Abstract
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is conceptually powerful because it ties the normative values of non-elite participation and deliberation to specific policymaking processes. It is a democratic policymaking process that enables citizens to allocate public monies. PB has spread globally, coming to the United States in 2009. Our analysis shows that the types of institutional designs used in the United States are quite different from the original Brazilian programs. What explains the variation in PB institutional design between Brazil and the United States? Most PB cases in the US are district-level whereas in Brazil, PB cases are mainly municipal. We account for this variation by analyzing the electoral system; configuration of civil society; political moment of adoption; and available resources. We use case study analysis to account for this variation in institutional design. We then assess how the different rule design is likely to create a different set of institutional outcomes.
Highlights
Participatory budgeting (PB) began in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1989, after two decades of military dictatorship as part of an effort to simultaneously build a democratic culture and deliver public goods to underserviced communities
Our analysis shows that the institutional designs being used in the United States are quite different from the original Brazilian programs
At the broadest level this article addresses the following question: What explains the variation in PB institutional design between Brazil municipalities and the district-based programs in the United States? More narrowly, we ask, why is PB adopted at the district level in the US? To answer these questions, we consider a number of possible explanations, including electoral system and districting rules; configuration of civil society; political moment of adoption; and available resources
Summary
Participatory budgeting (PB) began in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1989, after two decades of military dictatorship as part of an effort to simultaneously build a democratic culture and deliver public goods to underserviced communities. We analyze five categories that help to explain the variation between the Brazilian and US processes: (1) political moment at adoption, (2) institutional context, (3) available resources, (4) civil society, and (5) internal PB rules that regulate how and when citizens participate. Local-level politicians, such as aldermen (Chicago) and city council members (New York), work to organize and establish their own political bases.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
