the framework of the project “Participatory Budgeting dies that tried to bridge the gap between gender analysis Coalition, the Arab Initiative for Equivalent Budgets”, and gender-responsive budgets, some states have elabora- were implemented in the northern municipality of Sahil ted rules for transparency with regard to public budgets. Houran and in the central historical city of Madaba (around For example, the Local Government Act of the State of 60,000 inhabitants). Financial aid was received by the two Victoria (passed in 1989) requires councils to advertise in cities from Spain to implement some projects. In 2012, an local newspapers the fact that they have formed a propo- agreement between the Dutch Embassy and the small NGO sed budget and people can then submit requests to the “Partners-Jordan. Center for Civic Collaboration” made it government for additions or deletions. Most often, these possible for the project to implement an important follow- procedures do not go beyond informal “selective listening” up, so that six municipalities (well distributed around the (Demediuk/Solli, 2008). In 2009–2010, an electronic voting country) started PB in 2013. The first two rounds of public experiment took place in the Australian federal state of New > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 71 Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Oceania: Between Autochthonous Development and International Exchanges South Wales (NSW) as an attempt to mitigate the effects framework of the Sustainability Strategy and the Strategic of the economic downturn and stimulate local economies. Plan for Geraldton 2029. Within the funding of the Community Building Partnership program, in the electoral district of Heathcote, the district’s As in other former British colonies influenced by the citizens could decide collectively through the internet the community-development tradition, it is possible that a new allocation of the funds that the government had made hybrid model of PB that merges PB and the participatory available, thanks to the personal engagement of a local MP. planning principle will emerge and expand in the coming Every registered citizen had five votes to cast (with a maxi- years. mum of three votes for each project), in order to decide which causes were the most deserving of existing funds. This experiment involved more than 20,000 participants, but was not repeated. Others have been under way since 2012. The most original took place in the city of Canada Bay (50,000 inhabitants, State of New South Wales) guided by a labor mayor. PB was intended to determine the range and level of services, and how they were to be paid for, covering a AUS$ 74 million budget for a four-year period. Although the council retains the final veto on citizens’ proposals, the experiment has been set as co-decisional and citizens’ choices were accepted by the municipality. The quality of deliberation has been fostered through the creation of a randomly-selected jury of 30 people from over 1,500 invitations. The second experience – located in the city of Greater Geraldton (around 35,000 inhabitants, in the State of Western Australia) - has started in 2012 with a small pilot project, which put 30,000 AU$ into discussion with residents of three marginal neighborhoods for deliberating on park maintenance and rehabilitation. A special attention was given to the participation of aboriginal groups and their cultural rules, as already happened in the other participatory processes already undertaken by the same municipality. Later on, a series of training events and discussions among councilors and city managers, with the active support of the Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP) of Fremantle and the Association of Local Authorithies (WALGA), made the mayor take the decision of dare more for 2013 and try to submit to a participatory budgeting procedure (which addresses to voluntary self-mobilized participant as well as to a commission of randomly-selected citizens) a larger slice of investments to be discussed in the 72 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < V. Learning Processes Having reached the end of our journey around the globe, and Cooperation in several countries in Africa. Alterna- we know that the phenomenon of PB has spread across the tively, the users of a resource website can also be seen as continents in different ways. By linking PB and traditional members of a network. The Service Agency Communities forms of participation, Africa, too, has embarked on its in One World and the Federal Agency for Civic Education, own path. The same goes for Asia and Oceania, where for instance, both offer a central website for Germany. The experiments are under way with deliberative polling and website is also available in English in order to foster inter- taxpayers’ budgets. Consequently, the issue of transfer national exchange. A similar situation applies with respect should be raised once again. In the process of dissemina- to the “Orçamento Participativo Portugal” website in the ting PB, networks have played and will continue to play a lusophone world, the Finnish internet portal and the PB crucial role, which we would again like to underline. The Unit for the United Kingdom, which, after closing in 2012, present essay has also made a contribution in this direction has recently been substituted by two separate entities: the by providing information on the worldwide dissemination PB Network (a volunteer structure of exchange) and PB of PB. But where might things go from here? To find an Partners (a new professional consultancy service). Here we answer to this question, in this last section we will attempt see that the geographical/linguistic frame of reference is a to summarize some of the general trends. second distinguishing feature. Some networks are organized nationally, others interna- 1. Networks and Municipal Partnerships: Framework for Cooperation tionally, and some even on a transcontinental basis. As well as URBAL, these include the Africities Forum and the Committee on Social Inclusion and Participatory Democracy (CISDP), which were formed as official branches under the Given that some municipalities find themselves in the same umbrella of the federation of cities called United Cities and situation, and that it would make little sense to “reinvent Local Governments (UCLG), whose Gold Report III (2013) the wheel” every time, it would obviously be helpful to dedicates a session to the relationship between PB and the pursue an exchange of PB experiments. Networks, in parti- effectiveness of public services. The International Observa- cular, seem to offer a suitable framework, as do municipal tory of Participatory Democracy (OIDP) in Barcelona should partnerships. In particular, cooperation between munici- also be mentioned, as well as its offshoots, such as the palities in industrialized countries and in the Global South African Observatory of Participation. From the German per- could provide a framework for transfer. What networks spective, the latter is perhaps the most interesting network exist and what are their characteristics? because it holds annual meetings, maintains an international website, provides instruments and awards prizes. Not When we look at PB around the world, we see that the infrequently, associations of this kind address exclusively existing networks display a variety of features. The first is procedural issues. the nature of membership. On one hand, there are official networks for which membership must be applied for, and Hence, we can draw a third distinction, namely between that are administrated from a central office. This was the pragmatic and political networks. Although it is not always case, for instance, with URBAL 9, coordinated from Porto possible to separate the two, this is an important distinction Alegre. On the other hand, there are networks that do that municipalities wishing to join these networks should not describe themselves as such, yet whose members are note. PB networks in Latin America, for instance, have linked through joint projects. These include development generated a great deal of technical information, but they cooperation projects, such as those supported by GIZ in the usually also have a strong political component, except for Dominican Republic or the Swiss Agency for Development those that were initiated by international organizations. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 73 Learning Processes When we consider the development of networks, we note – mutual exchanges between employees dealing with that purely political networks have since been superseded participation in cities with PB experiments in Spain, the by networks for pragmatic cooperation, or networks that Dominican Republic and Uruguay (Allegretti, 2012a). do both. A further change involves language. Due to the engagement of municipalities in Latin America, Latin langu- South-to-South twinning and cooperation agreements ages were dominant for a long period. In many networks linked to PB are developing. In 2011, Porto Alegre’s Obser- today, communication also takes place in English, due vapoa, the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Kerala primarily to the involvement of international organizations State and the ISS Institute in India started a joint coope- such as the World Bank. Thirdly, these networks are now ration agreement, while in December 2012 Porto Alegre increasingly not only dealing with PB, but are also opening Municipality and Yaoundé’s 6th District signed a mutual up to new, related themes. This in turn is creating opportu- understanding agreement for co-working on PB issues. nities for new links. Municipal partnerships are also suited The official signing was an important moment at the VI to cross-cutting cooperation of this kind. So far, networks Africities Forum in Dakar. have been more important than bilateral municipal partnerships. However, given that German municipalities do not In November 2012–March 2013 GIZ organized with the maintain a high presence in international PB programs, it is Municipal Development Partnership (MPD-ESA) a Blended municipal partnerships that have the potential for exchange Learning Course on PB conceived as a follow-up of the on PB. The Service Agency Communities in One World is World Bank Institute course held in 2008. The targeted particularly active in this respect. countries are Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, and it includes a series of peer-to-peer cooperation projects with Box 24: exchanges of local technical experts among the different Municipal partnerships with the South: a cities experimenting with PB. The African section of UCLG springboard for PB? is also promoting peer-to-peer cooperation through the PB The reluctance of German municipalities to get involved award. in international PB networks might be because many of these networks conduct their dealings primarily in Latin languages. We should not forget, however, that a number 2. Global Trends of towns and cities in Germany already maintain close contacts with counterparts in the South. Bielefeld, for instance, As already indicated, there is no single telos towards which has a twinning arrangement with Estelí in Nicaragua, which participatory budgets all over the world are moving. If we began PB in the 1990s and has emerged as a pioneer. This look at the developments described, we can rather identify was a model for other municipalities, such as Nandaime three different trends that reveal something about the and San José de los Remates. An exchange on experiments impacts of participatory budgets. They also represent three of this kind might also be an interesting option for other different levels of intensity. European towns and cities with their partner municipalities of the Global South. At the highest level we see PBs that aim to change prevailing conditions fundamentally, a goal that they achieve as In November 2012, the city of Cascais in Portugal and that one component of a broader movement for renewal. These of Maputo, capital of Mozambique, signed a cooperation experiments mark a break with previous practices and are agreement on exchanges related to participatory processes. based on interaction between governments and grassroots A totally new “imaginary” was born after the EU-funded movements, because PB is not introduced only on a top- “PARLOCAL” project fostered – between 2010 and 2012 down basis but is also due to a large series of civil-society 74 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Learning Processes actors who call for and drive the process. These budgeting Some of the participatory budgets of this second type show procedures are about overcoming social injustice and achie- traits of a third type, in which PB is largely of a symbolic ving sustainable development. Doing so means breaking nature and in which there is a yawning gap between the with established traditions of patronage and corruption. proclaimed objective and the reality. Here the aim is no lon- When civil society is mobilized, the pressure it exerts helps ger really to consult citizens. The meetings are used rather to achieve this goal. We have seen many cases of this kind to legitimate a path that has already been embarked upon, of development in Brazil and Latin America. For a long time and that those responsible no longer wish to change. This the Porto Alegre experiment stood as one such example, might involve an austerity policy. The symbolic participatory and this has now been repeated in Latin America a hund- budget is in general of a consultative nature and can be red times. Another example of this kind of experiment is found both in established democracies and in authorita- Kerala in India. Perhaps some village participatory budgets rian regimes. In the latter case, sometimes it represents an in Africa (as in Congo, Cameroon, Senegal or Madagascar) ostensible openness that in reality does not exist. In such can also be seen as part of this trend. There are few such a case, participation is designed to placate the population cases in Europe. There has not yet been an experiment and international financial donors. comparable with Porto Alegre in a European city, however. What will be the future of PB, in an era characterized by The second trend involves the use of PB to drive a reform a global financial crisis and of the mode of development it agenda forward. Although it does not involve a break with has fostered in recent decades? Will a sufficient number of tradition, this kind of participatory budget does generate real experiments pertaining to the first and second trends really and visible effects. The local government is the lead actor help to improve the services delivered by public administ- here, but citizens are not absent. There are at least a few rations? Will they lead to further democratization, with a clear rules, or a routine that allows established practices to reduction of corruption and clientelism and increased legi- become the rule. Objectives vary widely. In most continents timacy of political action? Will they manage to foster social participatory budgets have been linked to administrative justice, at a time of growing inequalities in most states in modernization. In many cases PB was designed to deepen the world? The future is open. One thing seems clear: after decentralization processes, and to turn the new autonomy less than three decades, a growing number of actors are of municipalities into a living and felt reality for citizens. The seeing PB as one potential tool that could help us to face same applies to the social effects. In this second category the huge challenges of the twenty-first century. we see PB being used rather as an instrument to address “burning political issues”. The aim of the PBs that follow this trend is mainly that of improving the lives of socially disadvantaged groups, while retaining the basic structure of the system and existing patterns of allocation. The greatest impact for reform, however, involves the communicative dimension. PBs worldwide represent an improvement in the relationship between local governments and their citizens. Although effects going beyond that are usually not so pronounced, local governments have proved open and willing to implement suggestions put forward by citizens, which can be seen as a confidence-building and trust-inducing measure. In the Global South and Eastern Europe, this kind of PB is often supported by international organizations. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 75 Appendix Bibliography ceptual Framework and Analysis of its Contribution to Urban Governance and the Millenium Development Goals, Working Paper, Urban Management Programme/ General UN-HABITAT, Quito, www.cigu.org. Allegretti G. (2012a, ed.), Estudio comparativo de los pre- Cabannes, Y. (2003): Participatory Budgeting and Munic- supuestos participativos en República Dominicana, Es- ipal Finance: Base document, Porto Alegre, Red URBAL paña y Uruguay, CEDMA, Malaga N°9, Porto Alegre. Allegretti, G. (2012b) “From Skepticism to Mutual Sup- Chauí, M. (2011), Between Conformity and Resistance. port: Towards a Structural Change in the Relations be- Essays on Politics, Culture, and the State, Palgrave Mac- tween Participatory Budgeting and the Information and millan Communication Technologies?”, in Mindus, P., Greppi A. et Cuono M. (eds.), Legitimacy_2.0. E-Democracy and Public Opinion in the Digital Age, Goethe University Dagnino E. (2002, ed.). Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos no Brasil. Paz e Terra, S. Paulo Dagnino,E.(2004),“Conluênciaperversa,deslocamentosdesentido,crisediscursiva”,inGRIMSONAlejandro Press, Frankfurt am Main Allegretti, G. (2013), “Os orçamentos participativos sabem escutar? Relexões para reforçar a sustentabilidade dos orçamentos participativos”, in Lima, K., Boson, C.: (2013, eds.), “Orçamento Participativo olhares e per- (ed- s.),Laculturaenlas crisis latinoamericanas,Clacso, Buenos Aires Dewey J. (1954), The Public and Its Problems, Swallow Press/ Ohio University Press Books, Athens. Dias, N. (2013, ed.), “ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos pesctivas”, Livraria Paulo Freire Ed. Allegretti, G.; Freitas, F.; Pereira, A. (2014, forthcoming), de orçamentos participativos”, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco Histórias de outros mundos possíveis: Participação cida- Fishkin. J. S. (2011), When the People Speak: Deliberative dã e construção de novas institucionalidades, Almedina, Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford University Coimbra Press Allegretti, G.; Paño, P.; Garcia, P. (2011), Viajando por los presupuestos participativos: buenas prácticas, obstácuAppadurai,A.(1991),“GlobalEthnoscapes:NotesandTransnationalAnthropology”,inRecaptu- ringAnthropology: ,SantaFe,N.M.: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, Verso, London/New York. Fox- Ganuza, E.; Baiocchi, G. (2012) “The Power of Ambiguity: AmericanResearchPress, How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe,” Journal of WorkinginthePresent,ed.R. Schoolof Annuale, www.freedomhouse.org Fung, A.; Wright, E. O. (2001, ed.), Deepening Democracy. los y aprendizajes., CEDMA. Málaga Queriesfora Freedom House (2012), Freedom in the World 2012, Report pp.191-210. Avritzer, L. (2012a) “Democracy beyond aggregation: the Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 8. Available at: : http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art8 participatory dimension of public deliberation,” Journal of Goldfrank, B. (2012a) “The World Bank and the Globalization Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 10. Available at: : of Participatory Budgeting,”Journal of Public Deliberation: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art10 Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 7. Available at: http://www.publicdelib- Bpb; InWEnt; CMB - Federal Agency for Civic Education; eration.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art7 Service Agency Communities in One World/Capacity Gurza Lavalle, A.; Isunza Vera E. (2010, Coords.), La inno- Building International, Germany; Centre Marc Bloch vación democrática en América Latina. Tramas y nudos de (2010, ed.): Documentation of the congress „Internation- la representación, la participación y el control social, Méxi- al Congress on Models of participatory budgeting“, Bpb/ co, CIESAS/Universidad Veracruzana. InWEnt/CMB, Bonn, www.buergerhaushalt.org. Cabannes, Y. (— 2004), Participatory Budgeting: Con- 76 Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, MIT > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix Press, Cambridge, MA. Journal of Public Deliberation (2012); Special Issue on Participatory Budgeting, Vol. 8: Iss. 2 (2012).Kuriyan, R. et alii of Participatory Budgeting,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 9. B- Available at: http://www. publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art9 (2011), Technologies for transparency and accountability. Sintomer, Y.; Röcke, A.; Herzberg, C. (2014), Participatory Implications for ICT policy and implementation, Open De- Democracy and Public Service Modernization, Farnham, velopment Technology Alliance/Intel Ashgate. Lieberherr, F. (2003), Participatory Budget: A Tool for Partic- Sintomer, Y; Traub-Merz, R.; Zhang, J.; Herzberg, C. (2013, ipatory Democracy. In Urban News, no 7 (February 2003), eds.), Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Europe, Key www.caledonia.org.uk. Challenges of Participation. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmil- Navascués, J. (2011), “Presupuestos participativos y finanzas locales”, in Allegretti G. (2011, ed.), Estudio comparativo de los presupuestos participativos en República Dominicana, España y Uruguay, CEDMA, Malaga Norris, P, (2011), Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited, Cambridge University Press, New York/Cambridge Pateman, C., 2012, “Participatory Democracy Revisited”, lan. Smith, G. (2009), Democratic Innovations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Teixeira, A. C. Chaves e Albuquerque, M.d.C.. (2006), “Orçamentos Participativos: projetos politicos, partilha de poder e alcance democrático”. In: Dagnino E.; Olvera; E., Panichi, A. (eds.), A disputa pela construção demo- APSA Presidential Address, Perspectives on Politics, Vol. crática na América latina. Paz e Terra, Campinas. Pp. 10/No. 1 179-228. Porto De Oliveira, O. (2010), Le transfert d’un modèle de démocratie participative: Paradiplomatie entre Porto Alegre et Saint-Denis, IHEAL/CREDA. Paris. Romão, W. de Melo (2011), “Conselheiros do Orçamento Participativo nas franjas da sociedade política”. Revista Lua Nova. N. 84. pp. 219-244. UCLG (2008), The 2nd Global Report on Decentralization and Local Democracy, UCLG, Barcelona UCLG (2010), Local Government Finance: the challenges of the 21st Century, UCLG, Barcelona UCLG (2013), Global Report on Decentralisation, GOLD III, UCLG, Barcelona Russon Gilman, H. (2012) “Transformative Deliberations: UN-HABITAT (2004, ed.), 72 Frequently Asked Questions Participatory Budgeting in the United States,” Journal of about Participatory Budgeting, UN-HABITAT, Nairobi (orga- Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 11. Available at: : nized by Yves Cabannes), http://www.unhabitat.org/docu- http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art11 ments/faqqPP.pdf Shah, A. (2007, ed.), Participatory Budgeting, Public Sector Wampler, B. (2012), “Participation, Representation, and Governance and Accountability series, World Bank Publi- Social Justice: Using Participatory Governance to Trans- cations, Washington, D.C. form Representative Democracy”, in Polity 44.4 (2012): Sintomer, Y. (2010), “Saberes dos cidadãos e saber político”, in Revista Critica de Ciencias Sociais, nº 91, pp. 135 – 153 Sintomer, Y. (2011), O Poder ao Povo, Editora UFMG, Belo Horizonte Sintomer, Y.; Herzberg, C.; Röcke, A. (2008), « From Porto Alegre to Europe: Potential and Limitations of Participatory Budgeting », International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, volume 32/1, Mach, p. 164-178. 666-682. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/brian_wampler/15 Wampler, B.; Hartz-karp, J. (2012) “Participatory Budgeting: Diffusion and Outcomes across the World,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 13. Available at: : http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/ art13 Whitehead, L.; Welp, Y. (2011), Caleidoscopio de la innovación democrática en America Latina , Flacso, Mexico. Sintomer, Y.; Herzberg, C.; Röcke, A.; Allegretti, G. (2012) “Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 77 Appendix Brazil – Latin America pativo. Herramienta para la democracia, Instituto Electoral y de Participación Ciudadana de Jalisco, Guadalajara Abers, R. (2000), Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Cabannes, Y. (2006), Les budgets participatifs en Amé- Politics in Brazil, Lynne Rienner Publishers, London. rique Latine. In Mouvements, no. 47/48, 128–38. Allegretti, G. (2003a), L’insegnamento di Porto Alegre. Cidade (2005-), De Olho no Orçamento, Porto Alegre. Autoprogettualità come paradigma urbano, Alinea Editrice, Firenze. Allegretti, G. (2007), “Territori in cammino: Democrazia partecipativa, paciicazione e accerchiamento dell´illegalita´”, in Osservatorio sui sistemi d´arma, la guerra e la difesa/CISP Universita´ di Pisa (ed.) Difendere, difendersi: rapporto 2005, Plus Edizioni, Pisa Avritzer, L. (2002), Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Avritzer, L. (2009) Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Fedozzi, L. (1999), Orçamento participativo. Reflexões sobre a experiência de Porto Alegre, Tomo, Porto Alegre. Fedozzi, L. (2000), O Poder da aldeia, Tomo, Porto Alegre. Fedozzi, L. (2007), Observando o Orçamento participativo de Porto Alegre, Tomo, Porto Alegre. Fedozzi, L. (2013), Orçamento Participativo de Porto Alegre. Perfil, avaliação e percepções do publico participante, Porto Alegre: ObservaPOA/Observatório das Metrópoles Genro, T.; de Souza, U. (1997), Orçamento Participativo. A experiência de Porto Alegre, Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo,São Paulo. Avritzer, L. (2012b), “The different designs of public partic- Goldfrank, B. (2012b), Deepening Local Democracy in Lat- ipation in Brazil: deliberation, power sharing and public in America: Participation, Decentralization, and the Left, ratiication”, in Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. Pen State University Press 113–127 Avritzer, L.; Navarro, Z. (2003, ed.), A inovação democrática no Brasil: o Orçamento Participativo, Cortez, São Paulo. Avritzer, L.; Wampler, B. (2008), “The Expansion of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil”. Report, Belo Horizonte. Baierle, S. (2007), Urban Struggles in Porto Alegre: between Political Revolution and Transformism, ONG Cidade, Porto Alegre. Baiocchi, G. (2005), Militants and Citizens. The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre, Stanford University Press,Stanford. Baiocchi, G. et al. (2006), “Evaluating Empowerment: Participatory Budgeting in Brazilian Municipalities”. In Alsop, R.; Banco International de Reconstrucao e Desenvolvimento; Banco Mundial (2008), Rumo a um Orçamento Participativo mais inclusivo e efectivo em Porto Alegre, Working Paper, Washington, D.C. Borba, J., Lüchmann, L.H. (2007, eds.), Orçamento Participativo – Análise das experiências desenvolvidas em Santa Catarina. Insular, Florianópolis. Briseño Becerra, C.A. (coord.. 2011), Presupuesto partici- 78 Granet, E. ; Solidariedade (2003), Porto Alegre, les voix de la démocratie, Syllepse, Paris. Grazia de Grazia, A.C., Torrres R. (2003), Experiências de Orçamento Participativo no Brasil, Vozes, Porto Alegre. Gret, M.; Sintomer, Y. (2004), The Porto Alegre Experiment: Learning Lessons for a Better Democracy, Zed Books, New York/London. Herzberg, C. (2001), Der Bürgerhaushalt von Porto Alegre. Wie partizipative Demokratie zu politisch-administrativenVerbesserungen führen kann, Münster. Langelier, s (2013), La Communauté Politique Et Le Budget Participatifde Porto Alegre, Ph.D. thesis in Urban Studies at the Université du Québec a Montréal, October 2013. Langelier, S. (2011), “Que reste-t-il de l’expérience pionnière de Porto Alegre ? ”, in Le Monde Diplomatique, Octobre 2011 López Maya M. (2007), “Breaking with the Past”. In NACLA, vol. 40, no. 3 Lubambo C. et alii (2005, eds.), Desenho institucional e participação política: experiências no Brasil contemporâneo. Editora Vozes, Petrópolis. Marquetti, A, ; de Campos, G. ; Pires, R. (2008, ed.), Democracia Participativa e Redistribuição: Análise de Expe- > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix riências deOrçamento Participativo, Xamã,São Paulo. and Society, no.26, 461-509. McNulty, S. (2011), Voice and Vote: Decentralization and Santos, B. de Sousa (2011), Refundación del Estado en Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru, Stanford University América Latina. Perspectivas desde una epistemología Press del Sur. Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Sociedad, McNulty, S. (2012) “An Unlikely Success: Peru’s Top-Down Lima. Participatory Budgeting Experience,” Journal of Public De- Santos. B. de Sousa (ed.) (2005), Democratizing Democra- liberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: : http:// cy. Beyond the Liberal Democratic Canon, London, New www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art4 York. Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas (MEF). n.d. “Qué es Secretaría de Educación Gobierno del DF (2008), Presu- el Presupuesto por Resultados?”(http://www.mef.gob. puesto participativo para el mantenimiento integral y el pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= equipamiento de escuelas públicas, Gobierno de Mexico 2122&Itemid=101162&lang=es, Accessed December DF, Ciudad de Mexico 30, 2012) Mororo, R. (2009), “Participatory Budgets as a Mean of Spada, P.(2010); “The Effects of Participatory Democracy on Political Competition: the Case of Brazilian Partici- Promoting More Equitable Distribution of Public resourc- patory Budgeting”,paperpresentedat theAPSAConfer- es: Potential and Contradictions” (paper presented at ence2010,Washington, D.C.,USA. the Conference “Beyond Accra: Practical Implications of Tatagiba (2005), Which Brazilian Cities are Experiencing the Ownership and Accountability in national Development Participatory Budgeting?, Working Paper, PUCRS/ Universi- Strategies”, London, April 22-24. dade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre. Munévar Salazar, S. (2012), El presupuesto participativo como política pública, Master thesis in “Estudos Urbanos” in El Colegio De México (COLMEX), Ciudad de Mexico Tatagiba (ed.), Democracia, Sociedade Civil e Participação, Argos, Santa Catarina UNIFEM; UNV (2009), Experiencias de participación de las mujeres para impulsar el desarrollo local con equidad. ObservaPOA (2013), Orçamento Participativo (OP) de Porto Sistematizacióndel Proyecto Conjunto UNIFEM-UNV pre- Alegre - RS - Brasil: Dados Quantitativos para o Relatório supuestos sensibles a género: visibilizando la contribución do Observatório Global da Descentralização e Democra- voluntaria de las mujeres aldesarrollo de Latinoamérica, cia (GOLD), Porto Alegre: Gabinete de Programação Orça- Cuaderno de trabajo 9, UNIFEM, Quito. mentária e ObservaPOA Ortiz, S. Crespo (2004) Cotacachi: una apuesta por la democracia participativa. FLACSO, Quito. Peixoto T. (2008), E-Participatory Budgeting: e-Democracy from theory to success?, E-Democracy Centre/Zentrum fürDemokratie Aaarau, e-Working Paper. Wampler, B. (2010), Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. Pennsylvania State University Press. World Bank (2008, ed.), Brazil Toward a More Inclusive and Effective Participatory Budget in Porto Alegre, World Bank,Washington, D.C. Ramírez García, G. (2011), El presupuesto participativo, World Bank (2010), Peru: Evaluación del presupuesto par- experiencia del municipio de Ecatepec de Morelos, in ticipativo y su relación con el presupuesto por resultados, C.A. Briseño Becerra (coord.), Presupuesto participativo. The World Bank, Washington, D.C./Lima Herramienta para la democracia, Instituto Electoral y de Participación Ciudadana de Jalisco, Guadalajara Roeder, E. (2010), Der Bürgerhaushalt von Rosario, Lit Ver- Zamboni, Y. (2007). Participatory Budgeting and Local Governance: An Evidence-Based Evaluation of Participatory BudgetingExperiences in Brazil. Working Paper. lag, Münster. Santos, B. de Sousa (1998), “Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Towards a Redistributive Justice”. In Politics > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 79 Appendix Europe and North America Driscoll, J.; Laskowska, A.; Eneva, M. (2004), Svishtov: A Community-based Investment Program for Municipal De- Allegretti, G.(2011), « Le processus d’économie participative de la région Lazio. Quand l’expérimentation de- velopment, USAID, Washington, D.C. Engel, D. (2009), Der Bürgerhaushalt als Instrument der ko- vient le symbole d’une gestion politique»,in Sintomer, operativen Demokratie. Dargestellt am Beispiel der Bür- Y. ; Talpin, G.(eds.), La démocratie participative au-delà gerhaushaltsverfahren von Berlin-Lichtenberg und Köln, de la proximité. Le Poitou-Charentes et l’échelle régio- Master Thesis at RWTH Aachen University, Aachen. nale,Presse Universitaire de Rennes, Rennes Allulli, M. (2006), Il Municipio globale. Culture e strategie del neomunicipalismo, University La Sapienza, Rome Alves, M.; Allegretti, G. (2012) “(In) stability, a key element to understand participatory budgeting: Discussing Portu- Essen Municipalitiy (2012b): Essen kriegt die Kurve. Die bürgerbeteiligte Haushaltskonsolidierung 2011. Fortschreibung des Rechenschaftsberichtes, Essen. Essen Municipality (2010): Rechenschaftsbericht zur Bürgerbeteiligten Haushaltskonsolidierung, Essen. guese cases.,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Essen Municipality (2012a): Essen kriegt die Kurve. Die Article 3. Available at: : http://www.publicdeliberation.net/ bürgerbeteiligte Haushaltskonsolidierung 2011. Rechen- jpd/vol8/iss2/art3 schaftsbericht, Essen. Amura, S.; Stortone, S. (2010), Il manuale del buon am- Ganuza, E. (2007), Tipologia y Modelos de los Presupues- ministratore locale. Buone prassi da imitare per sindaci, tos Participativos en España. Working Papers Series, IESA, assessori, cittadini attivi, Altraeconomia, Roma Cordoba. Angeloni, L.; Festa, D.; Giangrande, A.; Go~i Mazzitelli, A.; Troisi, R. (2013), Democrazia Emergente. La stagione dei Bilanci Partecipativi a Roma e nel Lazio, Gangemi Ed., Naples Ayuntamiento de Sevilla (2007, ed.), Presupuesto General 2007. Memoria, Sevilla. Banner, G. (1999), „Die drei Demokratien der Ganuza, E; Francés, F. (2012): El Círculo Virtuoso de la Democracia : los Presupuestos Participativos a debate, CIS, Madrid. Klages, H.; Damarus, C. (2007), Bürgerhaushalt Berlin-Lichtenberg, Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung Speyer, Speyer. Ködelpeter, T; Nitschke, U. (2008, ed.), Jugendliche planen Bürgerkommune”. In Arnim, H. H. von (ed.), Demokratie und gestalten Lebenswelten. Partizipation als Antwort auf vor neuen Herausforderungen, Duncker & Humblot, Ber- den gesellschaftlichen Wandel, VS Verlag, Wiesbaden. lin, 133-162. Bobbio, L. (2013.), La qualitádella Deliberazione, Carocci, Roma Bogumil, J.; Holtkamp, L.; Schwarz, G. (2003), Das Reformmodell Bürgerkommune, Sigma, Berlin. Bpb – Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (2005, ed.), Bürgerhaushalt in Großstädten, bpb, Bonn. Co-Plan (2005, ed.), Participatory Budgeting Pilot in Elbasan Municipality, Co-Plan, Tirana, www.co-plan.org Co-Plan (2007, ed.), A Brief Summary of the Participatory Budgeting Process in the Municipality of Fier, Co-Plan, Tirana, www.co-plan.org. Dias, N. (2010), “Orçamentos ParticipativosemPortugal”inVeze Voznº 97,June2010, ANIMAR,Lisbon 80 Langlet, L.; Allegretti, G. (2013), “Orçamento Participativo na Suécia: uma história contada em câmara lenta”, in Dias, N. (ed.), “ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos participativos”, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco, pp. 351-363 Lerner, J.; Secondo, D. (2012) “By the People, For the People: Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in North America,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 2.,Available at: : http://www.publicdeliberation.net/ jpd/vol8/iss2/art2 Lerner, J.; Wagner, E. Van (2006), Participatory Budgeting in Canada: Democratic Innovations in Strategic Spaces, TNI, Amsterdam, www.tni.org. Pereira, M. (2013), “Você decide”, in Expresso, 16/11/2013, Lisbon > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix Picchi, M.(2012), “Il «sostegno» ai progetti di bilancio Africa partecipativo attraverso la l. r. Toscana n. 69/2007”, in Bortolotti, F.; Corsi, C. (2012), La partecipazione politi- Allegretti, G.(2002), “Il Sud come Nord di Speranza: espe- ca e sociale tra crisi e innovazione. Il caso della Toscana, rienze di bilancio partecipativo nei paesi periferici”. In Ediesse, Rome Sullo, P. (ed.), La democrazia possibile, Carta/IntraMoenia, Pinnington, E.; Lerner, J.; Schugurensky, D. (2009), “Participatory Budgeting in North America: The case of Guelph, Canada”. Nápoles, 291-326. Babcock, C. et al. (2008), “The Right to Participate: Participatory Budgeting & Revenue Generation in Uganda”, Rabuin, L. (2009), Démocratiser la ville, Lux, Montréal. paper presented at the “Africa Regional Seminar on Par- Röcke, A. (2013). Framing Citizen Participation. Participa- ticipatory Budgeting”, 10-14 March 2008, Durban. tory Budgeting in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan). Chaeruka, J.; Sigauke, P. (2007), “Practitioners’ Relections on Participatory Budgeting in Harare, Mutoko and Ma- Service Agency Communities in One World/InWEnt; Misere- rondera Workshops/Meetings and Experiences”. In Local or; DGB Bildungswerk (2002 ed.): Vom Süden lernen. Governance & Development Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, 1-25. Porto Alegres Beteiligungshaushalt wird zum Modell für Dumas Nguebou, J.; Noupeou, A. (2013), “Experiência de direkte Demokratie, Bonn. OP nos Camarões”, in Dias, N. (ed.), ESPERANÇA DEMO- Sintomer, Y. ; Talpin, G.(2011, eds.), La démocratie par- CRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos participativos, S. Bras de ticipative au-delà de la proximité. Le Poitou-Charentes et Alportel: In-Loco, pp- 99-104 l’échelle régionale,Presse Universitaire de Rennes, Rennes ENDA(2006), Expériences de budget participatif en Afrique Sintomer, Y.; Allegretti, G (2013), Os Orçamentos Participativos na Europa. Entre democracia participativaemodernizaçãodos serviços públicos, Almedina,Coimbra francophone et a Madagascar, ENDA, Dakar Gueye, B. (2008), Le budget participatif en pratique, IED-Afrique, Dakar. Sintomer, Y.; Ganuza, E. (2011); Democracia participativa Kanoute, M. B. (2007), Manuel du budget participatif en y modernización de los servicios públicos. Investigación Afrique Francophone, ONU HABITAT/ENDA-TM, Dakar, sobre las experiencias de presupuesto participativo en Eu- www.unhabitat.orgKundishora, P. (2004), Sub-National ropa, TNI, Amsterdam Experience in Civic Participation, Policy Making and Budge- Sintomer, Y.; Herzberg, C.; Röcke, A. (2005, ed.), Participatory Budgets in a European Comparative Approach. ting Processes: Systemization of Capacity Building Needs in Sub-Saharan Africa, MDP/WBI, Harare. Volume II (Documents), Centre Marc Bloch/Hans-Böckler- Kundishora P. (2004). Civic Participation in Sub-national Bud- Stiftung/Humboldt University, Berlin, www.buergerhaus- geting: The Case of Entebbe Municipality, Uganda. World halt-europa.de/... Bank Institute, Washington, DC Sintomer, Y; Röcke, A.; Talpin, J. (2012): “Auf dem Weg zu Leduka, M. (2009), Participatory Budgeting in the South einer partizipativen Demokratie? Der Bürgerhaushalt der African Local Government context: the case of the Masto- Gymnasien von Poitou-Charentes in Frankreich”. In: C. pa Local Municipality, Free State Province, Master Thesis of Herzberg, Y. Sintomer, H. Kleger (ed.), Hoffnungen auf Public Administration, Stellenbosh University, Stellenbosh. eine neue Demokratie, Campus, Frankfurt/M. Talpin, J. (2011) Schools of Democracy. How Ordinary Citi- Masiya, T. (2009); Social Accountability in Africa: a Comparative Analysis of Participatory Budgeting in Harare and zens (Sometimes) Become More Competent in Participa- Johannesburg; The Center for Urban and Global Studies tory Budgeting Institutions. Colchester, ECPR Press. Series, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, vol. 1, nº 4 Mbera, E. (2012), “Towards budget transparency and improvement in the South Kivu Province”, in Parycek,P.; Edelmann, N.; Sachs, M. (eds), CeDEM12. Proceedings of the > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 81 Appendix International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Go- Asia and Oceania vernment, Danube University of Krems, Austria, pp. 47-58 Mbera, E.; Allegretti, G.(2013), “OP e processo orçamental na Província do Kivu Sul”, in Dias, N. (ed.), ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos participativos, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco, pp. 105-124 McNeil,M.;Malena,C.(2010, ed.),DemandingforGoodGovernance.LessonsfromSocialAccountabilityInitiatives inAfrica, TheWorldBank,Washington,DC Mika, J. (2004), Civic Participation in Sub-National Budge- Allegretti, G. (2003b), “Il Bilancio Partecipativo in Indonesia: Un contributo a una graduale democratizzazione del territorio”.In Quale Stato, no. 2, 126-139 Antlo V, H. (2004), Citizen Participation in Local Governance: Experiences from Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, Manila Institute for Popular Democracy, Logolink Southeast Asia, Manila. Cabannes, Y.; Zhuang, M. (2013), “Mudança de escala nos ting: Zimbabwe National Framework Conditions, MDP/ OP na China: a experiência de Chengdu”, in Dias, N. (ed.), WBI, Harare/Washington, D.C. ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos parti- Munzwa, K. M.; Chirisa, I.; Madzivanzira, F. (2007), “Participatory Budgeting and Participatory Planning: Defining cipativos, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco, pp. 267-296 Chaudhuri, S.; Heller, P. (2002), The plasticity of participation: the theoretical and practical emphases in the two approa- evidence from a participatory governance experiment. ches”. In Local Governance and Development Journal, vol. Accessible at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEM- 1, no. 2, 40-64. POWERMENT/Resources/ 13892_chaudhuri_heller.pdf>, Mutoko RDC (2003), Five Year Strategic Development Plan, Mutoko Council, Mutoko. Nguenha, E. J. (2013), “A experiência moçambicana de OP”, in Dias, N. (ed.), ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos participativos, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco, pp- 125-131 Nguenha, E.; Weimer, B. (2004), Orçamentação Transparên- accessed 24 November 2009 Chong, V.C.; Eggleton I.R.C.; and Leong, M.K.C. (2006), “The Multiple Roles of Participative Budgeting on Job Performance”, i.n Advances in Accounting, vol. 22, 67-95. Clay, E. (2007), Community-led Participatory Budgeting in Bangalore: learning from successful cases, Master Thesis in City Planning at MIT, Cambridge, MA cia e Controlo Social: A Experiência de Planificação Parti- Demediuk, P.; Solli, R. (2008), “Global Is Local: Recycling cipativa nos Municípios de Cuamba e Montepuez, 2001- Familiar Components”. In Journal of Business Systems, 2003. Cooperação Suíça/PADEM, Maputo. Governance and Ethics, vol. 3, no. 4, 9-20. Olowu, D. (2003), Local Democracy, Taxation and Multilevel Hartz-Karp, J.; Walke, I. (2013), “Designs diferentes para Governance in Africa, Institute of Social Studies, The Ha- diversos problemas e oportunidades”, in Dias, N. (2013, gue, Netherlands. ed.), ESPERANÇA DEMOCRÁTICA:25 anos de orçamentos Smith, T. (2004), The potential for participatory budgeting in South Africa: A case study of the “People’s Budget” in eThekwini Municipality. CCS Grant Report, 2004. University of Kwazulu-Natal participativos, S. Bras de Alportel: In-Loco, pp- 367-377 He, B. (2008), The Fourth Chinese Deliberative Poll – Report, manuscript He, B. (2011a), “Civic engagement through participatory Smoke, P. (2007), Local Revenues under Fiscal Decentraliza- budgeting in China : three different logics at work”, Public tion in Developing Countries: Linking Policy Reform, Go- administration and development, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 122- vernance and Capacity, Lincoln Institute, Cambridge (USA). Tawanda, Z. (2012), Participatory Budgeting in Zimbabwe: 133. He, B. (2013) “Chinese approaches in participatory budge- Experiences and Reflections From Harare City Council, LAP ting: The experience of Zeguo,” in Participatory Budgeting Lambert Academic Publishing, Harare in Asia and Europe, edited by Yves Sintomer et al; UN-HABITAT/MDP (2008), Participatory Budgeting in Africa: A Training Companion. UN-HABITAT/MDP, Nairobi/Harare. 82 He, B.(2011b). “Authoritarian Deliberation. The deliberative turn in Chinese political development”, Perspectives on > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix Politics, IX, 2, June, p. 269-289. Hsu, P (2009), “In Search of Public Accountability: The in South Korea: Significant developments but a considerable way to go”, in Public Administration and Develop- ‘Wenling Model’ in China”. In Australian Journal of Public ment, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. - Special Issue: Symposium Administration, on Governance and Civic Engagement in the Asia Pacific Hwang (2008), Citizen Involvement in Budgeting: The Citizen Participatory Budgeting (CPB) Experience in Korea, Regio, Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 83–90, May 2011 Rahman, A. et al. (2004), Civic Participation in Subnational accessible at http://www2.opdc.go.th/english/files/Citi- Budgeting in Bangladesh, Working Paper prepared for the zen%20Involvement%20in%20Budgeting(Final)%20-%20 WorldBank Institute, Washington, D.C. 01.pdf Hwang, H.S. (2005), “Changes, Challenges and Chances: Raza, A.; Thébault Weiser, E.. (2006), Fostering Public Participation in Budget-making. Case Studies from Indonesia, the Public Reform in Korea”. In Kim, J. (2005, ed), A New Pa- Marshall Islands, and Pakistan Manila: ADB and The Asia radigm for Public Management in the 21st Century, The Foundation, Manila Korea Institute of PublicAdministration, Seoul, 35-61. Rhee, S. (2005), A Study of Citizen Participatory Budgeting Jain, L.C. (2005), Decentralization and local governance, in Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul Development Orient Longma, New Delhi Kim, K; Kim., O. (2007), “Impact Analysis on Citizen Parti- Institute,Seoul. Songmin, A. (2013) “Participatory Budgeting in Korea: the cipation Performance in the Government Budgeting Pro- Case of Dong-Ku,” in Participatory Budgeting in Asia and cess”. In TheKorean Journal of Local Government Studies, Europe, edited by Yves Sintomer et al. (eds), Houndmills: vol. 2, no. 11, 87-107 (in Korean). Palgrave Macmillan. Koga, T. (2013), Creating Citizens for Whom? Participatory Suwanmala, C.(2007), “Thailand: Civic Participation in Sub- Budgeting and Citizenship Learning in Japan, Master The- national Budgeting”, in Shah, A. (ed.)(2007), Participatory sis in Education, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Budgeting, World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C., Kwack, C.G. (2005), “Basic Model and Design Alternatives of Participatory Budgeting”. In The Korea Local Finance Journal, vol.1, no. 10, 247-276 (in Korean). Leib E.J.; He, B. (2005, ed.), The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China, Palgrave-MacMillan, Houndmills. Matsubara, A. (2013), “Participatory Budgeting in Japan: the pp. 127-154 Thompson, Nivek K. (2012) “Participatory budgeting - the Australian way,” Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 5, Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation. net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art5 Wu, Y.;Wang, W. (2012), “Does Participatory Budgeting Case of the City of Ichikawa,” in Participatory Budgeting in Improve the Legitimacy of the Local Government? A Com- Asia and Europe, edited by Yves Sintomer et al. Palgrave- parative Case Study of Two Cities in China,” Australian -Mc Millan Journal of Public Administration 71, no. 2: 122-135. Mowlana, S. O. Z. (2003), “Participatory Budgeting”, In Proceeding of International Conference on Local Government in Asia and the Pacific: A Comparative Analysis of Fifteen Countries. The Institute of Local Government Administration Neunecker, M.; Mastuti, S. (2013), “Indonesia: Engendering Participatory Budgeting to Reach Poor People,” in Participatory Budgeting in Asia and Europe, Key Challenges of Participation, edited by Yves Sintomer et alii, Palgrave McMillan Pan Suk Kim (2011), “Civic engagement, politics and policy > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 83 Appendix Websites on participatory budgeting Germany www.buergerhaushalt.org Note: It would be impossible to give all internet pages on Federal Agency for Civic Education; Service Agency participatory budgeting. We list only those that include Communities in One World/Engagement Global gGmbH, experiments at the national or continental level. Germany. Overview of German PBs with current information, blogs, case presentations, background documents, National bibliography, maps and so on. Language: German and English Argentina www.rapp.gov.ar/index.php Peru Rede Argentina de Presupuesto Participativo The official http://presupuesto-participativo.mef.gob.pe/app_pp/ent- website of the Argentine Network of Participatory Budge- rada.php ting, offering news on different cities experimenting with Official website of the Government of Peru. It provides a PB in Argentina, but also on the network’s activities. large amount of information and documents (although not Language: Spanish systematic). Language: Spanish. Brazil www.redperu.org.pe www.ongcidade.org/site/php/comum/capa.php NGO Red Peru. Provides support material for PB prac- NGO Cidade in Porto Alegre. Various documents and ana- titioners in Peru. With documents and case descriptions. lyses on participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre and Brazil. Language: Spanish Languages: Portuguese, English Portugal www.redeopbrasil.com.br www.op-portugal.org Network of 70 Brazilian cities experimenting with PB (coor- NGO In-Loco and Center for Social Studies Coimbra. Cen- dinated by Canoas Municipality) Offers news on different tral platform for PB in Portugal containing various docu- cities experimenting with PB in Brazil, but also on the ments, videos and training facilities (for example, a tool for network’s activities. conceiving and monitoring PB experiments, called INFOOP, Language: Portuguese www.infopb.org). Language: Portuguese Chile www.presupuestoparticipativo.cl Spain The official website of the Chilean Network of cities experi- www.presupuestosparticipativos.com menting with PB, also involving the Friedrich Ebert Founda- Network of Spanish Cities. The Network was founded as tion. Provides information on events and training sessions. the Spanish branch of the Local Authorities Forum, which Language: Spanish meets in the context of the World Social Forums. The website provides information on national PB meetings, cases Dominican Republic and materials for practitioners. www.fedomu.org.do Language: Spanish Association of Local Authorities of the Dominican Republic. The central platform for the implementation of PB in the country, containing various documents and information. Language: Spanish 84 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix United Kingdom Languages: Portuguese, English, Spanish, French and Italian www.pbnetwork.org.uk (although the opening page is only in Portuguese: when Is the brand new specific website of the Network of PBs you register the other languages appear) in United Kingdom, promoted with the aim of nurturing mutual learning between public employees, politicians and www.oidp.net associative bodies involved in the ongoing experiments in International network for cities interested in participatory the country. democracy (mainly Europe and Latin America) The organi- Language: English zation is hosted in Barcelona. Organizes annual meetings and provide various documents and films. Jordan Languages: Spanish, English, French, Portuguese and Catalan www.partners-jordan.org Jordanian NGO, with a project on PB in six cities called www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/urbal9 “Participatory Budging, People’s Voice in numbers”. Network URBAL, supported by European Union Coopera- Language: Arab and English tion network involving Latin American and European cities promoting PB. Information on cases and projects. Regional and continental Languages: English, Portuguese, Spanish and French Near East www.presupuestoygenero.net www.pbcoalition.com UN and Development Organizations. The website promo- Coalition of Human Rights NGOs – First regional website to tes gender budgeting and participatory budgeting in Latin promote PB in Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon and other America and the Caribbean. Arab countries. Language: Spanish Languages: Arabic, English http://democracyspot.net/2012/09/10/directoryNorth America of-online-budget-simulators-games www.participatorybudgeting.org A webpage in a very important blog coordinated by the NGO Participatory Budgeting Project. The promoters of this researcher of the World Bank Institute Tiago Peixoto, where website are researchers. The objective is to promote partici- all the links to online simulators for PB are listed. patory budgeting in North America. Training materials and Language: English information on current events. Language: English http://gabinetedigital.rs.gov.brand www.participa.rs.gov.br General pages and worldwide networks The official pages of the Digital Cabinet and the PB of the Rio Grande do Sul State in Brazil. www.infoop.org Language: Portuguese (or www.infopb.org) Association In-Loco (Portugal), supported by European Union Funding (Equal programme). A http://osallistuvabudjetointi.fi worldwide database designed as a PB observatory and a Webpage dedicated to PB in Finland by a group of young tool which helps to conceive, manage, monitor and evalu- militants of the International Open Budget project. ate a participatory budget. Language: Finnish > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 85 Appendix http://portoalegre.cc www.facebook.com/OrcamentoParticipativo Social network created by the Municipality of Porto Alegre, A small page about PB in general. In Portuguese together with several partners (who today manage it) with the goal of developing new tools to deepen the quality of www.facebook.com/orcamentoparticipativo.portugal deliberation of participatory processes. The oldest and biggest page for discussion and information Language: Portuguese about PB in Portuguese, rooted in Portugal (around 1,680 members in September 2013) www.vallis-colapis.hr/index.php/en/lag The official website of Vallis Colapis and its PBs. Language: Croatian Facebook Pages Communities and single pages to share information and promote discussions about PB have been multiplying rapidly in recent years because they allow broad penetration of society with very reduced or even zero costs (the same has not happened with Twitter, where PB pages are still very few). Here we list some on the most significant pages that are contributing to the international debate: www.facebook.com/bilanciopartecipativo A new small community for participatory budgeting in Italian www.facebook.com/gabinetedigitalrs Official page of the Digital Cabinet of Rio Grande do Sul State, which manages several tools, including the Statelevel PB. www.facebook.com/groups/151001644969273 A new group specifically devoted to electronic/digital PBs. In Portuguese www.facebook.com/groups/278917175561062/ A new page with news and discussions about PB in the United Kingdom. In English www.facebook.com/groups/participatory The biggest community of information and discussions about PB in English (almost 2000 members in the end of 2013). 86 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix Table on countries with participatory budgets at the end of 2012 World region/countries Number of PBs (min.-max. estimated) Central America 143–166 Dominican Republic 140–160 Nicaragua, Salvador, Costa Rica 3–6 Total 1269–2778 Other Caribbean countries 0–10 EUROPE 474–1317 AFRICA 110–211 Latin Europe 64–83 Francophone Africa 93–178 France 5–10 Benin 1–1 Italy 18–25 Burkina Faso 3–4 Portugal 16–18 Cameroon 27–57 Spain 25–30 Congo 10–29 Northern Europe 85–117 Madagascar 33–59 Germany 70–93 Senegal 19–28 Iceland, Finland 1–3 Anglophone Africa 15–30 Norway, Sweden 4–6 Malawi 15–30 United Kingdom 10–15 South Africa Eastern Europe 325–1117 Tanzania Albania 1–2 Uganda Bulgaria 0–1 Zambia Croatia 0–2 Zimbabwe Russia 14-10 Lusophone Africa 2–3 Poland 324–1102 Mozambique 2–3 AMERICA 626–1138 ASIA 58–109 North America 13–18 Middle East 0–4 Canada 1–1 Jordan 0–4 Mexico 5–10 South and Southeast Asia 5–16 United States 7–7 Indonesia 0–5 South America and Caribbean 613–1120 Sri Lanka 1–1 Southern Cone 40–60 Thailand 4–10 Argentina 25–35 Northeast Asia 53–89 Chile 15–22 China 7–10 Uruguay 0–3 Japan 6–9 Other South American Countries 430–884 South Korea 40–70 Bolivia e Ecuador 10–15 OCEANIA 1–3 Brazil 255–330 Australia 1–2 Colombia 15–25 New Zealand 0-1 Peru 150–514 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 87 Appendix 88 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix Main Acronyms Used in the Text PT .................. Partido dos Trabalhadores; Brazilian Workers’ Party. Africities ........ Pan-African forum of local authorities which, SALAR ........... English Acronym for SKL (Sveriges Kommu- since 2000, has gathered every three years ner och Landsting), the Swedish Association to discuss the evolution, tasks and challen- of Municipalities and Regions. ges of decentralization in the African conti- UCLG............. United Cities and Local Governments; global nent. ASSOAL ......... Educational association in Cameroon promoting local development and participatory budgets (born in 1998 as the Association des Amoureux du Livre). association of municipalities. Born in 2004 from the merger of several other organizations of cities; headquarters in Barcelona. UNDP............. United Nations Development Program; development program of the United Nations. BPB ............... German Federal Agency for Civic Education. UNICEF .......... United Nations International Children’s CIGU ............. Centro International de Gestion Urbana; Emergency Fund; Children’s Fund of United international NGO with headquarters in Ecuador. Accompanying urban planning and participatory budgeting processes. ENDA-TM ...... Environnement et Développement du Tiers Monde; NGO in Senegal working on NorthSouth development cooperation. FEDOMU........ Federación Domenicana de Municipios; Confederation of municipalities in the Dominican Republic. GIZ ................ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (former GTZ, DED and InWEnt). IED Afrique .... Innovations Environnement Développement; educational NGO in Senegal. MDP .............. Municipal Development Partnership. This is a mixed organization which provides capacity-building facilities with the aim of enabling effective self-governance at local level in Sub-Saharan Africa, working in strict collaboration with UN-Habitat and other international organizations. NGO .............. Non-governmental Organization. Nations. UNIFEM ......... United Nations Development Fund for Women; development fund of the United Nations for women. UN-HABITAT .. United Nations Human Settlements program. UNO .............. United Nations Organization, United Nations. UNV............... United Nations Volunteers; program of the United Nations supporting voluntary projects throughout the world. URBACT......... EU program for sustainable development in towns. URBAL .......... EU program supporting municipal cooperation between cities in Europe and Latin America. USAID ............ US Organization of Development Cooperation. WBI ............... World Bank Institute (Washington, DC, USA). WUF ............. World Urban Forum; global event organized by UN-Habitat every two years PGU-ALC ...... Programma de Gestion Urbana para America Latina y Caribe; municipal UN action program under the umbrella of UN HABITAT. PB ................. Participatory budgeting. PBs ................ Participatory budgets. PBP ................ Participatory Budget Project, NGO committed to PB in the United States. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 89 Appendix 90 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Appendix About the Authors Sociology. She wrote her PhD at the European University Institute, Florence and worked as scientific assistant for the Yves Sintomer is senior fellow at the Institut Universitaire de project “Participatory budgets in Europe”. Her publications France, and professor for political sociology at the Depart- deal with different empirical cases and theoretical questions ment of Political Science at Paris 8 University. Since 2009 of participatory democracy in Europe. She has advised the he has also been guest professor in Neuchâtel University, French region of Poitou-Charentes on the implementation Switzerland. He directed the research project “Participatory of a participatory budgeting. budgets in Europe”, which was located at the Marc Bloch Center, Berlin and carried out in cooperation with the Mariana Lopes Alves is a PhD candidate in Political Science Hans-Böckler Foundation and Humboldt University, Berlin. at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona-UAB, Spain, He has published many books on the topics of participa- with co-tutorship of the Federal University of Minas Gerais- tion, political theory and urban sociology and has advised UFMG, Brazil. She is a training researcher at UAB Depart- some French and European NGOs and local authorities on ment of Political Science and Public Law (PIF). She has been the topic of citizen engagement. working as a researcher at the Centre for Social Studies at Coimbra University, Portugal. She has also tutored and Carsten Herzberg is scientific project manager and head of coordinated modules on PB for e-learning courses of the the research project “Democratic Control of Public Utilities”. World Bank Institute for Africa and Asia regions. He obtained his PhD grade at the University Paris 8 and the University of Potsdam. He is also member of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Standing Group on Democratic Innovations steering committee. Carsten Herzberg has conducted research on citizen participation and participatory budgeting in Germany, Europe, and Latin America from a comparative perspective. He was research associate at the Franco-German Marc Bloch Research Centre for the Social Sciences in Berlin as well as at Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main. Giovanni Allegretti is an architect and planner. He obtained his PhD at the University of Florence, Italy, and is currently a senior researcher at the Centre for Social Studies at Coimbra University, Portugal. His field of specialization is participatory planning and budgeting, on which he has written several books and articles. Consultant for several municipalities in Europe and in other continents, he is also co-director of the newly-created PEOPLE’s Observatory of Participation, Innovation and Local Powers, and of the PhD course “Democracy in the 21st Century”. Anja Röcke is scientific assistant and lecturer at the Institute for Social Sciences at Humboldt University, Berlin and has worked as editorial journalist for the Berlin Journal of > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 91 92 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < Publications of the Service Agency Communities in One World All publications and information leaflets of the Service Agency Communities in One World can be ordered free of charge (if not yet out of print) or downloaded on its homepage under www.service-eine-welt.de. Please find below the list of publications available in English. • About Us. Bonn, May 2012 [Also available in German, Spanish, and Portuguese] • Profile. Bonn, May 2012 [Also available in German] • 50 Municipal Climate Partnerships by 2015. Project Flyer. Bonn 2013 [Also available in German, Spanish, and Portuguese] Dialog Global-Series of the Service Agency: No. 29: 50 Municipal Climate Partnerships by 2015. Documentation of the Pilot Phase. Bonn, May 2013 [German/English version] No. 24: International Congress on Models of Participatory Budgeting. Documentation. Bonn, November 2010 [Also available in German] No. 22: Migration and Development at the Local Level. An excerpt from the best practice guidelines. Bonn, November 2012 Material-Series of the Service Agency: No. 54: International Kick-off Workshop “50 Municipal Climate Partnerships by 2015” 14th - 16th November 2011. Documentation. Bonn, May 2012 All current information, dates, activities, tips, and background reports can be found in the monthly ***Eine-Welt-Nachrichten*** of the Service Agency (only available in German). Free of charge! The order form is available on our homepage under www.service-eine-welt.de. > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < 93 Engagement Global is the service point in Germany for ENGAGEMENT GLOBAL gGmbH development policy work on both a national and inter- Service für Entwicklungsinitiativen national level. Since January 1, 2012 Engagement Global (GLOBAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT has been bringing institutions, initiatives and programmes Service for Development Initiatives) active in development policy work and dedicated to fair Tulpenfeld 7 global cooperation together under one roof. 53113 Bonn Phone +49 228 20 717-0 The services we offer interested citizens, organisations Fax +49 228 20 717-150 and non-governmental organisations, firms, communities, info@engagement-global.de teachers and pupils include: www.engagement-global.de • Information www.facebook.com/engagement-global • Advising www.twitter.com/EngGlobal • Continuing education • Financial assistance • Networks Engagement Global is commissioned by the German Federal Government and funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Engagement Global shares the ministry‘s goal of getting more citizens involved in development policy. Engagement Global is a non-profit organisation with limited liability (gGmbH). Our headquarters are in Bonn. We also operate offices in Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Leipzig, Mainz and Stuttgart. 94 > DIALOG GLOBAL 25 < www.service-eine-welt.de ENGAGEMENT GLOBAL gGmbH Service für Entwicklungsinitiativen Service Agency Communities in One World Tulpenfeld 7, 53113 Bonn • +49 228 20717-0 One World Begins at Home We work In our One World, people’s lives are interconnected in on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Coopera- manifold ways. Learning from each other, seeking joint tion and Development, to address the themes of the fu- solutions and following the same paths together – these ture for municipalities: are the imperatives of our age for promoting global sus- • This is why we help build municipal partnerships with developing and emerging countries – currently focusing on climate change, participatory budgeting and sustainable urban development. • It is also why we support actors in the ield of migration and development at the local level, and strengthen municipal development cooperation by involving migrants. • And it is why we promote fair procurement as a municipal contribution toward expanding fair trade. tainable development. Your decisions and your engagement in your municipality affect the lives of people elsewhere. When you become involved in development work, your social, ecological and economic future will be able to unfold in ways that are not only more diverse and inventive, but also more successful. Would you like to keep pace with the global challenges, and at the same time help create conditions in other parts of the world that make people’s lives worth living? Sharpen the international proile of your municipality. Gain intercultural expertise. Get involved along with us. The Service Agency Communities in One World is a partner that can support you with all aspects of municipal development cooperation. We stand for experience, expertise, successful projects, sustainable results and comprehensive information. We are a division of Engagement Global gGmbH, and: • a competence centre for municipalities in Germany with an interest in development issues • a partner for municipal development cooperation geared to achieving international development goals, and sustainable and participatory urban development – here and among our partners in the South • a promoter of the exchange of international expertise with municipal experts in developing and emerging We offer • events such as workshops, congresses and conferences • facilitation and support of theme-based networks • the ‘capital city of fair trade’ competition • personal consultation free of charge, also provided locally within your municipality • an online advisory service on inancing • extensive series of publications, studies and research on current topics in development-related areas of municipal activity • an extensive website – www.service-eine-welt.de – and Internet portals such as our website for participatory budgeting www.buergerhaushalt.org • the monthly ‘One World Newsletter’ (only available in German) • advice for municipalities on the services offered by Engagement Global gGmbH. countries • experts in the professionalisation of municipal project partnerships and twinning arrangements • consultants for effective information and education work performed by German municipalities. Do you have some ideas? We’ll help you put them into practice. Are you looking for solutions? We’ll act as your partner to help achieve your goal. Municipal engagement for development means helping shape the future of our One World responsibly and sustainably. Be a part of it! The Service Agency Communities in One World is funded through the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as the federal states of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein. Other cooperating partners: the federal state of MecklenburgWestern Pomerania, the German Association of Counties, the German Association of Cities, the German Association of Towns and Municipalities, the German Section of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, the City of Bonn, the City of Dortmund, the Main-Kinzig County, the City of München, the City of Wermelskirchen, the Platform of the German One World Regional Networks, the Federal Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, the German Civil Service Federation, the Federation of German Trade Unions, the German Development Institute, the German Commission for UNESCO, the Diocesan Council of the Catholic Church, the Forum of Cultures Stuttgart, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (German Society for International Cooperation), the German Council for Sustainable Development and the Association of German development non-governmental organisations.