CS

r 2009 Public Financial Publications, Inc.

Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States: Democratic Connection or Citizen Disconnection?

AIMEE L. FRANKLIN, ALFRED T. HO, and CAROL EBDON

What participation mechanisms connect citizens and city officials? Do they produce valued outcomes? Surveys of elected officials suggest that microlevel mechanisms such as direct citizen contact are more valuable in meeting participation goals than are mechanisms focusing on macrolevel concerns. However, there is a disconnect between perceptions about value and the use of mechanisms. State-level participation requirements and a city manager have little effect on the value of a mechanism. These findings raise some questions: why are microlevel participation mechanisms favored, why do some mechanisms have value even though respondents have little experience with them, and why is there a misalignment between participatory goals and the mechanisms used?

As Jonathan Kahn suggests, budget is government in miniatureFa budget outlines a government’s scope of responsibilities, defines its relationship with citizens, and reveals

how the government plans to extract resources from private citizens to fund what ser-

vices and to achieve what goals. 1 Because of its significance, public participation in the

budgetary process is an important way to align budgetary decisions with differing pri-

orities and values. Scholars have long advocated the important roles of citizens in the

budget process, arguing that it is necessary to ascertain the wants, needs, and desires of

the polis in a democracy in order to accurately represent them. Even though, as citizens,

we elect officials to make decisions for us, some involvement and oversight is deemed

important to ensure the public interest is served through the actions of elected officials.

Aimee L. Franklin is Presidential Professor at the University of Oklahoma. Her teaching and research

interests are in strategic management functions and public participation processes. She can be reached at

[email protected].

Alfred T. Ho is Associate Professor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-

Purdue University Indianapolis. His recent research focuses on performance measurement, performance

budgeting and citizen participation. He can be reached at [email protected].

Carol Ebdon is Associate Professor at the University of Nebraska and former Director of Finance for the

City of Omaha, Nebraska. Her research interests are in local government budgeting and finance. She can be

reached at [email protected].

1. Jonathan Kahn, Budgeting Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200952

As others have noted: ‘‘. . . 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.’’ 2 Through public discourse,

citizens have opportunities to educate themselves about government activities and com-

munity needs and, through budget decisions, promote the common welfare of a com-

munity.

Thus, public participation in budgeting warrants special attention today and this is

especially true at the local level. As the fiscal challenges faced by the federal, state, and

local governments continue to mount in the coming decade, 3 local officials who are more

likely to face their citizens more directly and personally will have to deal with greater

public pressure in making difficult decisions while balancing revenue generation and

program provision. Hence, how to engage the public effectively and have a meaningful

and constructive dialogue to discuss budgetary choices is not only a democratic ideal but

also a political necessity.

In this study, we explore how elected officials perceive the values of different par-

ticipatory mechanisms. In past decades, the value of public participation has been ad-

vocated and embraced by professional management associations. For example, the code

of ethics of the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA) includes the com-

mitment to ‘‘recognize and support the public’s right to know public business,’’ ‘‘involve

citizens in policy decision-making,’’ and to ‘‘assist citizens in their dealings with gov-

ernment.’’ 4 The ‘‘Practices for Effective Local Government’’ by the International City/

County Management Association also encourages local managers to commit to ‘‘dem-

ocratic principles by respecting elected officials, community interest groups, and the

decision making process; educating citizens about local government.’’ 5 However, not

much evidence exists about how elected officials themselves view public participation.

Unlike professional managers, elected officials are the representatives of the public and

face re-election pressure. Hence, it should be natural as well as necessary for them to

think about listening to public voices and engaging the public in government decision-

making. Also, elected officials are the ultimate policymakers. It is unlikely that citizens’

input will be integrated meaningfully into decision-making unless elected officials them-

selves, not just professional managers, perceive the value of this information.

Information drawn from a variety of sources may have differing value to elected

officials. For example, informal participation mechanisms, such as direct contact, may

yield data that are at the microlevel based on the respondent’s personal experience or

2. Aimee L. Franklin and Carol Ebdon, ‘‘Democracy, Public Participation, and Budgeting: Mutually

Exclusive or Just Exhausting?,’’ in Democracy and Public Administration, ed. Richard C. Box (Armonk,

NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2007): 89.

3. U.S. General Accountability Office, State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will

Emerge during the Next 10 Years (Washington, DC: U.S. GAO, 2008).

4. Available from: http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_codeofethics.cfm (accessed February 22,

2008).

5. Available from: http://icma.org/icmau (accessed February 22, 2008).

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 53

desires. More formal mechanisms, such as a survey, can be structured to overcome self-

interested reporting in favor of ‘‘forcing’’ a focus on community wide needs. The per-

ceived value and intended use of the information for decision making may predispose

elected officials to prefer some citizen participation mechanisms over others.

Based on survey responses from municipal officials in 12 Midwestern states, this

research provides an exploratory analysis of the participatory mechanisms used by

different cities in the budgeting process. It also reports how elected officials value these

mechanisms as contributors to desired outcomes. Through this study, we hope to con-

tribute to extant literature since there are few large-scale surveys of this kind on the topic

of citizen participation. Also, the study’s results may guide researchers to explore further

the motivators and inhibitors of adopting different channels for citizen participation in

budgeting and to prescribe participation requirements and mechanisms most likely to

yield desired outcomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Local governments can use many methods to get citizen participation. Each of these

mechanisms has varying strengths and weaknesses. 6 For example, attendance at public

meetings may not be representative, and participants often have little knowledge of the

budget, 7 but meetings can be good for sharing information.

8 Citizen advisory committees

may foster greater budget knowledge, 9 but may not be representative, and can have high

costs of time and effort. 10

Citizen surveys may be representative and helpful for under-

standing citizen desires and satisfaction, but may be costly and not allow for educated

opinions. 11

Multiple input methods are often used to offset the weaknesses of one

method with another. 12

6. Matthew Filner, ‘‘The Limits of Participatory Empowerment: Assessing the Minneapolis Neighbor-

hood Revitalization Program,’’ State and Local Government Review 38, no. 2 (2006): 67–77.

7. John C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).

8. Brian Adams, ‘‘Public Meetings and the Democratic Process,’’ Public Administration Review 64, no. 1

(2004): 43–54.

9. Kathe Callahan, ‘‘The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the Budget

Process of Local Governments,’’ Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management 14, no.

2 (2002): 295–319.

10. A. Irvin Renee and John Stansbury, ‘‘Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the

Effort?,’’ Public Administration Review 64, no. 1 (2004): 55–65; Thomas, Public Participation in Public

Decisions.

11. Ibid.; Thomas I. Miller and Michelle A. Miller, Citizen Surveys: How to Do Them, How to Use

Them, What They Mean (Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1991).

12. William Simonsen and Mark D. Robbins, Citizen Participation in Resource Allocation (Boulder, CO:

Westview, 2000); Eric Johnson, ‘‘Recommended Budget Practices: Incorporating Stakeholders into the

Process,’’ Government Finance Review 14, no. 4 (1998): 15–18.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200954

The goals and outcomes for citizen participation are also diverse. A variety of

potential goals for gathering citizen input on the budget have been identified in the

literature including to: educate participants on the budget, enhance two-way commu-

nication, inform decision making, gain support for budget proposals, create a sense of

community, and enhance trust. 13

The first of these, education, can be an important

outcome, since government budgets with their multiple funds and inherent trade-offs are

complex. 14

Second, two-way communication is important for conveying what is desired

and what is possible given resource constraints. Third, informing decision making is

often accomplished when citizens communicate to decision makers their level of satis-

faction with the proposed budget in testimony at public hearing’s 15

this represents a one-

way flow of information since citizens are commenting on a reality already constructed

by officials. 16

Fourth, participation may help officials to gain support for their propos-

als. 17

Fifth, some scholars argue that enhanced participation is crucial as a way for

citizens to recognize and assert their duties as citizens and vital members of the com-

munity. 18

Finally, Wang found that managers often associate participation with in-

creased public trust. 19

The use of e-government for participation at a local level also is

associated with increased public trust. However, it may corporatize rather than democ-

ratize the policy process. 20

13. Carol Ebdon, ‘‘Interactive Surveys as Tools to Combine Citizen Education and Preference Rev-

elation’’ (University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2002).

14. Robert L. Bland and Irene S. Rubin, Budgeting: A Guide for Local Governments (Washington, DC:

International City/County Management Association, 1997); Kahn, op cit.

15. Nancy Roberts, ‘‘Public Deliberation: An Alternative Approach to Crafting Policy and Setting

Direction,’’ Public Administration Review 57, no. 2 (1997): 124–132; Ebdon, ‘‘Interactive Surveys as Tools

to Combine Citizen Education and Preference Revelation’’; Aimee L. Franklin and Brandi Carberry-

George, ‘‘Analyzing How Local Governments Establish Service Priorities,’’ Public Budgeting and Finance

19, no. 3 (1999): 31–46; Douglas J. Watson, Robert J. Juster, and Gerald W. Johnson, ‘‘Institutionalized

Use of Citizen Surveys in the Budgetary and Policy-Making Processes: A Small City Case Study,’’ Public

Administration Review (1991): 232–239; Simonsen and Robbins, Citizen Participation in Resource Allo-

cation.

16. Sherry R. Arnstein, ‘‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation,’’ American Institution of Planners Journal

35, no. 7 (1969): 216–224.

17. Watson, Juster, and Johnson, ‘‘Institutional Use of Citizen Surveys in the Budgetary and Policy-

Marking Processes.’’

18. Richard C. Box, Citizen Governance (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998); Cheryl Simrell

King, Camilla Stivers, and collaborators, Government Is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government

Era (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998); Franklin and Ebdon, ‘‘Democracy, Public Partic-

ipation, and Budgeting: Mutually Exclusive or Just Exhausting?’’

19. Xiaohu Wang, ‘‘Assessing Public Participation in U.S. Cities’’; Xiaohu Wang and Montgomery Van

Wart, ‘‘When Public Participation in Administration Leads to Trust: An Empirical Assessment of Man-

agers’ Perceptions,’’ Public Administration Review 67, no. 2 (2007): 265–277.

20. R. Karl Rethemeyer, ‘‘The Empires Strike Back: Is the Internet Corporatizing Rather than De-

mocratizing Policy Processes?,’’ Public Administration Review 67, no. 2 (2007): 199–215.

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 55

These six goals are commonly cited in the literature but may have varying levels of

importance to different stakeholders. For example, education, two-way communication,

and community building should be the common goals shared by both local officials and

citizens. Public officials need citizens to be more informed and educated, and citizens

need officials to understand their preferences more accurately to make the right deci-

sions. However, gaining budget support, informing decision making, and building

public trust may be goals that are especially important to local officials and less to

citizens, especially when they have to pass a budget with controversial policies or tough

decisions.

A common difficulty when gathering citizen input is that people are self-interested

actors. Therefore, mechanisms should be designed in a way to get participants to set

aside their own issues to instead consider the big picture and make decisions that will

benefit all residents in the community. 21

Based on this concern, participation mecha-

nisms can be grouped into two categories: macrolevel or those that focus relatively more

on community-wide issues and are more likely to cover a wide range of policy questions

and microlevel or those that are more individually or single-issue oriented (see Table 1).

Included in the macrolevel category are surveys, budget simulations, citizen

budget committees, focus groups, and special budget meetings. These citizen–official

contacts are usually initiated and designed by local officials to reach out to different

community interests in order to examine spending priorities of and different revenue

alternatives for the whole city. A wide scope of community and fiscal information may be

presented to balance different perspectives and to challenge citizen participants to think

beyond their own self-interest in a more structured manner. Microlevel mechanisms, on

the other hand, include direct citizen interaction and neighborhood/district meetings.

Through these mechanisms, individual citizens have a chance to voice opinions and

concerns more closely related to their current personal situation or individual self-in-

terest.

Regular public hearings and televised public hearings with a call-in feature are in the

middle of the spectrum of micro–macro mechanisms. Although largely initiated by local

officials with an agenda designed to focus on community-wide issues, citizens often have

great discretion in raising their individual concerns regarding specific spending or rev-

enue policies through these public meetings. Hence, we label them as intermediate

mechanisms in the spectrum between macro and micro levels.

Table 1 uses this spectrum of mechanisms to consider the potential goals of partic-

ipation. In this research, we seek to identify the relationship between the value of

different mechanisms and perceptions of the extent to which citizens actually used the

mechanisms. We hypothesize that different mechanisms have different relative strengths

and those mechanisms with higher use are perceived to have higher value by elected

officials.

21. Mark A. Glaser and W. Bartley Hildreth, ‘‘A Profile of Discontinuity between Citizen Demand and

Willingness to Pay Taxes,’’ Public Budgeting and Finance 15, no. 4 (1996): 96–113.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200956

TABLE 1

Mechanisms of Citizen Participation

Scope of

concerns

Characteristics of citizen–

official interaction

Potential goals of

interaction

Surveys Initiated and designed by

officials; officials set the agenda

and decide what to ask but

citizens may select not to

respond and how to respond

Budget

simulation

Initiated and designed by

officials, usually with expert

assistance; officials set the

agenda and selected citizens

respond.

Education

Citizen budget

committee

Initiated and designed by

officials; officials usually set the

agenda but selected citizens

may have influence on the

agenda setting process

Two-way

communication

Focus groups Initiated and designed by

officials; officials usually set the

agenda and selected citizens

respond

Special budget

meetings

Initiated and designed by

officials; officials usually set the

agenda and citizens decide

whether they would participate

and what they would advocate

Gaining support

Regular public

hearings

Initiated by officials; officials

set the agenda but citizens

usually have great discretion in

raising their individual

concerns during meetings

Influencing decision

making

Televised

public hearings

with call-in

features

Initiated by officials; officials

set the agenda but citizens

usually have great discretion in

raising their individual

concerns during meetings

Community building

Neighborhood/

district

meetings

Initiated either by officials or

neighborhood associations;

usually focus on specific

neighborhood concerns

Enhancing trust

Direct citizen

interaction

M ic ro le v e l;

in d iv id u a l in te re st s

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 !

M a c ro le v e l; c o m m u n it y -w

id e is su e s

Initiated either by citizens or

officials; usually focus on very

specific individual concerns

9 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>;

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 57

Ha1: Different mechanisms have different relative strengths in achieving various par-

ticipatory goals.

Ha2: Elected officials’ rating of a mechanism to accomplish different participatory

goals is positively correlated with elected officials’ perceptions of use by citizens.

How elected officials value various participation mechanisms and the use of the

mechanisms by citizens is slightly different from the decision to adopt the mechanism.

Different institutional rules, such as whether a city is required to have public hearings,

may influence the decision to adopt certain mechanisms. 22

Values may differ in cities

with a professional manager; it may be more likely that macrolevel channels of citizen

participation, particularly surveys and citizen budget committees will be adopted, be-

cause of professional socialization, professional training and education, and peer influ-

ence emphasizing the desirability of these mechanisms.

Hence, we hypothesize that:

Ha3: Cities in states with stronger participation requirements are more likely to en-

gage the public in a wide range of participation mechanisms.

Ha4: Cities with a professional manager are more likely to employ participation mech-

anisms with a macrolevel focus, especially citizen budget committees and surveys.

RESEARCH DESIGN

While theories about the value of citizen participation are abundant, the empirical work

to build and test these theories primarily consists of case studies, small limited samples,

key informant interviews, or broader surveys that include a couple questions about

budget participation. Prior studies lack the in-depth description of what mechanisms are

used and how valuable they are perceived to be by the primary users of the information

gathered through citizen participation. This study uses a detailed survey to describe the

use and perceived value of participation mechanisms common in municipal budgeting

processes. We report the amount of use for nine different participation mechanisms.

Then we compare city officials’ perceived value of outcomes from participation for the

six most frequently used mechanisms. These perceptions of value are further disaggre-

gated to examine if they are correlated with citizen use of the mechanism as perceived by

elected officials.

The data for this study are provided by a survey of city officials in 12 Midwestern

states administered in two parts. The first set of surveys was mailed by Iowa State

University and the Iowa League of Cities to all city council members and city managers

or administrators in Iowa cities with populations between 10,000 and 200,000 in April

22. Maureen Berner and Sonya Smith, ‘‘The State of the States: A Review of State Requirements for

Citizen Participation in the Local Government Process,’’ State and Local Government Review 36, no. 2

(2004): 140–150.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200958

2004. One round of follow-up mailing was conducted. Then in March 2005, the survey

was extended to elected officials in 11 other Midwestern states. 23

The surveys were

mailed to council members randomly selected from Midwestern cities with populations

between 10,000 and 200,000. 24

The contact information was obtained from the state

leagues or associations of cities and towns and endorsements from some of these state

organizations were included with the surveys to encourage their municipal members to

respond. One round of follow-up by fax was also conducted. In both sets of surveys

(Iowa and non-Iowa), there were questions related to citizen participation efforts and the

value of participation in the cities, respondents’ perceptions of citizen opinions, and the

use and value of performance measures. Demographic information was also gathered.

There were several reasons for selecting these Midwestern cities as the sampling frame

of the study. First, many past studies tended to focus on managerial practices of larger

metropolitan areas and overlook the importance of these midsized cities. Although cities

with populations of 10,000–200,000 only comprise about 13 percent of all municipal

governments in the United States, they have the majority of the city population in the

country (52 percent). 25

The Midwestern region reflects this demographic pattern; about

54 percent of the city population in the region live in these midsized cities. Focusing on

the Midwest certainly has its drawbacks. For example, the region is less diverse, so our

findings may not be generalizable in some other parts of the United States. However, this

limited focus helps control for differences in the sociodemographic profiles and political

culture of cities. 26

This may give a more refined look at the relationship between public

participation in the budgeting process and some of the institutional variables in which we

are most interested.

Out of the Iowa and non-Iowa surveys, 462 out of 1,207 individual responses (38

percent) were received. The minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation calcu-

lations for the populations of nonresponding cities are virtually identical to responding

cities. Since this paper focuses only on elected officials’ perception of citizen participa-

tion, all responses from administrators or managers were excluded from the following

analysis. 27

Also, there were multiple responses from many Iowa cities and a number of

23. The states are: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,

Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

24. While most cities in these Midwestern states received only one survey, 33 cities that shared a similar

profile with many Iowa cities were oversampled and received surveys for all of their respective council

members. We aggregated the responses to represent the city as described below in the research design

section.

25. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Census of GovernmentsFGovernment Organization. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.

26. David R. Morgan and Sheilah S. Watson, ‘‘Political Culture, Political System Characteristics, and

Public Policies among the American States,’’ Publius: The Journal of Federalism 21 (1991): 31–48.

27. In the Iowa survey, city managers or administrators were included in the sampling frame. In the

non-Iowa survey, the survey instruments were sent only to randomly selected elected officials. However, a

few responses were self-reported to be filled out by administrative staff on behalf of the council members.

All these responses were excluded in the following analysis of this paper.

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 59

non-Iowa cities. 28

To avoid skewing the results by these overrepresented responses rel-

ative to the other cities in the sample, we calculated the mode or the median responses

from the council members who were from the same city and then merged this city-level

data with the rest of the data. 29

As a result of these procedures, there were 261 aggre-

gated city responses, representing about 30 percent of the Midwestern cities in the se-

lected population range. 30

These included 112 cities in a council-manager form of

government (42.9 percent); the remaining 149 (57.1 percent) have a mayor–council or

commissioner/trustee form. This profile of the responding cities is very representative of

the Midwest as an analysis of the nonresponding cities shows that 45.7 percent had the

council–manager form of government.

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the cities in this study. As a whole, the

survey respondents represent cities that are quite similar to the U.S. demographic data

except for percent of the population that is white (87.1 percent in our study versus 73.9

percent nationwide). Hence, even though the response rate of the surveys was not very

high, the results presented below should still be very relevant and meaningful to students

of public participation and budgeting.

TABLE 2

Descriptive Statistics of Responding Cities

Variable (variable name)

Cities in this study (n 5 261) National

Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation mean

Population in thousands 10.0 198.7 31.0 27.3

Per capita income $10,719 $69,347 $22,003 $6,771 $25,267

% White 17.7% 98.6% 87.1% 12.3 73.9%

Median age 21.7 46.7 35.4 4.3 36.4

% Completing high school 63.2% 97.7% 84.8% 7.1 84.1%

28. Thirty-three cities in the non-Iowa survey were over-sampled. Among these cities, all council mem-

bers, instead of just one randomly selected member, received the survey so that their responses could be

compared with the Iowa responses for another study. Hence, we aggregated their individual responses to

the city level.

29. Modes were calculated if the questions required dichotomous responses. Medians were used if the

responses were in an ordinal scale. Reliability tests were conducted for each of the 61 cities that required a

data merge, and the overwhelming majority of these cities have their Cronbach’s a statistics in the range of 0.80–0.97. The reliability statistics for the rest of the cities are in the range of 0.66 and 0.80. In only two

cities was the Cronbach’s a of different variables below 0.60. In both of these two cases, there were only two respondents who rated some of the variables very differently. Overall, the results indicate high consistency

of opinions among council members from the same city, thus justifying the merge of data to the city level.

30. According to the U.S. Census of Government in 2002, there were 861 cities in the 12 Midwestern

states with populations between 10,000 and 200,000.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200960

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

To study the use of participatory mechanisms, we asked: ‘‘For the past two budget cycles

(or your most recent experience if you have not served two years), how have citizens in

your community participated in the budget process? Please check all that apply.’’ Nine

mechanisms were listed. Table 3 presents the frequency distributions. As expected, reg-

ular public hearings were the primary mechanism citizens used (by 70.9 percent of cities).

Special budget meetings (which are like public hearings but have as their sole purpose

explaining and discussing the budget recommendation) and direct interaction with cit-

izens were the second and third commonly used mechanisms, with 38.7 and 22.2 percent

reported usage respectively.

Table 3 also shows some differences among states. Regular public hearings were most

commonly used by citizens in all states, although respondents in Wisconsin, Minnesota,

and Kansas also noted high levels of use of special budget meetings. It is interesting to

notice that none of the states reported 100 percent use of any mechanism by citizens,

even though several states in this study mandate public hearings before a budget can be

adopted. 31

The results reflect that participation in the budget process is not just a ques-

tion of institutional design and legal requirements, but also a choice made by citizens.

Even if a city provides the opportunity for citizens to participate, they may not take

advantage of it.

Table 3 also shows that while most Midwestern cities did not use surveys, a signifi-

cantly higher portion of cities in Kansas (37.5 percent) reported that they used the tool.

Also noteworthy in this table is that neighborhood or district meetings, another mech-

anism rarely used by citizens in other states, were more common in Wisconsin and

Michigan. There is also wide variation in reports of direct citizen interactions, even

though in theory, any citizen in any state could initiate contact with their city repre-

sentatives to discuss budgetary matters.

The median number of mechanisms used in the responding cities was two. Figure 1

shows that over 19 percent of responding cities reported no use of any mechanism by

citizens for the past two years. About 29 percent of the cities reported one mechanism

was used by citizens. Many cities reported citizens’ use of multiple mechanisms for

participation. For example, 24 percent of the cities reported use of public hearings and

one other mechanism and another 14 percent reported use of public hearings and two

other mechanisms. Further analysis of the data reveals that the most popular combi-

nation of mechanisms was budget meetings and public hearings, followed by a com-

bination of public hearings and direct citizen interaction. Only about 11 percent of the

cities reported use of four or more mechanisms by citizens.

We also analyzed the perceived values of various mechanisms by elected officials.

Ratings (0 5 not valuable, 1 5 valuable, 2 5 very valuable) were assigned by the respon-

31. Among the Midwestern states included in this study, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,

Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin require public hearings of a proposed budget.

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 61

T A B L E 3

C it iz e n ’s

U se

o f P a rt ic ip a to ry

M e c h a n is m s (i n p e rc e n t)

% o f c it ie s

re p o rt in g

th a t c it iz e n s u se d

th e m e c h a n is m

(n 5 2 6 1 )

IL

(n 5 4 0 )

IA

(n 5 3 3 )

IN

(n 5 2 6 )

K S

(n 5 8 )

K Y

(n 5 1 1 )

M I

(n 5 2 8 )

M N

(n 5 1 7 )

M O

(n 5 2 3 )

N E

(n 5 6 )

O H

(n 5 3 6 )

W I

(n 5 3 2 )

R e g u la r p u b li c

h e a ri n g s

7 0 .9

5 9 .5

8 7 .9

6 5 .4

7 0 .0

5 4 .5

6 7 .9

7 6 .5

7 3 .9

8 3 .3

5 8 .3

8 7 .5

S p e c ia l b u d g e t

m e e ti n g s

3 8 .7

3 7 .5

2 1 .2

2 6 .9

5 0 .0

2 7 .3

4 6 .4

5 2 .9

4 3 .5

1 6 .7

3 0 .6

6 2 .5

D ir e c t c it iz e n

in te ra c ti o n

2 2 .2

2 2 .5

2 4 .4

1 9 .2

5 0 .0

2 7 .3

3 2 .1

2 9 .4

1 7 .4

0 .0

1 3 .9

1 8 .8

N e ig h b o rh o o d /

d is tr ic t

m e e ti n g s

1 0 .0

7 .5

9 .1

1 1 .5

1 2 .5

9 .1

1 7 .9

5 .9

1 1 .1

0 .0

0 .0

1 8 .8

S u rv e y s

8 .8

1 0 .0

1 2 .1

3 .8

3 7 .5

9 .1

3 .6

5 .9

1 3 .0

1 6 .7

8 .3

3 .1

T e le v is e d

p u b li c h e a ri n g s

w it h c a ll -i n s

8 .0

7 .5

6 .1

0 .0

0 .0

1 8 .2

1 4 .3

2 3 .5

0 .0

0 .0

2 .8

1 2 .5

F o c u s g ro u p s

6 .9

5 .0

6 .1

0 .0

1 2 .5

9 .1

1 0 .7

0 .0

2 1 .7

1 6 .7

5 .6

3 .1

C it iz e n b u d g e t

c o m m it te e

6 .5

5 .0

3 .0

3 .8

0 .0

9 .1

7 .1

1 1 .8

1 3 .0

0 .0

5 .6

9 .4

S im

u la ti o n

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

0 .0

N o te : S o u th

D a k o ta

is n o t sh o w n h er e b e c a u se

o n ly

o n e c it y is in

th is p o p u la ti o n ra n g e .

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200962

dents to six different goals of public participation: educating, two-way communicating,

informing decision making, gaining budget support, building community, and enhancing

trust. All respondents were invited to provide their ratings of value, regardless of whether

or not citizens participated using a particular mechanism or whether the mechanism was

mandated by state laws. Table 4 reports the percentages of respondents rating the two

macrolevel mechanisms that were most commonly used as ‘‘valuable’’ and ‘‘very valu-

able.’’ Table 5 reports the same form of analysis for the microlevel mechanisms that were

most commonly used. It should be noted that Tables 4 and 5 report the ratings of

different mechanisms regardless of the fact whether citizens actually used the mecha-

nisms. Later analysis will differentiate the ratings between users and nonusers.

Among the more widely used mechanisms, the highest rating of perceived value given

by the elected officials who responded was for direct citizen interaction. Neighborhood

or district meetings and public hearings were tied for the second place. Both citizen

interactions and neighborhood meetings, which tend to focus on microlevel or individual

concerns, were most valued by elected officials across the board in all six goals of

participation. In contrast, surveys and special budget meetings, with a more macrolevel,

community-wide focus, were relatively less valued by elected officials (see Table 4). We

are especially surprised to find that surveys did not earn very high marks for the goal of

informing decisions, and puzzled why many officials viewed it as valuable for two-way

communication with citizens.

Regular public hearings, though a formality in many cities and often drawing very few

participants, were also valued highly for enhancing trust and educating the public.

Televized hearings with call-in features, however, were less valued perhaps because many

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5+

number of cities (n = 261)

percent

FIGURE 1

Number of Mechanisms Reported to Be Used by Citizens

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 63

citizens do not pay attention to the public affairs channel and seldom utilize the call-in

features to participate in policy decision making. Also, the call-in feature only allows for

one caller at a time, perhaps making it difficult for elected officials to read the political

situation effectively and understand whether the comments expressed by a single caller

were just an individual’s concern or were shared commonly by other citizens. Therefore,

physical public hearings were understandably valued more highly by elected officials

because they could see the physical presence of voters, their emotions and body language,

and the scope and intensity of shared support among them.

Chi-square tests results in Table 5 indicate where ratings of ‘‘not valuable,’’ ‘‘valu-

able,’’ and ‘‘very valuable’’ for participation goals were significantly different between

the macro and micro mechanisms. The comparison confirms our hypothesis that the

ratings for the two groups of mechanisms are significantly different. Figure 2 illustrates

that in general, elected officials rated the microfocused mechanisms more favorably for

various goals.

To a certain extent, the rating patterns shown in Figure 2 support our hypothesis that

different mechanisms are perceived as being valuable for different public participation

purposes. For example, according to the elected officials’ ratings, the special budget

meeting was perceived as being relatively more effective in enhancing trust than in

community building or in two-way communication. The perception of the value of

neighborhood meetings was relatively higher in enhancing trust and community build-

ing, but less so in gaining budget support or informing decisions. However, we also

notice that direct citizen interactions and regular public hearings had very favorable

ratings across all six participatory goals, suggesting that they did not confirm our hy-

pothesis.

TABLE 4

Percentage of Cities Rating Macrolevel Mechanisms as ‘‘Valuable’’ (V) and ‘‘Very

Valuable’’ (VV) to Accomplish Participation Goals (in percent)

Macrolevel focused mechanisms

Surveys

Special budget

meetings

Average of

the two

mechanisms

V VV V VV V VV

Educating the public (%) 53 19 51 30 52 24

Two-way communication 41 24 47 30 44 27

Informing decisions 46 22 46 33 46 28

Gaining budget support 39 15 48 34 43 24

Building community 46 25 39 35 43 30

Enhancing trust 43 24 45 38 44 31

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200964

T A B L E 5

P e rc e n ta g e o f C it ie s R a ti n g In te rm

e d ia te - a n d M ic ro le v e l- F o c u se d M e c h a n is m s a s ‘‘ V a lu a b le ’’ (V

) a n d ‘‘ V e ry

V a lu a b le ’’ (V

V )

to A c c o m p li sh

P a rt ic ip a ti o n G o a ls (i n p e rc e n t)

R e g u la r p u b li c h e a ri n g s

w2 te st a

T e le v is e d h e a ri n g s

w it h c a ll -i n s

w2 te st a

N e ig h b o rh o o d

m e e ti n g s

w2 te st a

C it iz e n

in te ra c ti o n s

w2 te st a

V V V

V V V

V V V

V V V

E d u c a ti n g th e p u b li c

4 2

5 1

* * *

3 7

3 1

* *

3 7

4 7

* * *

4 0

5 5

* * *

T w o -w

a y c o m m u n ic a ti o n

4 5

4 2

* * *

3 9

2 2

3 4

5 3

* * *

2 9

6 6

* * *

In fo rm

in g d e c is io n s

4 4

4 6

* * *

3 7

2 9

4 1

4 1

* * *

3 9

5 5

* * *

G a in in g b u d g et

su p p o rt

4 9

3 7

* * *

4 5

1 8

4 3

3 4

* *

4 3

4 8

* * *

B u il d in g c o m m u n it y

3 7

5 2

* * *

3 8

3 3

3 2

5 9

* * *

3 2

6 2

* * *

E n h a n c in g tr u st

3 3

5 8

* * *

4 0

3 4

2 9

6 0

* * *

2 6

6 9

* * *

N o te s:

a w2

te st

o f d if fe re n c e s b e tw

e e n th e a v e ra g e ra ti n g o f th e m a c ro le v e l m e c h a n is m s p re se n te d in

T a b le

4 a n d th e in te rm

e d ia te

a n d m ic ro le v el

m e c h a n is m s

p re se n te d in

T a b le

4 .

* * In d ic a te s si g n ifi c a n t d if fe re n c e a t th e 5 -p e rc en t le v e l;

* * * In d ic a te s si g n ifi ca n t d if fe re n c e a t th e 1 -p er c e n t le v e l.

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 65

Data revealing the perceived value of different mechanisms in gaining budget support

was also interestingFmany mechanisms performed relatively more poorly in this area, which is consistent with some previous findings about the usefulness of these mechanisms

in policy making. 32

The only exception was the special budget meeting, which showed a

relatively higher rating in this participatory goal than in other goals. This may confirm

why cities usually call for special budget meetings if they run into difficult budgetary

decisions and need to use the mechanism to ask voters and community leaders’ input in

making tough trade-offs, such as raising taxes, cutting programs, or issuing new debt.

Table 6 examines whether the perceived value of a mechanism was correlated with

elected officials’ perception of citizen use of the mechanisms. The results from our test of

the second hypothesis suggest that elected officials’ ratings were most significantly cor-

related with citizen use of surveys. This finding is understandableFif citizens would respond to surveys to give feedback to city officials, elected officials were more likely to

value the tool.

We also find that the use of televised meeting with a call-in feature was associated with

elected officials’ rating in terms of educating the public, informing the public, and gain-

ing public support. The findings seem to suggest that officials value the mechanism

survey

sepcial budget meeting

public hearings

televised hearings with call-ins

neighborhood meetings

citizen contacts

50.00%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

FIGURE 2

Percentages of Responding Cities Rating a Mechanism ‘‘Valuable’’ or ‘‘Very Valuable’’

32. Lawrence C. Walters, James Aydelotte, and Jessica Miller, ‘‘Putting More Public in Policy Anal-

ysis,’’ Public Administration Review 60, no. 4 2000: 349–359.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200966

mostly as a communication and educational platform. Table 6 also shows that citizens’

use of special budget meetings was associated with elected officials’ rating in terms of

educating the public, improving two-way communication, and enhancing trust, but not

with the ratings on other goals, such as informing decisions or gaining budget support.

This finding is quite interesting because it seems to suggest that even though elected

officials tended to rate special budget meeting quite highly on these two goals of par-

ticipation, the use of this mechanism is low.

It is also interesting to note that public hearings, the most commonly used mechanism

and the one rated uniformly high, are not associated significantly with any rating by

elected officials. This is probably caused by the fact that many cities are legally required

or expected by the public to adopt the tool regardless of the officials’ views. Hence, there

may not be much variation to show a statistically significant relationship between the

two sets of variables.

We also examine the relationships between the degree of citizen participation re-

quirements that are imposed by the state government on cities and citizen use. 33

State

TABLE 6

Association between Citizen Use of Participatory Mechanisms and Elected

Officials’ Ratings

Surveys

Special

budget

meetings

Regular

public

hearings

Televised

hearings

with

call-ins

Neighborhood

meetings

Direct

citizen

interaction

Educating the

public

** *** ** ** *

Two-way

communication

** **

Informing

decisions

** **

Gaining budget

support

* **

Building

community

***

Enhancing trust * ***

Correlation results: * Po.05,

** Po.01,

*** Po.001.

33. The variable for the number of state-level requirements for citizen participation in the municipal

budgeting process is from Berner and Smith, op. cit. In their study, they show that states have different

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 67

mandates for public hearings or other participation mechanisms signal the importance of

participatory values in a state’s political culture and should encourage greater use of

participation mechanisms in the budgetary process, but the analysis reveals a gap be-

tween what mechanisms are required by law and the mechanisms that are valued by

elected officials or are used by citizens. Based on the results of Kruskal–Wallis tests, we

find only one statistically significant relationship: citizen participation requirements are

positively related to the use of the televised hearing with a call in feature (w2 5 13.648, df 5 4, P 5 0.009). These findings suggest that citizen use of participatory mechanisms is

not influenced by state mandates in any appreciable way, thus we cannot confirm the

third hypothesis.

When examining relationships between a state’s participation requirements and par-

ticipation outcomes rated by elected officials, we find that state requirements have sta-

tistically significant correlation with: (1) the rating of surveys for informing decision

making (w2 5 9.999, df 5 4, P 5 0.040); (2) the rating of neighborhood meetings for two- way communication (w2 5 14.242, df 5 4, P 5 0.007); and (3) the rating of neighborhood meetings for informing decision making (w2 5 10.465, df 5 4, P 5 0.033). Since only 3 out of 36 possible relationships are significantly correlated, we conclude that, for the most

part, state participation requirements have little impact on elected officials’ perceived

values of different mechanisms in attaining the six different goals of public participation.

While, state mandates may guarantee some extent of procedural democracy in the bud-

getary process, ultimately, local officials and citizens are the ones that make the process

work. State mandates may not be sufficient to generate perceptions of participatory

value for the decision-making process.

Differences in perceptions of value between users and nonusers of the six most pop-

ular participation mechanisms were also tested. From this analysis, we find that surveys

are rated as valuable or very valuable more frequently by users than by nonusers for the

outcomes of two-way communication and building community (Kruskal–Wallis

w2 5 3.914, df 5 1, P 5 0.048 and w2 5 7.111, df 5 1, P 5 0.008, respectively). There are also statistically significant differences between users and nonusers for the televised

hearings with call-ins used for educating the public (Kruskal–Wallis w2 5 3.837, df 5 1, P 5 0.050). Finally, special budget meetings when used to build trust have statistically

significant differences between users and nonusers (Kruskal–Wallis w2 5 4.390, df 5 1, P 5 0.036).

The lack of statistically significant differences in perceptions of value between users

and nonusers is interesting: It seems quite logical for elected officials to place low value

on a mechanism if they have chosen not to adopt the mechanism or if they have adopted

the mechanism but citizens do not use the mechanism. However, the opposite scenario is

(footnote Continued)

requirements for six public participatory procedures: (a) filing the proposed budget for inspection, (b)

notice of availability, (c) publication of the proposed budget or its summary, (d) notice of hearing, (e)

public hearing, and (f) publication of the final budget.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200968

quite puzzling and one must wonder why some elected officials have relatively high

perceptions of value for certain mechanisms when they have not been adopted or citizens

have not used them.

A possible explanation for this puzzle is that individual respondents may have tried

but failed in an attempt to implement the mechanism in her/his city, but they remain an

advocate for the value of the mechanism based on information they have received from

other jurisdictions that have employed the mechanism successfully. Or, respondents may

have had a positive experience using the mechanism in another setting. Hence, in these

elected officials’ perspective, lack of usage does not necessarily mean that the mechanism

lacks value in itself. It simply implies that the mechanism has been under-utilized by the

city and perhaps more efforts should be used to promote its usage.

We used w2 tests to evaluate whether the council-manager form of government was significantly related to citizen use of any participatory mechanisms. The results show that

the presence of managers was not associated with any mechanism except for the use of

citizen surveys and citizen contacts (see Table 7). To a certain extent, the result confirms

the fourth hypothesis that professional training and socialization have some positive

impact on city management. Cities with a professional manager are more likely to adopt

more scientific tools such as citizen surveys to get public input. Also, the professional

norms of city managers may encourage city council members to have more direct con-

tacts with citizens to get their input in the budgetary process. Hence, our finding lends

support to the assertion that professionalism in city management does not replace de-

mocracy. Rather, it can be supportive of and complementary to the practices of par-

ticipatory budgeting.

DISCUSSION

There is wide variation in the number and type of participation mechanisms adopted by

Midwestern cities and used by their citizens. Most popular among these to engage the

public in the budgetary process are public hearings, special budget meetings, and direct

citizen interaction. Many cities also use multiple mechanisms with the most common

combinations being public hearings and budget meetings, or public hearings and direct

citizen interactions.

We find support for our hypothesis that elected officials perceive higher value for

mechanisms that have closer interaction with citizens and mechanisms that are more

effective in addressing microlevel or individual issues. More scientific tools, such as

citizen surveys, and mechanisms that look at macrolevel, community-wide issues, such as

citizen budget committees and budget simulations, are less valued. This finding can be a

concern because the microlevel mechanisms are less likely to include representative input.

If elected officials rely mostly on individual citizen contacts or occasional input from

citizens or special interest representatives who show up at public hearings, they may fail

to obtain a balanced and comprehensive perspective on budget priorities and, as result,

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 69

may make ill-informed fiscal policies that do not reflect the true preferences of the

general public.

Also, results alluding to a discontinuity between the perceptions of what might be

useful and what is actually used by citizens deserve more attention in future research to

uncover how perceptions of value are formed and the role that experience or a lack of

experience plays in terms of assessing the value associated with a particular mechanism

by elected officials. There may be quite rational explanations such as a decision calculus

that greater value can be produced with very little additional effort. Or, perceptions may

be based purely on conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Hence, more research is needed to

gain insight on the factors considered in the valuing process and why elected officials

value certain mechanisms more highly than others.

The study results also suggest interesting relationships between the use of participa-

tory mechanisms and the perceived value of the mechanisms to achieve different out-

comes. For example, neighborhood meetings were rated very highly for different

participatory outcomes, but they have not been commonly used by citizens in many

cities. Special budget meetings were not rated very highly by elected officials, but were

widely used among the responding Midwest cities, probably because of mandates to

adopt such mechanism in some states. Surveys, which should be relatively more scientific

than direct citizen interactions or public hearings and should be helpful to generate

representative public input on budget priorities and fiscal decisions, were not rated very

high on informing decisions and, surprisingly, high on educating the public and two-way

communication by elected officials. Overall, misalignments exist between what outcomes

are desired and what mechanisms are used by cities or their citizens.

Our hypothesis that the degree of citizen participation requirements influence the

use of mechanisms was generally not supported. It is possible that state-level require-

ments serve as such a ‘‘low bar’’ for cities to meet since mechanisms that tend to be

employed heavily (public hearing, special budget meetings, and direct citizen contact)

require very little logistical support and are done as part of the normal routines of

government, while mechanisms requiring staff involvement and technical preparation,

TABLE 7

Relationship between City Managers and Use of Surveys

Choice of participatory mechanisms

Did not use citizen

surveys

Used citizen

surveys

Did not use direct citizen

contacts

Used citizen

contacts

Without a city

manager

140 9 123 26

(94.0%) (6.0%) (82.6%) (17.4%)

With a city

manager

98 14 80 32

(87.5%) (12.5%) (71.4%) (28.6%)

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200970

such as simulations, surveys, focus groups, and special budget meeting, are less fre-

quently used.

Use may be related to administrative capacity as we suggested in Hypothesis 4. City

managers seem to have played a positive role in encouraging cities to adopt citizen

surveys. However, we are disappointed to learn that there is no significant relationship

between the presence of city managers and the use of other macrofocus mechanisms,

such as the citizen budget committee and budget simulation. The findings are surprising,

given the emphasis of scholars on some of these tools in recent years. The findings that

many cities did not use macrofocus mechanisms and that many elected officials’ ratings

of participatory mechanisms were misaligned with the potential value of the mechanisms

may suggest a strong need for additional education among city officials on the value and

practice of public participation. While regular public hearings are still important and

should still be used, there is a wide spectrum of participatory tools that city governments

could have adopted to enhance the quality and outcome of citizen participation. Pro-

fessional associations, such as municipal leagues, and public administration programs at

local universities, can be useful in engaging local elected officials and managers more

actively to help them understand how different tools can be best utilized to achieve the

desired participatory goals. Professional city staff can also help elected officials under-

stand the potential value in obtaining more representative and diverse input, as well as

achieving other possible goals such as education, enhancing trust, and community

building.

CONCLUSION

While there is much literature on why citizen participation is important in policy making

and budgeting, not many studies examine empirically how local governments engage the

citizens and what factors influence the choice of participatory mechanisms. This study

extends our knowledge regarding the usage patterns and perceived values of nine citizen

participation mechanisms. Participation is complicated, with many moving parts: the

environment of government and the community, the ways in which participation is

structured, the perceived value of different mechanisms and the types of outcomes de-

sired and achieved. It also demonstrates that some participatory mechanisms are unlikely

to produce the outcomes extant literature commonly describes as valuable, while some

mechanisms that are rated highly by local officials have not been widely used by local

governments or their citizens. The misalignment suggests that local officials need to select

participatory mechanisms more deliberatively once the outcomes desired from citizen

participation in budgetary decision making are articulated. Also, simplistic admonitions

to increase citizen participation in the budget process are not sufficient. Differences in

perceived values across mechanisms and outcomes may require careful consideration

when designing and measuring the effects of participation.

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 71

There are a few limitations in this study that should be noted. First, our findings here

are mostly descriptive and suggestive. We show relationships between variables, but did

not perform any regression analysis to control for other possible explanatory factors

and did not address the issue of simultaneity between the value placed on a mechanism

and the decision to adopt the mechanism. More analysis is necessary to evaluate an

explanatory model and to tease out threats caused by a potential simultaneity bias

between elected officials’ rating of a mechanism and citizen use of the mechanism.

Moreover, we only examine midsized cities in the Midwest, which has very limited racial

diversity and tends to score highly on Elazar’s individualism dimension. Hence, readers

need to be cautious in generalizing the results to a nationwide population or to cities with

a very different racial composition or level of social capital. Related to the research

design, there is also a potential threat caused by fact that Iowa participants responded to

the survey one year earlier than the respondents in the other states and history may be a

potential concern. 34

Historical effects may also be evident given the timing of the survey,

it was conducted in a time of relatively low fiscal stress. As cities struggle to balance their

budgets in times of fiscal crisis, the results could be dramatically different, especially if

city officials seek higher levels of participation to gather input helpful in making hard

choices.

Despite these limitations, this study enhances our understanding of the use of different

participatory mechanisms among midsized cities in the Midwest and their relationship

with elected officials’ perceptions of these mechanisms and different institutional factors

of city governance. It also raises several questions for future studies to explore. For

example, one line of research would be to explore who selects the mechanism(s) to be

used and what the role of the lead administrator is in managing the process and reporting

the outcomes. It would be interesting to explore how costs and administrative capacity

may constrain the choice of participatory mechanisms, and how professional staff play a

role in determining the choice of participatory mechanisms, whether they have a different

perception of the values of different participatory mechanisms when compared with the

perspectives of the elected officials, and whether professional staff intentionally or un-

intentionally choose public engagement strategies that are different from the desires of

the elected officials. Also, future studies may expand the scope of inquiry and explore

how citizens view different participatory mechanisms and whether their perspective

differs significantly from the perspectives of elected and nonelected officials. In addition,

the findings about variations in the value of outcomes for different mechanisms invite

consideration of the potential for the development of a portfolio of mechanisms based on

the optimal use to achieve different goals from participation. Related to this, gaining a

34. However, we are not seriously concerned about this potential threat of history. First, there was no

significant historical event that might have significantly altered the political landscape during the survey

period. Also, we disaggregated the analysis to study only Iowa respondents as well as to study all re-

spondents without the Iowa respondents and did not find any significant difference in the choice of the most

frequently used mechanisms or other major perception variables.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Fall 200972

better understanding of the role of professional managers or professional organizations

and graduate degree programs in encouraging this matching of mechanisms to desired

outcome would be useful. Some outcomes, such as education and two-way communi-

cation are outputs that can be achieved in the short term. Others, such as building a

sense of community and enhancing trust are long-term impacts involving many other

variables. 35

This research was spurred by the work of Professor Richard Zody’s renowned passion

for developing professional public administrators, and fostering the connection between

academia and practice. The use of citizen participation in the local budget process is one

area where theory and practice remain relatively separate. Continued dialogue between

academics and practitioners is crucial if we are to make progress toward moving from

citizen disconnections to democratic connections.

35. Harry P. Hatry, Performance Measurement: Getting Results, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: The Urban

Institute Press, 2006).

Franklin et al. / Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States 73