research synthesis

  1  

Synthesis Matrix – Participatory Budgeting

Definition of PB (types,

mechanisms, processes) Theoretical Discussions

(pros/benefits and cons/obstacles)

Methodology Findings (outcomes/successes, obstacles/challenges)

1. Franklin, Ho, & Ebdon (2009) Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States

• Education • Two-way communication • Gaining Support • Influencing decision making • Community building • Enhancing trust • Macrolevel: surveys, budget

simulations, Citizen budget committees, focus groups, special budget meetings

• Microlevel: direct citizen

interaction, neighborhood/district meetings

• Detailed survey (from 12 states) of nine different participatory mechanisms to describe the use and perceived value of such mechanisms: o Surveys o Budget simulation o Citizen budget committee o Focus groups o Special budget meetings o Regular public hearings o Televised public hearings w/

call-in features o Neighborhood/district meetings o Direct citizen interaction

• Identify the relationship between the elected officials’ value of different participatory mechanisms and perceptions of the extent to which citizens actually used the mechanisms

• Special budget meetings more effective in enhancing trust than community building/two-way communication

• Neighborhood meetings valued in enhancing trust and community building, but less so in gaining budget support or informing decisions

• Overall, direct citizen interactions and regular public hearings highly favored for all goals

• Elected officials’ value direct citizen interaction, neighborhood/district meetings and public hearings—all microlevel

• Scientific tools such as surveys that look at macrolevel issues are less valued—concerning b/c micro mechanisms are less likely to include representative input

2. Rossmann & Shanahan (2012) Defining and Achieving Normative Democratic

Needs structural and mechanical avenues and procedural channels Goal to achieve legitimate democratic process

Openness—access to information, lack of secrecy, and transparency of process Inclusiveness—representation and participation

• Understand how committee members comprehend their democratic mission in the participatory budgeting process, how they assess their accomplishments toward this goal, and what factors contribute

• Respondents defined their mission structurally (representative structure) and procedurally (ethical behavior)

• Identified a need for ethical behavior and leadership

  2  

Values in PB to or inhibit their success • Qualitative; empirical analysis • Individual semi-structured

interviews with 6 open-ended questions

• Open coded interviews into nodes/concepts—20 to 75 minutes long, six years after

• Used inductive analyses of the data to detail a conceptual map

• 24 current and former members of committee tasked with developing new budgetary process “open to and inclusive of, the entire campus community.”

• Recognize that democratic values such as participation and efficiency are in tension; difficult to have openness and inclusiveness and still maintain efficiency; but this tension is necessary

• Definition of open and inclusive as “representative of campus and community; ability to participate

• Subject to outside influences such as leadership, press, and state-level oversight

• Encouraged to invite people to the table—appointing representation from community constituents necessarily engages people in dialogue and democracy.

• Barriers: “flattening” the organizational structure

3. Ebdon & Franklin (2006) Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory

Mechanisms—public meetings, focus groups, simulations, advisory committees, surveys

Four elements critical to structuring budget participation 1. Environment—structure,

political culture, legal requirements, pop’n size/diversity

2. Process design—timing, type of allocation, participants (selection method), willingness to pay

3. Mechanisms—public meetings, focus groups, simulations, advisory committees, surveys

4. Goals and outcomes—reduce cynicism, education, gain support for proposals, gather input for decision making, change resource allocation,

Methodology not defined Purpose: • What is known about citizen

participation in budget process? • What are gaps in knowledge? • Future paths for research

• Culture affects perception of need

• Laws often dictate participation

• Consider timing and representativeness; structure processes to revel sincere nature

Obstacles • Conditions in the political

environment may limit the commitment of city officials to seeking or using the input

• Process-design variables— time to commit

• Each mechanism has it’s

  3  

enhance trust, create a sense of community

own weakness, especially lack of two-way communication

• Occurs too late in process; goals aren’t articulated

• Costs > benefits 4. Ebdon (2000) The Relationship between citizen involvement in the Budget Process and City Structure and Culture

Pros: • Less cynical Cons/Obstacles: • Getting representativeness • Fear of increasing spending

levels • Perception of effectiveness by

officials influences the use of PB in the process

• Influenced by characteristics of the community (socially, politically

• Cities with at-large mayoral elections or district city council elections have more formal involvement

Purpose: Investigate the relationship between structural and cultural factors and the use of citizen involvement in the budget process • 1996 ICMA survey on roles and

relationships of local govt officials

• 1,150 cities

• meetings prior to the development of the budget gives citizens greater chance for dialogue specific to the budget

• character of the community is an important factor in determining the need for and most effective method of citizen input

• cities with different political cultures has significantly different percentages participation mechanisms

• pop’n significantly relates to the use of the budget participation methods

• larger council-mgr cities are much more likely to use the mechanisms that are smaller cities

5. Cabannes (2004) PB: A significant contribution to participatory democracy

Varying definitions/differences: • Direct democracy (citizens)

vs. indirect (delegates or leaders); “community-based representative democracy

• final budget decision— varies from active part of citizens and deliberative councils to exec and legislative branches with all power

• Who is in charge of

• PB built fundamentally on territorial spaces (districts, neighborhoods) and thematic entry points that are specific to each city

• How is PB anchored w/in public admin? o Politically—with links to

mayor o “efficiency”—links to finance

dept o local office in charge of

planning

25 municipalities in Latin America and Europe—selected based on diversity and innovation, chose with the help of the Municipality of Porto Alegre and the expertise of the NGO Cidade “systematic analysis”

• Mostly found in cities with mayor/council elected by direct vote; PB rebuilds the relationship between the legislative and executive powers

• The tax burden might increase on citizens and the need arises for alternative taxes/fees without taxing the poor

• Most cities found that PB had increase in tax revenue

  4  

decision-making? o COP—central body o Many non-Brazilian are

social and political frameworks so that structures are enlarged but networks are not modified

• Social control and inspection of works—from executive branch to “neighbors”

• Demands by citizens o City-based vs.

community-based • Control of resource—amt of

$$ • Degree of formalization and

institutionalism

o socially—specific PB dept o some have both, tying both

social and political

and a decrease in delinquency d/t the immediate visibility of the work and services—changes the citizen’s taxpaying habits

• “willingness of communities to maintain infrastructure resulting from PB is an “avoided cost”

• PB gives transparent mgmt. and more accessible municipal process

• Most effective is when value keeping pop’n informed— public meetings which inform and allow for questions to staff

• Channels public resources towards traditionally excluded area and neighborhoods

• Once institutionalized, can become bureaucratic and lose authenticity— however—PB doesn’t exist in isolation. Must be part of a culture of participation and relationships btw govt and society; require a mobilized citizenry; this protects from “implanting” participation and transparency

• Linking PB with physical planning and with the city’s need vs. district or neighborhood need

• Sharing of political power— a challenge in the context of decentralization—calling for the simultaneous

  5  

construction and appropriation of political power at the local level

6. Herian (2011) Local Budgeting and public participation: Contextual Predictors of state laws mandating public input

Identifies the stages of PB as previously defined by Berner and Smith (2004): • On file for inspection • Notice of availability • Publish budget or summary • Notice of hearing • Public hearing • Publish final budget

Purpose: examine the political, economic, and institutional variables associated with the presence of state laws that mandate the use of public input in local budgeting Used dependent data from Berner and Smith (2004), extrapolated to the years 2001-2006 to provide an analysis that spans eight years for each of the 50 states (n=400); pooled times series data set; Poisson regression analysis 2 dependent variables: number of public participation laws required of cities and counties in each state, the 6 types of public input laws that each state requires Independent variables: Political—Democratic proportion of state legislatures, party competition Economic—median income and per capita state GDP, per capita state expenditures Institutional—legislative professionalism, gubernatorial institutional power Other—population, turnout rates for state elections

• Democratic proportions of state legislatures are negatively related to both the numbers and the types of public input requirements that states place on cities and counties

• Explanation for variations of laws aimed at counties is easier explained than cities— state factors are more likely to be related to the presence of laws that are aimed at counties rather than cities, likely due to the historical relationship

• Statistical relationships vary based on whether one is predicting the number of public input requirements or is predicting the various types of public input requirements

• State partisan competition is a significant predictor in positive direction

• Higher tax revenues per capita are positive predictors of public input laws, but that higher tax revenues as a proportion of personal income are negatively associated with the presence of public participation laws for cities

• Voter turnout is significant and negative

  6  

7. Berner & Smith (2004) The state of the states: A review of state requirements for citizen participation in the local government budget process

Public participation defined as anything that required contact with or involvement by the public in the budget process in any way. Six categories of public participation:

• Placing the proposed budget on file for public inspection

• Notifying the public that the proposed budget was available for inspection

• Publishing the proposed budget and/or its summary

• Providing notice of a public hearing on the proposed budget

• Holding a public hearing on the proposed budget before final exam

• Publishing the final budget after adoption

• To inform and to involve • Officials should embrace b/c:

believe that citizens can provide insight and information, leading to better public policy; interaction

• Public engagement—attempts— sometimes voluntarily and sometimes not—to bring citizens into a problem solving process that goes beyond the simple representation of citizen interests and (b) do this in a structured and semi-public manner

Examination of statutes from all 50 states between summer 1999 & 2000, documenting any requirements for public participation in the local government budget process

• Emphasis of mandated

public participation is on communicating information about proposed budgets, not on communicating results

• Lack of interest in communicating results of the budget process

• Nationwide, states require a very low level of participation

8. Ebdon (2002) Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government process

• Participation is most beneficial when it occurs early in the process so that it can actually affect decisions, when it is two- way deliberative communication, and when the mechanisms are designed around for the purpose for participation

• To help citizens develop a “macro” level view of budget trade-offs is to combine education and participation early in the process, at the budget development stage

Phone interviews with city budget officers in 4 neighboring Midwest states: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska—5 questions Explores the factors that might affect the use and effectiveness of participation in the budget process; the type of participation used, when it occurs in the process, and the size of the city

• Cities with mayor-council form of government appear to be more likely not to use the formal participation methods

• Struggle with finding a good way to inform the public

• Budget directors in the sample cities overwhelmingly believe that citizen input affects budget decisions

• Participation does not guarantee influence; nonparticipation also effects decision-making as officials believe that it supports the

  7  

status quo • Barriers: budget

system/complexity, lack of interest, content with the status quo, people think their input does not make a difference, busy, prefer representative democracy, lack of encouragement from city; when people do participate, focus on increasing funding, avoiding service cuts in areas of service, or on holding the line on tax or fee increases

9. King, Feltey &Susel (1998) The Question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration

Current frame of PP (4 major): • Issue or situation • Admin structures, systems,

and processes w/in which participation takes place

• Administrators • Citizens Table of comparison between Unauthentic and Authentic Participation, p.321

Conventional participation— administrator controls the ability of the citizen to influence the situation or the process; the administrator has the authority to formulate decisions only after the issue has been defined IssuesàSystems/Processesà AdministratorsàCitizens “Citizen empowerment in the absence of administrative transformation is problematic.”

• Interviews with SMEs and focus group discussions among citizens and public administrators in northeast Ohio—seven groups in 3 communities

• Qualitative techniques—desire for depth in addressing the question of how to make participation efforts more effective for both citizen and administrators

• Questions: what does PP mean to you? Barriers? How can effective PP be achieved? What advice

Reframing Participation: • Real/authentic • Deep and continuous

involvement in the processes with the potential for all involved to have an effect on the situation

• Listening and trust • Authentic participation

requires that administrators focus on both the process and the outcome—an integral part of administration, rather than an add-on to existing practices

• Administrator becomes a cooperative participant, assisting citizens in examining their interests, working together with them to arrive at decisions, and engaging them in open and authentic deliberation

• Issueàcitizensà

  8  

administratorsàprocesses Barriers:

• Nature of Life— transportation, time constraints, family structure, # of family in labor force, child care, economic disadvantages, non-activist tradition, demise of neighborhood as organizing/socializing system

• Admin processes— participation seen as challenging status quo, communication flows one- way, info is controlled/managed/ manipulated

• Techniques—public hearings not effective, timing, accessibility

Overcoming barriers: • Empower and educate

citizens • Reeducate administrators • Enable administrative

systems/processes 10. Novy & Leubolt (2005) PB in Porto Alegre: Social Innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society

• On-going social experiment of linking elements of direct and indirect democracy

• Develop through conflicts, as a step-by-step institutionalization of popular participation in local politics, combined with on- going participant-oriented evaluation and modification of the process

Social innovations on 3 levels • Basic need were met

directly—previously ignored districts saw investments

• Intro of PB fostered less authoritarian relations between citizens and the local government. Above average especially among poorer, women, and

Purpose—ID and role of social innovation in urban development, further the understand of the contradictory relationship between state and civil society *Define the history of PB in Porto Alegre

• First time investment in underground, things you couldn’t see

• Efforts to satisfy basic needs were reflected in Porto Alegre’s Human Development index of 0.865, highest of all Brazil

• Positive social effect of PB—projects were higher in number and smaller in size

  9  

• Description of PB process • Founded legitimacy in

strengthening civil society

ethnic minorities— significant social innovation

• Participation in the public sphere allowed citizens to overcome their purely individualistic approaches

that those agreed upon in traditional budget allocation procedures

• Contradictions exist between the belief in progress and material growth vs. the quality of life and ecological development on the other (i.e. paving roads)

• when enthusiasm starts to dampen, revenue is not discussedàa standstill in democratization the budgetary deliberation