Participatory Budgeting: Could It Diminish Health Disparities in the United States?

Abstract

Participatory budgeting (PB)-a democratic process where ordinary residents decide directly how to spend part of a public budget-has gained impressive momentum in US municipalities, spreading from one pilot project in Chicago's 49th ward in 2009 to 50 active PB processes across 14 cities in 2016-2017. Over 93,600 US residents voted in a PB process in 2015-2016, deciding over a total of about $49.5 million and funding 264 projects intended to improve their communities. The vast majority of US PB processes take place in large urban centers (e.g., New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Boston), but PB has also recently spread to some smaller cities and towns [1]. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of PB processes in the USA, and within New York City and Chicago council districts specifically. Fig. 1 Participatory budgeting in the USA has grown from 1 process in 2009-2010 to 50 processes in 2016-2017 PB constitutes a rare form of public engagement in that it typically comprises several distinct stages that encourage residents to participate from project idea collection to project implementation (see Fig.2). The decisive public vote in US PB is practically binding as elected officials commit to implementing the public decision at the outset of the process. Moreover, all current PB processes in the USA have expanded voting rights to residents under 18years old and to non-citizens. Under President Obama, the White House recognized PB as a model for open governance. Participatory Budgeting Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for PB, won the 2014 Brown Democracy Medal, which recognizes the best work being done to advance democracy in the USA and internationally. Fig. 2 Typical stages of a participatory budgeting process in the USA PB has been lauded for its potential to energize local democracy, contribute to more equitable public spending and help reduce inequality [2, 3]. Social justice goals have been explicit in US PB from the start. Grassroots advocates, technical assistance providers, and many elected officials who have adopted it emphasize that PB must focus on engaging underrepresented and marginalized communities [2, 4, 5]. PB steering committees have specified equity and inclusiveness goals in PB rule books [6, 7]. The most conclusive research so far on PB's potential to reduce social inequalities, however, comes from Brazil, where PB started in 1989. In Brazil, PB has been associated with a reduction in extreme poverty, better access to public services, greater spending on sanitation and health services, and, most notably, a reduction in child and infant mortality [8, 9].In this paper, we outline three mechanisms by which PB could affect health disparities in US municipalities: First, by strengthening residents' psychological empowerment; second, by strengthening civic sector alliances; and third, by (re)distributing resources to areas of greatest need. We summarize the theoretical argument for these impacts, discuss the existent empirical evidence, and highlight promising avenues for further research.