Contestation in Participatory Budgeting: Spaces, Boundaries, and Agency

Markus Holdo

doi:10.1177/0002764220941226

Abstract

Local political leaders as well as international organizations have embraced participatory budgeting in response to problems of political exclusion and citizens’ dissatisfaction with representative democracy. This article provides a framework to highlight important aspects of the politics of participation. The framework allows scholars to explore how factors external to spaces of participation interact with aspects of participation within them. The framework conceptualizes participatory budgeting as political spaces, whose boundaries are shaped by ideologies, interests, and patterns of social exclusion. In dynamic spaces, such boundaries are constantly renegotiated and contestation helps maintain their openness. In static spaces, by contrast, predefined boundaries are imposed on participants who may accept or reject them. Empirical examples of participatory budgeting illustrate the usefulness of this framework. The article ends by discussing key avenues for further research.

Highlights

As widening socioeconomic gaps shape people’s opportunities for equal representation in many parts of the world, researchers and democratic theorists are exploring in new ways of involving citizens in politics
Participatory budgeting has a special status among these new forms of participation, having been the first significant “democratic innovation” to be advocated as a universal model to be adopted in various new contexts (Geißel & Joas, 2013; Sintomer et al, 2008, 2016; Smith, 2009)
This article has developed an analytical framework for understanding contestation in participatory budgeting in spatial terms

Summary

Introduction

As widening socioeconomic gaps shape people’s opportunities for equal representation in many parts of the world, researchers and democratic theorists are exploring in new ways of involving citizens in politics. Several case studies of participatory budgeting have analyzed citizens’ possibilities to participate on equal terms, take initiatives, and hold municipalities accountable (Abers, 2000; Baiocchi, 2005; Holdo, 2016a; McNulty, 2018; Rodgers, 2007; Wampler, 2007). Several studies have explained these different outcomes through factors external to the process, such as available resources, degree of decentralization, and political commitment to inclusion. These factors seem crucial, but in intricate ways they depend on interactions with participants, who bring into spaces of participation their own interests, views, and resources (see Baiocchi & Ganuza, 2014; Holdo, 2016a, 2016b; Goldfrank, 2007, 2012). The aim of this article is to bring to the fore the place for contestation within these spaces

Objectives

Conclusion