Module 6 paper
64
5
Democr acy, Publ i c Par t i ci pat i on, and Budget i ng Mutually Exclusive or Just Exhausting?
Aimee L. Franklin and Carol Ebdon Public administrators attempt to reconcile many values, such as efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and representation. The budgeting process is an arena where the balancing act between multiple values plays out very clearly. Consider, for example, standards concerning the safety of the water we drink. Scientists may determine a reasonable level of arsenic in our drinking water given guidelines on acceptable levels of risk, engineers may know the most cost-efficient methods for treating contaminated water, and population density studies can determine where to site a water treatment plant. But what if citizens do not like these expert answers because they will increase their taxes, or area residents object to the location of water treatment plants? Ultimately it is the elected officials that have to decide what the city will do when expert recommendations and citizen desires conflict.
The American form of democracy elects people to represent the interests of their constituents, so why is participation necessary? A key reason is that elections do not give guidance on specific policy issues. Participation provides a direct line of communication between elected officials and the public regarding allocation of public resources, such as addressing arsenic in the drinking water. In addition to providing a means for illuminating contradictory preferences, the budget process serves a variety of other purposes: it is a political process that determines winners and losers based on who pays and who receives government goods and services; it is a technical process concerned with formats, presentation, and calculations to balance revenues and expenditures; it is a planning process that aligns resources to move toward a desired future; it is an evaluation process that determines what results have been achieved from public expenditures and holds public officials responsible for results.
Each of the purposes of budgeting can be enhanced by participation. For example, the planning and evaluation purposes benefit from consideration of a wider range of interests than those of government officials, and increased input may result in decisions more closely aligned with the public interest. However, soliciting input can be costly in terms of time and effort. It can also make a political process even more highly charged by increasing the transparency of who is winning and who is losing. Meaningful participation is also difficult because of the technical nature of the budget presentation; many people feel intimidated by columns of numbers stated in terms that are hard to grasp. How do we assess the soundness of a national defense budget of $405 billion (Executive Office of the President, 2004, p. 379), when our annual household budget may be closer to $50,000? Who should participate in the decision to spend $405 billion, and how do we ensure that participants’ views are representative? What will it take to guarantee that budgetary decisions are democratic?
While it may not be possible to determine the “right” level of participation in budgeting, that is, the level necessary to uphold democracy, we can probably agree that democracy, participation, and budgeting should not be mutually exclusive. We can probably also agree that the efforts necessary to integrate democracy, public participation, and budgeting decisions will, in all likelihood, be exhausting.
In this chapter we consider the connections between democracy, participation, and budgeting. Our purpose is to engage the issue of the effectiveness of citizen participation in budgeting by illustrating the concepts and exploring common issues and barriers. We will then reflect on what we have learned and offer a framework
C o p y r i g h t 2 0 0 7 . R o u t l e d g e .
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE AN: 199747 ; Box, Richard C..; Democracy and Public Administration Account: ecor.main.usg
65
of considerations that can be used to structure participation that is responsive to varying environments, so that the principles of democracy are enhanced through budgetary decision-making.
The chapter starts by considering how participation enhances democracy in its American form. The second section outlines the traditional budget process. Using this base of knowledge, the third section details the normative underpinnings of participation by describing the potential benefits when this input is actively considered in the budget process. There are a variety of participants when this input is gathered; the stakeholders and their representativeness and expectations are the topics of the fourth section. The mechanics of gathering input from the participants are provided in the fifth section. In the sixth section, we explore what can limit effective participation and then make recommendations for overcoming these barriers in the final section. We conclude that effective budget participation can enhance democracy and that there are tools available to achieve this. The question remains: can we do this, and institutionalize it, so that it becomes a normal and vital part of democracy without exhausting everyone involved?
How Par t i ci pat i on Enhances Democr acy
Over the years, there has been an ebb and flow in the call for public participation in the budgeting process (Ebdon & Franklin, 2006). There have been many recent advocates of an expanded role for citizens in governance (Box, 1998; King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998; King, Stivers, & collaborators, 1998; Schachter, 1997; Thomas, 1995). Three common reasons are given for budget participation. First, it is a way for people to more clearly understand how public funds are allocated. Second, it provides an opportunity for individuals and groups to make their preferences known. Third, it enhances the ability of citizens to review whether officials are acting in the public interest. These reasons relate to the values that undergird the American form of democracy. Just what are these values and how can public participation in budgeting help foster democracy? To better understand the need for participation in resource allocation, we first consider some democratic characteristics and how they are fostered through participation.
The United States has been described as a society that values things such as individual freedom, equality, progress, efficiency, practicality, and humanitarianism (Williams, in Anderson, 2005, p. 40). These values dominated discussions during the founding of the nation and led to the democracy we have today. Table 5.1 describes some of the key characteristics valued in the American form of democracy in the left hand column. The right hand column then describes how citizen participation in budgeting can help to uphold these characteristics.
The first characteristic of democracy is the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. This can be done through passive participation, such as voting in regular elections, or through active participation, such as serving on a citizens’ advisory committee that provides direct input to elected officials. Unfortunately, elections of representatives do not indicate preferences on a range of issues. Active participation can make elected officials aware of constituent preferences when resources are being allocated. For example, a candidate may run on a platform of saving the environment. After election, what is her mandate for spending when citizens value a safe community as well as a healthy environment? Gathering direct input through her constituents can help to sort out preferences.
Serving the public interest by being good stewards of public funds is a democratic characteristic that receives great emphasis in the United States. In part, the attention reflects concerns brought about by media reports of public officials who abuse their positions and misuse public funds. It also reflects calls to redress dramatic declines in citizens’ trust in government. Participation clarifies preferences of a wider, more representative range of constituents, and can also overcome the need to use election results as a proxy for the public interest in times of low voter turnout. Citizen input enhances accountability by shining light on how government resources are being used. Many budgets include financial details regarding spending levels in prior as well as upcoming fiscal years, allowing for better-informed citizens and the ability to assess trends in resource allocation and costs of services.
Table 5.1
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
66
Democratic Characteristics & the Contribution of Citizen Participation
Characteristics of Democracy How Citizen Participation Can Help 1. Voter participation in regular elections. One person, one vote and majority rule = passive participation
Provides opportunities for active participation
2. Elected officials serve the public interest and are public stewards (financial and the public trust)
Ensures accountability for public assets, monitors waste/fraud/abuse
3. Independent branches of government with checks and balances
Input gathered by different actors who respond to different stakeholders
4. Individual preferences and rights are balanced against collective needs/desires
Confirms willingness to pay for a specific allocation of resources
5. Government provides services and protection for all, but especially for the less fortunate
Assures equal treatment through a transparent process
6. No taxation without representation Permeability when taxpayers are encouraged to state their preferences and willingness to pay
The Constitution was designed around another democratic characteristic, the separation of powers between branches of governments, with checks and balances on the powers of each branch. Actors in each branch may receive input from different stakeholders through varying methods, which can enhance policy deliberation and decision-making.
We also value a balance between the needs of individuals and that of the collective society. These interests can be determined through citizen participation, where stakeholders (individuals as well as groups) can state preferences at both the micro and macro political levels. Citizens may wish to have potholes in their street filled quickly, but at the macro level they may be unwilling to raise taxes for this purpose. Getting participants to consider collective or macro-level issues, such as the aggregated costs of fulfilling everyone’s individual desires, can be challenging, but is an important activity that is valued in a democracy that seeks to serve both the individual and society. After all, politics “is the way a democratic society resolves such differences” (Anderson, 2005, p. 5), and there are few more political processes than budgeting!
Figure 5.1 Characteristics of Democracy
In addition, democracy seeks to assure equal treatment for all and to provide a social safety net for the less
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
67
fortunate. When we gather budget input, unserved and emergent needs can be uncovered. For example, in Norman, Oklahoma, a grassroots effort to build a skate park for sports enthusiasts with no place to practice resulted in a new facility constructed at an existing city park.
Lastly, we remember the rallying cry of our Founding Fathers: “No taxation without representation.” The tax revolts of recent decades are contemporary examples of an enduring concern with taxation levels. While voting assures representation, citizen participation is a better mechanism for assessing what level of taxation is acceptable since it provides a direct line of communication between elected officials and constituents regarding how much people are willing to pay for their government and by what means.
In reviewing this list of democratic characteristics, it becomes apparent that democracy is fostered when the structure and operations of government are transparent, when opportunities and mechanisms exist for stakeholders to permeate the system, and when accountability is assured. As shown in , publicFigure 5.1 input can move us from dictatorial or oligarchical decision-making by a few, which often results in the interests of the elite being overstated (Schattschneider, 1960, p. 35), to decision-making that involves a group of participants that are more representative and reflect broader preferences. To foster democracy, we need to move toward the center of the bull’s-eye. Citizen participation provides a means to move from the outer to the inner circle on each of the democratic characteristics.
The ideal relationship between democracy and direct public participation then is clear—or is it? As discussed in the Introduction to this book, there is a basic tension underscoring the American system of governance. As a society, we have not identified the dividing line between the decisions that we believe should be delegated to our elected representatives and the decisions in which we believe individual citizens should participate. It is not surprising that there are pervasive disagreements about the need for and the proper form of citizen participation in the public budgeting process.
The Tr adi t i onal Budget Pr ocess
The city of Omaha, Nebraska, follows budgetary practices similar to those of many other local governments, and will be used here for illustrative purposes. The administration spends several months preparing a recommended budget. The finance department develops a revenue forecast and compares it to the amount necessary to provide services at the same level next year. Based on this information, and his/her priorities, the mayor sets overall guidelines for departments to use in crafting their proposals. Staff from the finance department and mayor’s office review the requests and present options and recommendations to the mayor. The mayor makes final decisions on how the budget will be balanced, which may include changes in tax rates or user fees, and could result in an increased budget for one department for a new program while another department’s budget is reduced.
The city council then has several weeks to review the proposed budget. This process includes a series of open meetings where council members question department representatives, as well as a public hearing for citizens to speak about the budget. Council members are also contacted directly during this period by individuals and groups to express their budget preferences. The city council can make adjustments to the budget, but must legally adopt it by a specific date.
Public attention to the budget is typically greater in years when tax increases and/or major service level reductions are proposed. For example, in the midst of a national recession, budget balancing options for 2004 centered on either substantial service cuts such as closing a library branch, or labor union concessions that would require paybacks in future years. Public meetings drew considerable turnout, including concerned library patrons and proponents of other city services, as well as employee groups. The final budget included some layoffs and minor service cuts, but all libraries remained open, with union contract revisions saving the day.
The most recently adopted budget, on the other hand, proposed restoring some services in 2006. A tax on telephone usage was increased, but this tax had not been raised in ten years and the impact would be slight for the average residential customer. Turnout at the public hearing included only nine speakers. Public discussion revolved primarily around continued funding for a public safety auditor, and the need for
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
68
additional police cruisers. The city council made several marginal adjustments that eliminated the public safety auditor, increased funding for police cars, added building and housing inspectors, and added support for a local art museum.
This scenario is typical: budget preparation by staff, consideration and discussion during public hearings, and approval by the legislative body. Public administrators and elected officials define priorities such as how much funding is necessary for law enforcement, and they make the key expenditure decisions that determine which services will be provided at what level and to whom. Revenue decisions impact who will pay for the services (for example, different groups of people may pay property tax versus sales tax).
Budget decisions have direct impacts on the lives of residents and the future of the community. To a certain extent, though, budgetary practices treat the process as a technical matter to be handled largely by professional staff, with final approval by elected officials. The high level of technical complexity can result in low public involvement. The public is often involved, if at all, only as a formality at the end of the traditional budget process. Cities are required to hold a public hearing on the proposed budget before final action in forty states, with forty-two states requiring public hearings by counties (Berner & Smith, 2004, pp. 4–7). However, this method has drawbacks. A public hearing usually occurs late in the process, minimizing the potential for input to affect budget outcomes. In addition, these forums allow only for one-sided communication rather than dialogue between citizens and public officials. Speakers at public hearings also tend to be those who have very strong feelings about a particular budget issue, and they may not be representative of the general public (Ebdon, 2002a; Thomas, 1995).
The vitality of democratic principles is diminished with the low level of input in the typical process. Can citizens have a significant influence in shaping public programs and policies through involvement in creation of public budgets? What might be the benefits of public involvement? The next section answers these questions based on existing theories and research.
Nor mat i ve Under pi nni ngs of Par t i ci pat i on: Pot ent i al Benef i t s
Existing literature suggests a number of benefits from encouraging participation in the budget process (see Ebdon & Franklin, 2006). In this section, we examine these benefits, such as informing, educating, gathering input, and building social capital. Ultimately, the key benefit is democratic decision-making in which results are supported by all who are affected.
Participation is often viewed as a way to inform the public about the budget and, by doing so, to enhance trust through increased transparency. Berman (1997, p. 110) concluded that citizens in cities that foster participation are less cynical about local government. The use of community neighborhood boards in the city of Dayton, Ohio, has been cited as a reason for voter approval of every tax referendum over a twenty year period (Gurwitt, 1992, p. 50). Wang (2001, p. 333) found that managers generally perceive a positive relationship between participation and increased public trust.
Another potential benefit is educating citizens about government operations and programmatic costs. Public budgets are often complicated (Bland & Rubin, 1997; Kahn, 1997). A city government may have over one hundred separate funds, each for a specific purpose, with limited ability to move money between funds; this constrains budget decisions and it is often not understood by constituents. Budget participants have noted the benefits of processes that help educate citizens in these intricacies (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 286; Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, p. 223). Officials have also demonstrated success working with citizens to better communicate the need for funding priority areas with which the public did not initially agree (Watson, Juster, & Johnson, 1991, p. 236).
Effectively structured participation is a means for gathering information that can be useful for decision-makers. Franklin and Ebdon (2004, p. 225) find that citizen input assists the city council in performing its responsibility to represent constituents and to provide long-term vision and policy guidance. Public officials have noted that citizen input has affected their budget decisions (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 287;
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
69
Franklin & Carberry-George, 1999, p. 41; Roberts, 1997, p. 128; Simonsen & Robbins, 2000; Watson, Juster, & Johnson, 1991, p. 237), although input does not always have a direct impact on resource allocation (Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, p. 183).
Last, a long-term benefit that can be derived from participation is community building. One study found that the public believed that city agencies were more responsive in jurisdictions that utilized more participation (Halvorsen, 2003, p. 538). Participation is seen by some as a duty for citizens and a way to enhance a sense of community (Box, 1998; King, Stivers, & collaborators, 1998).
Democratic participation processes give everyone the opportunity to be heard and provide a basis for understanding the choices, hopefully resulting in decisions supported not just by clients but by citizens overall. When feedback is provided showing that the input was considered, participants are more satisfied with their involvement (King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998). How do we structure participation so that it has the highest likelihood of being effective, and meets varying needs and expectations? To answer this we turn to a description of the technical aspects of fostering participation that engages a wide range of interests.
Budget ar y St akehol der s: Par t i ci pant s, Repr esent at i on, Expect at i ons
This section outlines the various actors in the budget process, the roles they play, and their expectations for participation. The challenges associated with ensuring that input is representative and not dominated by self-interested participants’ views is discussed, based on literature regarding the importance of representation and participant expectations.
Four types of stakeholders participate in the budget process: (1) decision-makers, who are normally elected officials; (2) professional administrators, who are responsible for preparing and implementing the budget as well as advising the decision-makers; (3) citizens, who are impacted by the budgetary decisions; and (4) clients or their representatives, who seek to influence decisions. Elected officials and administrators are internal stakeholders, and are obligated to participate based on their official position. Citizens and clients are external stakeholders, and are voluntarily involved to advance the public interest and/or their own personal interests.
Roles played by internal and external stakeholders vary, as do their expectations for, and from, public participation. Elected officials may consider themselves as representatives who promote their constituents’ preferences, or as knowledgeable elders, doing what is best for the community as a whole, or as businesspeople making rational decisions based on efficiency. All of these roles were evident in case studies of two midwestern cities (Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, p. 225).
Professional administrators are responsible for the technical aspects of budget development, implementation, and evaluation. They also serve an advisory role when analyzing and presenting policy alternatives to elected officials. Administrators are often responsible for creating and managing participation opportunities and sharing the results with elected officials.
External stakeholders may see participation as a civic obligation and offer budgetary input based on their concern for the public good. Participants may also seek involvement to promote their own self-interest. In traditional participatory methods, input is typically limited to one particular budget issue, with participants disregarding the consequences of their preferences on other areas of the budget or other subsets of the population. For example, the mayor of Topeka, Kansas, reduced funding to social service agencies by one-third in her 2001 proposed budget. Over one hundred people attended the six-hour public hearing. Virtually all of the speakers represented agencies arguing to restore their funding levels, without suggesting how this could be done while still balancing the budget (Ebdon & Franklin, 2004, p. 45).
The desire for and expectations regarding participation in budgeting decisions can vary greatly. The political environment can be a factor here. Cities with council-manager forms of government have been found to be more likely to be participatory (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 290; Kweit & Kweit, 1981), and participation is found more often in larger, more heterogeneous cities (Ebdon 2000a, p. 390; O’Toole, Marshall, & Grewe 1996, p. 53; Wang, 2001, p. 332). Political culture may also be important; one study found more participation in northern cities with a “moralistic” culture (Ebdon, 2000a, p. 390). State legal requirements can also affect
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
70
participation opportunities; some communities focus solely on meeting the minimum requirements (Berner & Smith, 2004, p. 7; Orosz, 2002, p. 431).
Those who speak at public hearings are generally not perceived as being representative of the population. For more elaborate participation methods like simulations, it is not easy to find a representative group of citizens willing to put forth the necessary time and effort (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 291; Ebdon & Franklin, 2004, p. 47). A perception that input is received from a non-representative group may weaken the level of influence. For example, the mayor of Topeka, Kansas, utilized focus groups in budget preparation one year; the city council ignored the results, because they believed the mayor had hand-picked participants who would support her priorities (Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, p. 221). Influence can also vary among groups; one study found that a citizen advisory committee was perceived to have greater influence in city budget decisions than the business community and local nonprofit organizations (Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, pp. 223–224).
For these reasons, who participates can be very important. Officials should pay attention to who will identify and how they will invite external stakeholders to participate. Successful methods have generally been those that are open to large numbers of people (Kathlene & Martin, 1991, p. 53; Thomas, 1995), and include participants who are representative of the community (Crosby, Kelly, & Schaefer, 1986, p. 171; Johnson, 1998, p. 17; Watson, Juster, & Johnson, 1991, p. 237).
What is expected from participation? As noted earlier, there are several potential benefits from budget participation, but stakeholders may differ on the goals and expected outcomes of participation. Elected officials and administrators in one case may be primarily interested in educating citizens on the trade-offs required to balance a budget. In another case, internal stakeholders may want to obtain input regarding public preferences and willingness to pay for services. External stakeholders may see participation as a learning process and/or be more interested in affecting resource allocation decisions. Participation goals and expectations are frequently not clearly stated in advance, but they should be to enhance the effectiveness of participation (Crosby, Kelley, & Schaefer, 1986, p. 175; Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Kathlene & Martin, 1991, p. 61; Rosener, 1978, p. 462; Simonsen & Robbins, 2000; Thomas, 1995).
Fostering participation from each of the four different types of stakeholders can be critical to successful participation, or participation that makes democratic governments more effective. Stakeholders play varying roles, which are structured to assure decisions that are permeable, transparent, and accountable. The expectations held by each group can also be dramatically different. Rather than viewing this disconnect as negative, we need to develop mechanisms to uncover a wide range of preferences to enliven the discussion about how to best serve the public interest. Purposeful opportunities for participation can create a marketplace of ideas (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993, p. 126), where it is more likely that sound decisions can be made by government officials on behalf of the collective interests of the society. How do we design participation opportunities around the roles and expectations of the stakeholders, to maximize the potential for effective outcomes? The next section identifies important elements.
The Mechani cs of Par t i ci pat i on
A variety of mechanisms have been used to gather input in the budgeting process, each with strengths and weaknesses. Participatory methods can be arranged along a continuum based on ease of access, complexity of involvement, and the type of input desired. The easiest methods, shown on the left end of the continuum in
, allow one-way communication: providing information to citizens about the budget, and publicFigure 5.2 comment to officials at public meetings. For these methods, access is easy, involvement is not complex, and there is no expectation of input; resource costs are low, but so are the resulting levels of useful input.
Budget information printed and available to citizens, public hearings
Focus groups, simulations, advisory committees
Multiple participation mechanisms employed
Easy Access Difficult Low Complexity High
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
71
One-way Input Desired Two-way
Figure 5.2 Continuum of Participation Mechanisms
In the middle of the continuum are methods such as focus groups, simulations, and advisory committees in which input is more defined and focused. It is more difficult to assure access to these methods because of the longer time commitment required by participants. Complexity also increases as participants are exposed to information about various budgetary issues that may include financial details and indicators of performance. The type of input desired can range from voting on a range of issues with no consideration of the “cost” of the decision, to elaborate methods where participants prioritize their choices within limited amounts of funding.
At the right end of the continuum are multiple input mechanisms. Opportunities are offered to gather input from large numbers of participants and to make sure that the input is representative of all constituents. This approach has the advantage of allowing different groups and individuals to provide input in different ways (Ebdon & Franklin, 2006). More complex participation efforts may facilitate greater access, but they also entail greater resources, and aggregating input can be a challenge with multiple and conflicting stated preferences.
Making information publicly available is a good way to educate citizens about the budget and can spur interested individuals into becoming involved in budget deliberations. Burlington, Iowa, publishes a one-page newspaper advertisement with basic information about the proposed city budget. Other informational methods can include citizens’ guides or budget summaries, posting the budget on government websites, use of public access television, and even presentations at citizen academies (Lun, 2004, p. 35). Budget documents may include pie charts that clearly demonstrate where funding comes from and the major functional areas to which resources are allocated, as well as other visual methods to communicate budget information (Marlowe, 2005). States often mandate information requirements for local governments; for example, published budgets or summaries must be available to the public in cities in twenty-five states, and in counties in twenty-nine states (Berner & Smith, 2004, pp. 4–11).
Citizen surveys are often used to gather input regarding budget preferences. Surveys may be more representative than other methods and can be repeated over time to reveal trends (Miller & Miller, 1991; Webb & Hatry, 1973). However, they may not reflect the intensity of respondents’ opinions (Thomas, 1995), they can be costly to administer, they may be of doubtful value when there is insufficient information for informed decisions, and they require careful design in the writing of questions (Hatry & Blair, 1976, p. 137). A case study of surveys in Auburn, Alabama, showed the benefit of citizen surveys in city budget preparation. Respondents were presented each year with a list of city services and asked for their highest budget priority. A long-term emphasis on streets in the survey results appeared to affect officials’ decisions to increase spending in this area. Elected officials also became aware that public views were not necessarily aligned with their own; as a result, the city enhanced efforts to publicize the need for a new park and an airport expansion project (Watson, Juster, & Johnson, 1991, p. 235).
As mentioned previously, public meetings are among the most commonly used budget input methods. Large numbers of people can participate and meetings can be a forum for sharing information and educating people about issues. Public meetings can show the strength of opinion about specific issues, and are not closed to anyone (Adams, 2004, p. 47). Unfortunately, attendance is often low and participants may be self-interested rather than representative of community preferences, may not have the knowledge to provide effective input, and are forced to comment on a reality that has already been constructed by city officials (Thomas, 1995). Public hearings are also not viewed as good methods of gathering sincere preferences of the public and its willingness to pay for services (Glaser & Denhardt, 1999, p. 307). In addition, many governments have a small group of citizens who show up regularly at budget hearings with the same complaints and no longer have credibility with elected officials (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 292).
There are examples of public forum usage in times of fiscal stress where citizens have helped develop budget solutions. The Rosemont, Minnesota, school district experienced a 38 percent reduction in state aid and needed to make significant budget cuts. Decisions were made through a thorough, public deliberation
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
72
process, with suggestions solicited from employees, students, and the public over a four-month period. The ideas were reviewed and analyzed, then presented to public meetings held in ten different locations, where 2,000 participants discussed the options. The superintendent reviewed all of the input before making her recommendations, which were approved unanimously by the board of education (Roberts, 1997, p. 127).
Structured meetings can be designed in other ways to gather input. Focus groups, which are invited meetings with small groups of people purposefully chosen, provide opportunities to explore preferences and to interpret reactions to proposals (Thomas, 1995), but focus group participants may not be representative and people with strong opinions may unduly influence the input (Ebdon & Franklin, 2006). A number of new group-process techniques have been developed in recent years. Practitioners now make use of many new quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial governance processes, including deliberative democracy, e-democracy, public conversations, participatory budgeting, citizen juries, study circles, collaborative policy making, and alternative dispute resolution (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005, p. 554). These techniques can enhance active participation in budgeting.
Citizen advisory committees are another small-group participation mechanism that has been used to review the proposed budget, or is used earlier in the process during budget preparation. Committees are also commonly used for specific parts of the budget, such as the Capital Improvement Program, or Community Development Block Grant fund allocation (Ebdon, 2002b, p. 36). Committee participants often develop expertise about the budget process and can be purposefully selected to represent different sections of the community, but committees can require more time and effort to administer and participants can become disenfranchised if they perceive that their input is not considered (Ebdon, 2003, p. 174; Thomas, 1995). One study found that advisory committees were perceived to be effective when the committee had clear goals and objectives and appointments were made in a democratic manner (Callahan, 2002, p. 315). The city of Burlington, Iowa, uses an eleven-member Citizen’s Budget Education Committee whose purpose is to “recommend an educational process that achieves maximum coverage to all social economic groups in the community” (City of Burlington, 2001, p. 1). The committee, which represents a variety of stakeholder groups, recommends informational methods to inform citizens of budget issues and choices; members also informally “spread the word” through their community contacts.
In budget simulations, participants are forced to make trade-offs to balance the budget. Simulations require a substantial amount of time to develop and require a certain level of knowledge or education among the participants prior to the exercise. It is common that participants will be asked to focus on just a few key issues, leading to an environment perceived as being artificial. The city of Wichita, Kansas, has used budget simulation exercises with neighborhood leaders. During the 2001 budget process, for example, staff presented cost and performance data on thirty-four different activities in six functional area groupings. Each group of participants could add or reduce funding for individual activities, but any changes had to be balanced by revenue increases or other spending adjustments. Participants identified several priority areas, such as at-risk youth programs, code enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance. Most groups chose to increase the tax rate to fund additional spending rather than reducing other services, an outcome that was not expected by city officials (Ebdon & Franklin, 2004, p. 44).
There are shortcomings evident in each form of participation. One way to overcome this is to use multiple mechanisms to leverage the strengths of each and offset the weaknesses. Eugene, Oregon, used an eighteen-month multistage process to deal with significant budget issues. Through a combination of budget balancing exercises, surveys, and public meetings, decision-makers were able to discern preferences and to estimate willingness to pay for different options. The city council then developed three strategies and went back to the public for feedback. This process ultimately resulted in savings of approximately $5.4 million, with reductions in seventy-one programs and fee increases in some areas (Simonsen & Robbins, 2000).
New technology can also enhance citizen input. For example, an online survey of state budget issues in Nebraska utilized patented Internet research techniques. This method allowed for pre- and post-“testing” of participants’ knowledge levels, solicitation of preferences and values, and video streaming of educational information and interviews with budget experts. Results showed that the website helped to overcome an initial lack of knowledge of the state budget by a large portion of respondents, appeared to serve some educational purpose, and provided input to state legislators regarding public priorities (Ebdon, 2002b). These
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
73
types of exercises can reach larger numbers of people at lower costs than mail or telephone surveys. Fairly complex online budget simulations have also been developed (for example, Budget Utah, at w-w-w-.g-o-v-e-r-n-o-r-
)..s-t-a-t-e-.u-t-.u-s-/-b-u-d-g-e-t-/-f-y-2-0-0-0- This section has pointed out a number of differences between input mechanisms, including: when the
participation occurs in the budget process; whether the opportunity is available to large groups; the extent to which participants are representative of the community; and whether communication is primarily one-way versus two-way dialogue. Scholars advocate two-way communication early in the budget process, with sufficient time for deliberation, broad representation, input solicited in a way that reveals sincere preferences, and officials that consider citizen input in decision-making (Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Franklin & Ebdon, 2005, p. 181).
Previous sections have examined how participation can support the characteristics of democracy, described stakeholders and issues related to representation and expectations, and considered the mechanics of participation. In the next section, we move from the normative ideas of what should be done to the reality of how difficult and even exhausting this process can be. Proactively addressing these issues may be key to overcoming barriers to effective participation.
Expl or i ng t he Pot ent i al f or Ef f ect i ve Par t i ci pat i on: I ssues and Bar r i er s
Empirical evidence suggests that participation in the budget process is relatively minimal and that few identifiable changes in the budget can be directly attributed to citizen input. This reduces the perceived effectiveness of the participatory process and does not enhance democracy. This section explores common issues and barriers to effective participation. Barriers can be overcome through careful assessment of the local context combined with thoughtful consideration of factors thought to be directly related to participation outcomes.
One issue relates to the locus of responsibility for gathering input and the sharing of decision-making. Ideally, in our form of democracy, the responsibility for fostering citizen participation is shared between elected officials and public administrators. However, one or both of these groups may be reluctant. For example, finance officers have been found to desire participation, but they think it is the responsibility of the elected officials to initiate it (Miller & Evers, 2002, p. 257). Professional administrators may also have concerns about sharing decision-making on complex issues with the public (O’Toole & Marshall, 1988, p. 54; Thomas, 1995). Administrators and elected officials may feel that citizens already have sufficient access (Franklin & Ebdon, 2004, p. 224), that the increased input makes their jobs even harder (Bland & Rubin, 1997; Thompson & Jones, 1986, p. 569), or that the budget is too complex for useful public input (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 287). If opportunities are too limited, the decisions may be perceived as dictatorial when made only by the council or elitist or oligopolistic if only a few influential “citizens” have input.
Another barrier can arise if there is a lack of public willingness to participate. Research shows that some individuals are not at all interested in budget participation, others want to play an active role, and still others might be able to be talked into it (Miller & Evers, 2002, p. 265). It is difficult to achieve input that is representative of the community when large numbers of people do not have the time or interest, or perceive that their opinions are not wanted anyway (Ebdon, 2002a, p. 287). When this happens, it is difficult to consider the interests of the community since reluctant actors may be self-interested, tuning into station WIFM (What’s in it for me?).
A related issue is having an appropriate number of participants. Research shows that the number of stakeholders providing input can be increased if there are many opportunities to provide input held around the community and if special efforts are made to invite citizens to attend (Franklin & Ebdon, 2005, p. 180). We know a public budget expert who argues that he pays taxes to too many jurisdictions (federal, state, city, county, school district, etc.) to be able to have enough time or knowledge about their budgets to participate. If this argument represents the views of many citizens, the number of people participating will be low.
Research shows that participation levels are influenced by the types of input mechanisms used. Utilization of the various mechanisms varies dramatically. Public hearings are widely used, as are attempts to provide
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
74
budget information to the public (Ebdon, 2000a, p. 388; Ebdon, 2002b, p. 388; O’Toole, Marshall, & Grewe, 1996, p. 27). Results of a 1996 survey showed that only 18 percent of responding council-manager cities held community meetings for budget development input, and 32 percent used citizens’ groups to make formal recommendations to the city council during budget consideration (Ebdon, 2000a, p. 387). In another survey, 46.2 percent of responding city chief administrative officers reported active involvement by citizens in the budget process; this rate was much lower than the level of activity reported in other functions, such as zoning, parks, and public safety (Wang, 2001, p. 331).
A last issue in designing effective participation is the timing of the input. Budget participation appears to be limited primarily to traditional formats that occur late in the budget process. When input is gathered at a public hearing, it is often too late to change preliminary budget decisions. The likelihood of input impacting decision-making is raised if the input is gathered much earlier, such as during the city’s strategic planning process.
There are many issues to consider when designing public participation in budgetary decision-making: the perception of dictatorial decision-making; inclusion of a wide range of interests; appropriate number of participants; choice of mechanisms used; and timing of the input. In the next section, we present a framework to assess how various combinations of choices can align democratic goals and budgetary inputs to make participation optimally effective.
Figure 5.3 Matching Participation to Democratic Goals and Budgetary Inputs
Recommendat i ons f or St r uct ur i ng Par t i ci pat i on
Structuring participatory methods to achieve desired outcomes can be difficult, particularly if the stakeholders are not sure of the goals of the process. A number of useful methods are available that can be adapted for use by individual jurisdictions, but because each government faces a unique environment and different issues, there are no cookie-cutter approaches that can be implemented with little effort. It can take considerable time and effort to design the appropriate methods, and often this process can be financially costly (Roberts, 1997, p. 129).
In , we suggest the range of issues to consider and adjust given the situational context in whichFigure 5.3 budget participation will occur. In this framework, it is possible to consider how citizen participation can be structured to help participants change channels from WIFM and tune into a channel that better enhances
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
75
democracy. Using the metaphor of a radio tuner, we can adjust the different issues based on local preferences and constraints to overcome common barriers. Just as adjusting controls alters the sound of a stereo, adjusting the participatory settings can alter democratic outcomes.
What are some suggestions for adjusting these settings? Careful planning should go into determining the range of participants. More effective out comes have been achieved with representative participants reflective of the community as a whole. Officials should extend invitations to a mix of residents from diverse backgrounds, but most importantly to those willing to focus on community-wide concerns rather than their own pet issue or gripe.
There is not one “best” mechanism for obtaining citizen participation in the budget process. Multiple methods of gathering input may actually be most successful in gaining the benefits from various mechanisms. Ideally, participation should begin early in the process to maximize the potential for input to be considered in decisions. An educational component helps to frame the discussion so that participants have sufficient knowledge and understand the necessity of considering issues facing the city as a whole. And some activities should be structured to foster two-way dialogue between internal and external stakeholders.
Finally, it is important that decision-makers communicate that they considered all input even though resource allocation decisions may not have been modified as a direct result. Public officials receive input from a variety of sources and most attempt to consider all of the information they receive regarding preferences. Ultimately, budgetary decisions reflect aggregated priorities (McIver & Ostrom, 1976, p. 93). When this happens, approval may not be unanimous, but it will not be perceived as being made by a dictator or a privileged elite.
Seldom will we have the time, resources, or level of stakeholder commitment at the optimal setting (all levers moved to the top of the diagram). For some jurisdictions, this may not even be the desired level given the expected goals/outcomes. The participation process can be conceptualized as a series of choices that interact with other choices to affect the overall level of outcomes. By using this framework to diagnose the situation that exists and then assess what is feasible among many choices, we can leverage outcomes in an effective participation process.
Concl usi ons
While citizen participation efforts have been judged effective in some budget processes, there is little evidence of institutionalization of these methods, beyond the traditional public hearing. Governments may try a focus group, survey, or advisory committee once or twice with some success, but then not continue the practice, or may continue to experiment with other methods (Ebdon & Franklin, 2004, p. 224). The lack of institutionalization may be due to the recency of some of these attempts and the ongoing efforts to improve the process, as well as the problematic barriers cited above. We suggest that by using the framework outlined above, the likelihood that participation will be perceived as being beneficial in terms of allocating resources and enhancing democracy can be increased.
Given the complexities of and barriers to instituting effective budget participation, is it worth pursuing? We think so. Public budgeting has undergone tremendous changes over the past century. Attention has shifted from a strict focus on financial accountability, to efforts to measure efficiency, to a linkage with broader planning concepts, to current reforms that attempt to develop goals and performance standards for utilization in allocating resources. These changes reflect changes in primary values over time. However, governments have adapted and continue to use elements of each of these reforms to meet the needs of their organization and community (Rubin, 1990, p. 186). The same can be true of efforts to enhance citizen participation in the budgeting process, and we suggest a framework of important issues to consider in order to do this.
We constantly hear individuals complain that their taxes are too high, but in the next breath express displeasure because their child’s public school class size is too large, or local streets are not maintained well enough. The tax limitation efforts that began in the late 1970s have not apparently reduced this level of dissatisfaction. Citizens do not have a good understanding of how much they actually pay for government,
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
76
the costs of government services, or the impacts of varying financing methods. We believe that citizen participation is absolutely crucial as a way to begin to educate citizens, work toward consensus-building about government realities and priorities, and along the way enhance democracy and community.
We have pointed out a number of factors that are important in structuring citizen participation. First, officials should consider their goals and the potential goals of, and benefits to, the participants. These efforts can have tremendous payoffs, but stakeholders need to be realistic and not expect unreasonable outcomes. The lack of institutionalization of participatory practices may be related to not having clear goals or reasonable expectations up front. Institutionalization can be important for fostering clear roles and relationships between the different stakeholders that will lead to commonly held expectations about the input process. When this happens, trust between the stakeholders should increase and democracy should be enhanced.
Citizen participation will not resolve the tension involved in making budgetary trade-offs. The balancing act between different priorities and values will continue, and perhaps be more challenging with increased input. Ultimately, citizens in some places may be happier with governments where elected officials make budget decisions without much external input. However, we believe that public officials and citizens with a strong sense of civic duty and a willingness to commit to effective participation will have a greater likelihood of success in creating change and exercising influence. For this to happen, participation opportunities need to go beyond the standard public hearing and be carefully designed with clear objectives. When writing about participatory equality, one group of authors argues that for participation to be meaningful citizens must speak loud and clear and public officials must hear what citizens want and make sure that they are equally responsive to the preferences of all citizens’ voices in politics (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995, pp. 532–533). Let us work toward clear, loud, and equal public voices in the budget process.
Ref erences
Adams, B. (2004). Public meetings and the democratic process. , , 43–54.Public Administration Review 64 Anderson, J. E. (2005). (6th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Public policymaking: An introduction Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. , , 105–112.Public Administration Review 57 Berner, M., & Smith, S. (2004). The state of the states: A review of state requirements for citizen participation in the local
government budget process. , , 140–150.State and Local Government Review 36 Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and
citizen participation in the work of government. , , 547–558.Public Administration Review 65 Bland, R. L., & Rubin, I. S. (1997). . Washington, DC: InternationalBudgeting: A guide for local governments
City/County Management Association. Box, R. C. (1998). . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century Callahan, K. (2002). The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of local
governments. , , 295–319.Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 14 City of Burlington. (2001). Citizen budget education committee. Burlington, Iowa. Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public
, , 170–178.Administration Review 46 Ebdon, C. (2000a). The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture.
, , 383–393.Public Productivity & Management Review 23 Ebdon, C. (2000b). The effects of voter control on budget outcomes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting &
, , 22–42.Financial Management 12 Ebdon, C. (2002a). Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of
, , 273–294.Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 14 Ebdon, C. (2002b, October). Interactive surveys as tools to combine citizen education and preference revelation. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management, Kansas City, MO. Ebdon, C. (2003). Citizen participation in the budget process: Exit, voice and loyalty. In J. Rabin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
77
(pp. 173–176). New York: Marcel Dekker.public administration and public policy Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2004). Searching for a role for citizens in the budget process. , Public Budgeting and Finance
, 32–49.24 Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. (2006, in press). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. , .Public Administration Review 66 Executive Office of the President. (2004). Table B-80, Federal receipts and outlays, major category and surplus or deficit,
fiscal years 1940–2005, in . Washington, DC: United States GovernmentThe economic report of the president, 2004 Printing Office.
Franklin, A., & Carberry-George, B. (1999). Analyzing how local governments establish service priorities. Public , , 31–46.Budgeting & Finance 19
Franklin, A., & Ebdon, C. (2004). Aligning priorities in local budgeting processes. Journal of Public Budgeting, , , 210–227.Accounting &Financial Management 16
Franklin, A., & Ebdon, C. (2005). Citizen participation in city resource allocation: Comparing theory and practice. , , 168–185.American Review of Public Administration 35
Glaser, M. A., & Denhardt, R. B. (1999). When citizen expectations conflict with budgetary reality: Discontinuity between the public’s demand for services and its willingness to pay taxes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting &
, , 276–310.Financial Management 11 Gurwitt, R. (1992, December). A government that runs on citizen power. , , 48–54.Governing 6 Halvorsen, K. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation. , , 535–543.Public Administration Review 63 Hatry, H. P., & Blair, L. H. (1976). Citizen surveys for local governments: A copout, manipulative tool, or a policy
guidance and analysis aid? In T. N. Clark (Ed.), (pp. 129–140). BeverlyCitizen preferences and urban public policy Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnson, E. R. (1998). Recommended budget practices: Incorporating stakeholders into the process. Government Finance , 14(4), 15–18.Review
Kahn, J. (1997). . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Budgeting democracy Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation.
, , 46–63.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10 King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in
public administration. , , 317–326.Public Administration Review 58 King, C. S., Stivers, C., & collaborators. (1998). . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Government is us Kweit, M. G., & Kweit, R. W. (1981). . New York: Praeger.Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society Lindblom, C., & Woodhouse, E. (1993). (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.The policy-making process Lun, N. (2004). Local government finance and budgeting 101: Encouraging meaningful citizen participation through
education. , (2), 33–38.Government Finance Review 20 Marlowe, J. (2005). . Washington, DC: International City/County ManagementThe budget as a communication tool
Association (IQ Report). McIver, J. P., & Ostrom, E. (1976). Using budget pies to reveal preferences: Validation of a survey instrument. In T. N.
Clark (Ed.), (pp. 87–110). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Citizen preferences and urban public policy Miller, G. J., & Evers, L. (2002). Budgeting structures and citizen participation. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting
, , 233–272.&Financial Management 14 Miller, T. I., & Miller, M. A. (1991). . Washington,Citizen surveys: How to do them, how to use them, what they mean
DC: International City Management Association. Orosz, J. F. (2002). Views from the field: Creating a place for authentic citizen participation in budgeting. Journal of
, , 423–444.Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 14 O’Toole, D. E., & Marshall, J. (1988). Citizen participation through budgeting. , 17(2), 51–55.The Bureaucrat O’Toole, D. E., Marshall, J., & Grewe, T. (1996). Current local government budgeting practices. Government Finance
, 12(6), 25–29.Review Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
78
, , 124–132.Administration Review 57 Rosener, J. B. (1978). Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? , ,Public Administration Review 38
457–463. Rubin, I. S. (1990). Budget theory and budget practice: How good the fit? , , 179–189.Public Administration Review 50 Schachter, H. L. (1997). . Albany: State University of New York Press.Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.The semi-sovereign people Simonsen, W., & Robbins, M. D. (2000). . Boulder, CO: Westview.Citizen participation in resource allocation Thomas, J. C. (1995). . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Public participation in public decisions Thompson, F., & Jones, L. R. (1986). Controllership in the public sector. ,Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
5(3), 547–571. Wang, X. (2001). Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. , , 322–336.Public Performance & Management Review 24 Watson, D. J., Juster, R. J., & Johnson, G. W. (1991). Institutionalized use of citizen surveys in the budgetary and
policy-making processes: A small-city case study. , 51, 232–239.Public Administration Review Webb, K. W., & Hatry, H. P. (1973). .Obtaining citizen feedback: The application of citizen surveys to local governments
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). .Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/16/2020 12:17 PM via GEORGIA ONMYLINE. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use