Participatory Budget (PB) is a unique experiment of participatory democracy all around the world. The degree of dissemination is astonishing especially considering that PB was invented in a country of the Global South. As we saw in the previous post PB has been implemented in a wide range of societies, cultures and political systems. It is interesting to understand the impact of the PB model in civil society, urban governance and the city as a whole.
In Porto Alegre after nearly two decades of PB civil society transformed radically: more people started participating in organizations of civil society, the density of associations increased and the scope of these associations “scaled-up” moving from local to city-wide. The organizations are getting involved with issues that affect the city rather than just a neighborhood or a specific community. The PB supports civil society in a number of ways, from creating a “network of conversation,” to organizing training sessions for activists. Participatory Budgeting is a “school of deliberation” for citizens, organizations and the government, creating more educated people and educative cities (Baiochi 2003). PB encouraged people to educate themselves in informal settings outside schools and institutions through their everyday involvement and participation (Lerner and Secondo 2012).
In terms of participation, lower income citizens were more active than other communities and also the ratio of women to men was in favor of the former. But more importantly, public investment was reoriented towards deprived neighborhoods of the city that would be otherwise neglected by the local government (Sintomer 2010).
In contrast to Porto Alegre, the experiments of PB in Europe are less radical than in Latin America. In many European cases, PB is used to legitimate austerity measures or policies that have already been applied rather than create opportunities for meaningful change. Moreover, the European PBs did not succeed at engaging with marginalized communities as did the cities of the Global South. There are several reasons for this: first of all, if basic infrastructure (paving, sewage, etc.) is important for the people of the favelas in Brazil this doesn’t mean that it is equally important for poor people in Western countries who have as priority job-creation and security, issues by default difficult to address. Secondly, European PB models are usually initiated by the governments alone rather than through a civil society – local government collaboration. But only through the engagement with the poor people will PB transform the existing power relations towards a more inclusive and equalitarian society. The more radical the process the more will attract underprivileged communities (Lerner and Secondo 2012).
Criticism has been expressed both towards the theoretical model as well as its implementation. According to Carole Paterman tools of participation like the PB result in the expansion of participation and extension of citizenship but not necessarily to the creation of a participatory society and a deepening of democracy (Paterman 2012). For critics like Bourdieu, deliberation and participatory democracy reproduces both class hierarchies and “experts” – “non-experts” hierarchies (Baiochi 2003). Finally, Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright claim than the most serious disadvantage and danger of deliberative democracy is that it may “disarm secondary associations by obliging them to “behave responsibly” and discouraging radicalism and militancy” (Fung and Wright 2003).
Josh Lerner and his team after their experience in multiple PB experiments have defined four important strategies in order to have an inclusive and transformative PB system (Lerner and Secondo, 2012, pp.4-8):
1. Strategic Funds: Use money that matter to low-income people (money for housing, schools rather than park improvements).
2. Grassroots Leaders: Empower community members to design and lead PB. Although most of the times elected officials decide upon the rules and processes of PB only if community members have the power to shape it from the start will PB deeply transform governance.
3. Accessible Design: Design the process in a way that makes participation more appealing. Hold assemblies in different locations and hours and around events that the marginalized groups already attend.
4. Targeted Outreach: Invite the marginalized groups again and again until they join the process, do not assume that they will be informed through mainstream information networks.
Through this series of posts dedicated to Participatory Budget I tried to highlight the basic aspects of this extraordinary experiment of participatory democracy. We tried to understand the different versions of PB worldwide focusing on the European case and explore how the use of new technologies and the internet can facilitate the process enabling broader participation and greater efficiency. There is a long way to go until PB can really transform our cities and the way they are governed. And although we need to be cautious on the intentions behind the implementation of the PB by the various local governments at the same time it is a real school of participation for both citizens and officials and a way towards empowerment that will eventually lead to more just and inclusive cities. PB is a creative process open to transformations and adjustments that has as a mandate the participation of those groups that are otherwise neglected and marginalized.
References
Lerner, J. & Secondo, D., 2012. By the People , For the People : Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in North America By the People , For the People : Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).
Pateman, C., 2012. Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(01), pp.7–19.
CivicTales 