.png)
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is the process of participation in which citizens are directly involved in the decision-making regarding the budget allocations of their local government or a district. It was first implemented in the 1980s in Porto Alegre/Brazil in particular to increase the transparency of the budget’s allocations and to cope with social inequalities and corruption. Since then, the concept of PB has been spread all around the globe and it has become a success story in terms of a public sector management innovations. Due to different starting conditions in each local government’s PB implementation, legal requirements but also due to experiences regarding successful PB processes, the original Port Alegre PB model has been adjusted several times. This even starts with the fact that there is no universal definition of PB.
Since “there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach”, each local government, which is willing to implement its own process, needs to consider different design possibilities and to make own decisions about how to design its own PB process. This, however, requires the implementers from the local governments to collect a plenty of information and to start “from scratch” with their processes.
Toolbox to design an own PB process
Classification scheme of PB mostly in Europe
Issues to be considered for the Ideal Types of PB
Collection of 80 possible indicators to track, develop and evaluate PB processes
Successful PB initiatives in the BSR and beyond.
Successful PB initiatives in the BSR and beyond
Find more resources with general information about PB
In order to bundle capacities of municipalities in PB design and implementation, the Empaci partners have developed a document called “PB Type Groups” aimed at supporting implementers new to the field of PB in setting up their PB process. It reflects factors for PB success from the perspective of citizens, the municipalities and the PB process itself. The objective of this document is to give a decision guidance on how the PB process can be designed based on the specific preconditions of each local government.
The content of this document is compiled from different sources. On the one hand, academic and practitioner literature (see the list of references) has been reviewed to identify the existing categorizations of PB. On the other hand, data from local governments has been collected by interviews with representatives from 12 German municipalities with a long-standing PB tradition or discontinued PB and additionally large-scale citizen surveys in 18 districts or municipalities in 6 BSR countries have been conducted to identify municipalities’ and citizens’ needs for PB. Data from more than 20 000 citizens was collected and insights were reflected in the document.
One of the most specific and known PB classification approaches is based on Sintomer et al. (2012). Their six types are differentiated by the level of deliberation, the type of actors and the power that is given to the citizens.
The so called ‘ideal types’ are:
At the beginning of this ‘ideal type’ of PB, the citizens elect delegates to a special council. This council sets the rules for the upcoming budget. The next step is to discuss investment projects and to create a list of projects. At meetings at the district / city level the delegates rank the proposals. The final list constitutes of a participatory budget’s draft. The Municipal Council includes this into the municipality budget. The citizens have a de-facto decision-making power, because the council must approve the draft. After that, a monitoring body (consisting of delegates from the districts/city) is formed.
The implementation of this type is not possible everywhere. The categorization of ‘ideal type’ does not give advice to what type of municipality it fits based on recurring factors and which actions might be useful. If country-specific legal restrictions prevent this type, then it cannot be implemented. Nonetheless there may be a way to integrate certain process elements (like the board of citizens). Still, if there are no legal restrictions, but the political engagement of the citizens is not high enough, the type does not fit to the population. These potential problems for practical users are not addressed in this model.
What separates this type from the other five ‘ideal types’ of PB is the project implementation by local communities rather than by civil servants. A board of citizens and NGO-members supervises the implementation. It is independent from the Municipal Council to a higher degree compared to the other ‘ideal types’. There are as much bottom-up as top-down dynamics: The influence of local politics and institutional bodies in the decision making is clearly limited and distinguishes this model from the Participatory Democracy type. Deliberation is possible to a higher level. Often NGOs are involved in organizing the activities of an independent board. The success of this type is clearly linked to these NGOs, e.g., their ability to reach marginalized people and disadvantaged groups. This model stands for the chance of new process structures and influences community activities besides the conventional ways via a political party membership or local elections.
To reach this, bottom-up and top-down activities are needed. This calls for a high level of the citizen engagement and a willingness to share power by the local government. This general description of the type cannot provide instructions to set up a working board, that is capable of acting.
In contrast to the direct democratic Porto Alegre model, as a European application of PB, these two types - Proximity Democracy and Participatory Modernization are consultative. All decisions are made by the Municipal Council. The listening takes place via citizens’ assemblies and at forums. In the latter, participants are being invited through media, by mail or a personal invitation.
The Proximity Democracy model involves districts as well as the whole city with the deliberation on investments in the former case and on general strategic goals in the latter. However, the citizens have neither influence on the proposal ranking nor the decision-making. The Municipal Council dictates the process, its representatives lead the forums and decide in the end.
The Participatory Modernization model is all about increasing transparency (referred to as: a consultation on a public finance). Information is spread by brochures, the Internet and media reports. Additionally, citizens’ forums are held for randomly selected and interested citizens.
Two versions of Participatory Modernization are possible for getting input on public services and ideas for rebalancing:
For practical users this type gives some idea to structure the PB process and what could be requested from the citizens. It fits especially for a low level of participation and mobilization of citizens. But it would be interesting to know e.g., what is possible in the PB process to foster participation and in which interval the meetings take place.
Regarding Neocorporatism and Multi-stakeholder Participation, both models target organized groups to co-decide on potential investments in social, cultural, and environmental areas. Both models differ from the other types by including funds from outside the municipality. Resources can be provided by international organisations like the World Bank, NGOs, private companies, or the national government. The stakeholders receive decision power in a board or a committee. This body of representatives of NGOs and/or agents of private sector entities and local authorities take the decision collectively based on the proposals (a co-governing partnership).
For Sintomer/Herzberg/Roecke:
https://www.buergerhaushalt.org/sites/default/files/downloads/LearningfromtheSouth-ParticipatoryBudgetingWorldwide-Study_0.pdf
and For Krenjova/Raudla:
https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc624.pdf
Three dimensions of a PB type are used to further characterize success factors identified in both academic and practitioner literature:
... to incorporate the surroundings of the place where PB should be implemented:
... to make sure, that the characteristics of people that live there are considered::
... to incorporate legal constraints and ensure that the PB process is consistent with the characteristics and wishes of citizens and communities:
To consider which PB ‘ideal types’ is the most appropriate one for the certain municipality (area), 10 success factors developed by Kubicek and Lippa (2011) are offered. The factors are explained in terms of the questions addressed in the context of an individual municipality considering the environment, the legal restrictions, and the citizens, who live in it. For each of the factors, practitioners will face certain decisions to take.
| Success Factor | Meaning | Relation to the PB |
|---|---|---|
| Clear objectives | Are the participation objectives clearly defined? | PB-process related |
| Activities of the decision-makers in a process | What role do decision-makers from the administration/politics play in the PB process? | Municipality-related PB-process related |
| Mobilization of the participants | Which actions are taken to inform addressees? Are there any target-group-specific actions? Is there any focus on the equal representation of all the citizen groups? | Citizen-related PB-process related |
| Transparency of a process and traceability of any results | Have interim results/results been published or made available? Have there been information about goals, processes, decisions and rules? | PB-process related |
| Ensuring the connectivity of the participation | Is there a process model for the perpetuation of PB? | PB-process related |
| Binding force/commitment of political decision-makers | Does a specific agreement in advance exist, that the decision-makers will take the results into account? | PB-process related |
| Appropriate and target group-oriented participation formats | Is the information provided prepared in a citizen-friendly manner? Are the intended media and channels of communication appropriate for a target group? (Acceptance) | PB-process related |
| Sufficient resources | Are the resources sufficient for planning and implementing? | Municipality-related |
| Urgency of the subject | What is the scope of a topic? | PB-process related |
| Professionalization | Is the participation based on a process concept? To what extent are (proven) external experts involved in supporting and facilitating the PB concept? |
PB-process related |
As part of the EmPaci project, all PB evaluation scheme was developed. It provides over 80 possible indicators to track, develop and evaluate PB processes based on the underlying sub-goals of the PB process. The evaluation scheme can be downloaded here.
Kubicek/Lippa/ Koop (2011):
Erfolgreich beteiligt? Nutzen und Erfolgsfaktoren internetgestuetzter Buergerbeteiligung - Eine empirische Analyse von 12 Fallbeispielen.
Guetersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Considering that there is an infinite number and compositions of PB processes, the following table is a helpful toolbox to design an own PB process. The table is structured by PB phases with recommendations on each separate phase in the pre-column and by municipality-related and citizen-related factors in the header (read more about it in Sub-section “Factors for PB Success”).
The offered “construction kit” was prepared by EmPaci project researchers. The construction kit and the example of Stuttgart PB design categorization is available on Pages 29-31 of “PB Type Groups” document. It provides useful tips for PB practitioners and helps to answer the questions corresponding to own municipality and citizens.
PB Blueprint Guidebook presents successful PB initiatives in the Baltic Sea region and beyond, examines existing participatory budget approaches and presents the best practices. Successful PB cases from Germany, Poland, Portugal, Romania, France, Canada, China, Iceland, and Brazil are presented. The examples in the guidebook can serve as an inspiration for the local government representatives for future PB initiatives, as these highlight the specific features, design principles and innovative ideas which make selected PB cases inspiring.
Each case is shortly characterized by a fact sheet about the municipality, the PB process and its basic structure and a short history. However, it was not the aim to provide a detailed description, but the most important facts. Hints about where further and more detailed information can be found are also presented. The description of the case itself is guided by the following questions:
(1) What specific problem does the PB case solve?
(2) What ideas and design principles make the PB case innovative or successful compared to others?
(3) What could be potential challenges in adopting the approach of this PB case?
Since the design requirements and possibilities depend on the size of a municipality to a large extent, the cases presented in this document are structured according to the size of the municipalities in terms of inhabitants. As such, the following size categories have been set up:
Download the the PB Blueprints report (PDF/1,2 MB)
PB as a Civic Engagement Tool (a1_PB as a Civic engagement tool - ppt)
Tampere University, LAB University of Applied Science (2020) PB Cycle. Steps toward PB in Municipalities. How to get started? [Experiences from Finland] (a2_PB Cycle_in_Finland)
Pauliina Lehtonen (2020) Participatory budgeting as a channel of citizen participation (a6_Mod_1_Pauliina Lehtonen basics of PB_ENG – ppt)
PB Cycle – Step by Step and the challenges (a2_PB Cycle_Step by step and the challenges – ppt)
Dr. Jaroslav Dvorak (2021) PB as a Civic Engagement Tool, Klaipeda University
PB training materials for schools: New York City Department of Education launches programme for schools