Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Connecting the Dots of an Implicit Agenda: The Case of Participatory Budgeting as a Travelling Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Identifying Models of National Urban Agendas

Part of the book series: Comparative Studies of Political Agendas ((CSPA))

  • 141 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter narrates the story of a public policy instrument (PPI)—called participatory budgeting (PB). PB was shaped 30 years ago in the Global South, travelled across countries and legal systems since ever, and, along this journey, was reconfigured and re-semantized multiple times. Yet, the memory of its original meanings—embedded in its procedural and methodological features—has brought together a wide community of developers, practitioners, policy-makers, and advocates of its implementation. This chapter aims at understanding, first, whether this “community of scope” that gathered around participatory budgeting shares a common understanding and agenda of PB; second, the nature of this agenda; and, third, how and to what extent the latter—while cross-contaminating with other agendas—is capable of deploying its transformative capacity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bouwma et al. (2015) distinguish five modes of governance (hierarchical governance, market governance, network governance, self-governance, and knowledge governance) and five different typologies of PPIs: legislative/regulatory instruments; economic/fiscal instruments; agreement based/co-operative instruments; (traditional) information/communication-based instruments; and knowledge instruments. The latter differ from traditional information and communication instruments, as their focus is in developing shared knowledge between actors and promote innovation: so, they are not one-way but two-way forms of communication.

  2. 2.

    This chapter refers to a definition of Democratic Innovations (DI) reformulated by Sorice (2019) modifying that of Smith (2009). They can be viewed as a large family of “experiences related to facilitation and increase of substantive participation”, shaped to directly involve citizens in taking decisions on their living places, which includes not only “institutions specifically designed to increase citizens’ participation”, but also “bottom-up experiences able to connect with institutional practices in the processes of policy-making and political decision-making”. PB well represents those DIs with a larger capacity of combining a dialogue between participatory spaces “by invitation” and “by irruption” (Blas and Ibarra 2006).

  3. 3.

    Lascoumes and Le Gales (2007, p. 3) state that PPIs not only reveal “a (fairly explicit) theorization of the relationship between the governing and the governed, as every instrument constitutes a condensed form of knowledge about social control and ways of exercising it”, but that they often “produce specific effects, independently of the objective pursued (the aims ascribed to them), which structure public policy according to their own logic”. Hence, some PPIs can—per se—engender forms of change (or inertia to change) which can differ from the legitimate expectations of those who plan to use them, as they embody forms of memory related to the origin of that instrumentation (Labbé 2007; Ihl et al. 2003; Fréry and Poitou 1994; Hatchuel and Weil 1992).

  4. 4.

    See the case of Pelotas in De Souza (2002).

  5. 5.

    Sintomer et al. (2012) stated that, to be within the realm of participatory budgeting, a process must: (1) include a series of steps leading to the discussion of financial/budgetary issues; (2) affect a territory governed by an elected or appointed body, which has some formal degree of power over administration and resources; (3) be repeated in time; (4) include some form of public deliberation within the framework of specific meetings/forums; (5) provide accountability mechanism, so that the outputs reflect the will of participants.

  6. 6.

    See the cases of Toronto Community Housing PB (Canada) or that of Paris Habitat social housing PB (France); for schools, see Gibbs et al. 2021; for the case of Bollate prison, see Allegretti and Pittella (2021) and Pittella and Allegretti (2022).

  7. 7.

    See the Portuguese cases of the Nurses Professional Rank of Central Portugal and the Order of Certified Accountants, and the Italian case of the Order of Psychologists of Lombardy Region.

  8. 8.

    See the “In Transit” pilot project, organized by Airbnb and the Palermo city council (Italy) in two districts. See also the Project “Ripartire” [Restart] organized by the enterprise BiPart in several schools of Italy (https://ripartire.info).

  9. 9.

    See, for example, the four principles (Voice, Vote, Oversight, and Social Justice) stated by Wampler (2012), or the definitions used by the DRD Network, recalled in Nez and Talpin (2010).

  10. 10.

    Ganuza and Francés (2012a, b).

  11. 11.

    See Dias et al. (2021), p. 34.

  12. 12.

    See Arnstein (1969), or https://iap2.org.au/resources/spectrum/.

  13. 13.

    The Agency has been extinguished (and also the NGO CIGU—International Centre for Urban Management, which continued its legacy), so the memory of its publications is hard to find.

  14. 14.

    The research “Participatory Budgeting in Europe” was updated several times, producing books in different languages. The first publication issued was Allegretti and Herzberg (2004) and the last Sintomer et al. (2016).

  15. 15.

    This aligns with Falanga and Lüchmann (2019); Ganuza and Francés (2012a); Baiocchi et al. (2011).

  16. 16.

    See the reports published in several languages on the magazine Dialog Global (issue n. 25), Edition 2010, and Updated Edition 2013.

  17. 17.

    Initially, the attention came from the Latin American branch of the Urban Management Programme, then from UN-Habitat, and later UNDP, UN-Women, UNESCO, and UNDESA.

  18. 18.

    https://wuf.unhabitat.org/.

  19. 19.

    https://africities.org/.

  20. 20.

    The International Budget Partnership is “a global partnership of budget analysts, community organizers, and advocates working to advance public budget systems that work for people, not special interests”. Its work is generating data, advocating for reforms, and building “the skills and knowledge of people so that everyone can have a voice in budget decisions that impact their lives”. See: https://internationalbudget.org/about-us/.

  21. 21.

    https://www.transparency.org/en.

  22. 22.

    https://www.opengovpartnership.org.

  23. 23.

    https://fiscaltransparency.net.

  24. 24.

    The Atlas provides a permanent observatory of PBs, thanks to more than 100 voluntary “aerials” spread in 65 countries. See: www.pbatlas.net/index.html.

  25. 25.

    https://unhabitat.org/72-frequently-asked-questions-about-participatory-budgeting.

  26. 26.

    https://pb.unhabitat.org.

  27. 27.

    http://www.empaci.eu/index.php?id=124.

  28. 28.

    https://pt.peoplepowered.org/.

  29. 29.

    People Powered applies PB methods to the distribution of part of its own internal resources for projects and other diverse activities.

  30. 30.

    https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/.

  31. 31.

    See Herrera Castro and Tesoriere (2021). Even practices developed mainly in rural areas (as the 3043 villages of Chengdu, in China, with their almost 16 million inhabitants) took the opportunity to boost their tools of digitization to improve their capillary role especially for improving their capacity of delivering results related to SDGs 10 and 11. See the pilot experience of the Community Support Fund E-Platform in 73 communities (2021), in the UN-DESA Good Practices archive.

  32. 32.

    The UNDESA/CEPA’s chapter “How can the strategy be of benefit and under what circumstances?” (2022, p. 8) contains a list of the most common benefits that PB can provide, referring them to different Sustainable Development Goals, and also list some promises (in the form of PB impacts) on which literature had provided evidence. Several of the national chapters of Dias (2013, 2018) highlight a diverse range of requests to PB which are central and most common in different contexts.

  33. 33.

    An example quoted by Porto de Oliveira is Prof. Yves Cabannes: a French militant in Brazilian social movements and coordinator of a radical NGO, he led a UN-agency on Urban Management in Latin America, then coordinated as an external consultant in the network of the URB-AL Programme dedicated to PB; later on, he focussed on a university career (mainly involved in action research), while maintaining active collaborations to implement PBs (or coordinating training and assessment studies on it) with many international institutions (including the World Bank, UCLG, UN-Habitat), but also social movements and local/regional authorities. From his numerous articles and research reports, one could deduce his “consequentialist approach”—evident especially in his comparative studies on the impacts of PB in various polity domains (Cabannes 2014, 2016, 2020, 2021b, c) and on the interaction with other DIs. While floating between these different poles, Prof. Cabannes has also been an active organizer of many transnational events on PB, contributing to structure direct links of cooperation between different territories and actors interested in experimenting this device—especially those characterized by a high degree of political will, clear goals, and an advanced methodological approach. In this journey, marked by a planetary scope that touched a hundred of countries, “persistence” appears an indispensable companion, as the “slow march towards new paradigms” (Allegretti 2014) implied frustrations, backlashes, and apparent victories (often easily reversible ones) while trying to set PB as a more central priority in the agenda of powerful international players or visible and influential institutions of single countries.

  34. 34.

    The 10th WUF was held on 07/12 February 2020. See: https://unhabitat.org/wuf10.

  35. 35.

    https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Intergovernmental-Support/CEPA/Principles-of-Effective-Governance.

  36. 36.

    Explicitly, it moves from SDG 11 (make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable) and Target 16.7 (ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels) to recognize many other SDGs that PB can help to comply with as larger impacts of its action.

  37. 37.

    For an updated list of studies which provide evidence on PB variated impacts, see UNDESA/CEPA (2022, pp. 9–11).

References

  • Abers, R. 2000. Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publ.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Acocella, N., G.D. Bartolomeo, and A.H. Hallett. 2006. Controllability in policy games: Policy neutrality and the theory of economic policy revisited. Computational Economics 28: 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-006-9035-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G. 2014. Participatory democracies: A slow march toward new paradigms from Brazil to Europe? In Cities into the future, ed. F. Lieberherr-Gardiol and G. Solinís, pp. 141–177. UQAC - Les Classiques des sciences sociales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G. 2005. Porto Alegre: una biografia territoriale. Ricercando la qualità urbana a partire dal patrimonio sociale. Firenze University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G., and C. Herzberg. 2004. Participatory budgets in Europe: Between efficiency and growing local democracy. Transnational Institute/Center for Democratic PolicyMaking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G., and G. Pittella. 2021. Looking inward or outward? An Italian experience of prisoners’ involvement in governance through participatory budgeting. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 11 (11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G., G. Campos, and F. Siqueira. 2010. Anestetizzare il conflitto? Slittamenti di significato di due casi brasiliani di Bilancio Partecipativo. Partecipazione e conflitto 3: 16–39. https://doi.org/10.3280/PACO2010-003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allegretti, G., M. Bassoli, and G. Colavolpe. 2021. On the verge of institutionalisation? Participatory budgeting evidence in five Italian regions. Finansovyj žhurnal — Financial Journal 2: 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appadurai, A. 1990. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture and Society 7 (2–3): 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Banking on words: The failure of language in the age of derivative finance. Orient Blackswan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avritzer, L. 2012. The different designs of public participation in Brazil: Deliberation, power sharing and public ratification. Critical Policy Studies 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. The double crisis of representation and participation in Brazil. Representations 55: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avritzer, L., and Z. Navarro, eds. 2003. A inovação democrática no Brasil. Cortez Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, G., and E. Ganuza. 2014. Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics and Society 42 (1): 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329213512978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Popular democracy: The paradox of participation. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, G., P. Heller, and M.K. Silva. 2011. Bootstrapping democracy. Transforming local governance and civil Society in Brazil. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R.C., and Vedung, E. 1998, Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748.

  • Bezerra, C. 2018. Why has participatory budgeting adoption declined in Brazil?. OIDP. https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc639.pdf.

  • Blas, A., and P. Ibarra. 2006. La participación: estado de la cuestión. Cuadernos de Trabajo de Hegoa 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böcher, M. 2012. A theoretical framework for explaining the choice of instruments in environmental policy. Forest Policy and Economics 16 (C): 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwma, I.M., A.L. Gerritsen, D. Kamphorst, and F. Kistenkas. 2015. Policy instruments and modes of governance in environmental policies of the European Union. Statutory Research tasks Unit for Nature and the Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, P. 1980. Participation in the budgeting process: When it works and when it doesn’t. MIT Working Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bua, A., and S. Bussu 2020. Between governance-driven democratisation and democracy-driven governance. Explaining changes in participatory governance in the case of Barcelona. European Journal of Political Research 60: 716–737. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6765.12421.

  • Cabannes, Y. 2003. Participatory budgeting and municipal finance, base document. Launch Seminar of URBAL Network No 9, Municipal Government of Porto Alegre.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Contribution of Participatory Budgeting to provision and management of basic services: Municipal practices and evidence from the field. IIED Working Paper. London: IIED.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Participatory budgeting. A powerful and expanding contribution to the achievement of SDGs and primarily SDG 16.7. Gold Policy series 2, UCLG. https://www.gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/02_policy_series-v3.pdf.

  • ———. 2019. The contribution of participatory budgeting to the achievement of the sustainable development goals: Lessons for policy in Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance 21, Article ID 6707. https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.v0i21.6707.

  • ———. 2021a. Another City is possible with participatory budgeting. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021b. Greening cities through participatory budgeting answers to climate change from Lisbon, Portugal and Molina de Segura, Spain. OIDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021c. Participatory budgeting: Contributions to reversing social and spatial priorities. In Research handbook on democracy and development, ed. G. Crawford and A.-G. Abdulai, 442–461. Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2021d. Contributions of participatory budgeting to climate change adaptation and mitigation: Current local practices across the world and lessons from the field. Environment and Urbanization 33 (2): 356–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabannes, Y., and B. Lipietz. 2018. Revisiting the democratic promise of participatory budgeting in light of competing political, good governance and technocratic logics. Environment and Urbanization 30 (1): 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caponetto, M. 2002. Scenari di progetto identitario. Il caso di Lucca. Alinea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 2009. The rise of the network society. Wiley and Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R., J.-K. Ross, and M.H. Ross. 1976. Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review 71 (1): 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, E. 2018. Confluencia perversa, desplazamiento de sentido, crisis discursiva. In Antología del pensamiento crítico brasileño contemporâneo, ed. B. Bringel and A, Brasil, 679–700. CLACSO. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvnp0k3f.33.

  • De Souza, B. 2002. Todo o poder emana do povo. Educat.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, M., J. Nemec, and D. Špaček. 2022. International trends in participatory budgeting. Between trivial pursuits and best practices. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, N., ed. 2018. Hope for democracy—30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide. Oficina/Epopeia: Faro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, N., S. Enriquez, R. Cardita, S. Júlio, and T. Serrano, eds. 2021. Participatory budgeting world atlas 2020–2021. Epopeia/Oficina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falanga, R. 2018. The National Participatory Budget in Portugal: Opportunities and challenges for scaling up citizen participation in policymaking. In Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting, ed. N. Dias, 447–466. Oficina/Epopeia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falanga, R., and G. Allegretti. 2021. “Democracia participativa em tempos de covid-19: a procura de uma nova ritualização”[participatory democracy in times of covid-19: The search for a new ritualization]. In Poder local em tempos de Covid-19 Vol.1. A qualidade da democracia local e a governação em tempos de Covid-19, ed. L.F. Mota Almeida, M. Ramos, and L. de Sousa, 63–95. Almedina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falanga, R., and L.H. Lüchmann. 2019. Participatory budgets in Brazil and Portugal: Comparing patterns of dissemination. Policy Studies 41: 603–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falanga, R., J. Verheij, and O. Bina. 2021. Green(er) Cities and Their Citizens: Insights from the Participatory Budget of Lisbon. Sustainability 13 (15): 8243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedozzi, L. 1997. Orçamento Participativo: reflexões sobre a experiência de Porto Alegre. Tomo Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fréry, F., and J.-P. Poitou 1994. Deux points de vue sur: L’expert et le système. Sociologie Du Travail 36(4): 609–615. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43149970.

  • Fung, A. 2011. A Preface to Pragmatic Democracy: Toward Continuous Innovation in Governance. Working Paper, presented in the conference―Participatory Governance and Decentralization, held at the Wilson Center, Washington DC, May 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., and E.O. Wright, eds. 2002. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganuza, E., and G. Baiocchi. 2012. The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. JPD 8 (2): art. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganuza, E., and F. Francés. 2012a. El círculo virtuoso de la democracia: los presupuestos participativos a debate. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. The deliberative turn in participation: The problem of inclusion and deliberative opportunities in participatory budgeting. European Political Science Review 4: 283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genro, T., and U. De Souza. 1997. Orçamento participativo: A experiência de Porto Alegre. Fundação Perseu Abramo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, N.P., T. Bartlett, and D. Schugurensky 2021. Does school participatory budgeting increase students’ political efficacy? Bandura’s ‘Sources’, civic pedagogy, and education for democracy. Curriculum and Teaching, 21, https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/36.1.02.

  • Goldfrank, B. 2012. The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation 8 (2): art. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfrank, B., and B. Wampler. 2022. The rise, spread, and decline of Brazil’s participatory budgeting. Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gret, M., and Y. Sintomer. 2005. The Porto Alegre experiment: Learning lessons for a better democracy. Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. 2012. Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., and B. Weil. 1992. L’expert et le système. Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, B. 2011. Civic Engagement through Participatory Budgeting in China: Three Different Logics at Work. Public Administration and Development 31 (2): 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera Castro, R., and G. Tesoriere. 2021. Innovation and digital technology to re-imagine participatory budgeting as a tool for building social resilience. UN-Habitat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. 1991. Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation. National Approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal 19 (2): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences 42(1): 73–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40270982.

  • Ihl, O., M. Kaluszynski, and G. Pollet. 2003. Les sciences de gouvernement. Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., R.K.W. Wurzel, and A. Zito. 2005. The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies 53 (3): 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00540.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Brown and Co: Little.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labbé, M. 2007. Les usages diplomatiques des cartes ethnographiques au 19e. In Gouverner par les cartes. Genèses 68: 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langelier, S. 2015. Le démantèlement du budget participatif de Porto Alegre ? démocratie partcipative et communauté politique. L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., and P. Le Gales. 2007. Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 20 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., L. Simard, and J. McCoy. 2011. Public policy seen through the prism of its instruments: Introduction. Revue française de science politique 61: 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legard, S. 2019. Translation and institutional change: What happened when participatory budgeting came to the Nordic countries? In Democratic state and democratic society: Institutional change in the Nordic model, ed. F. Engelstad, C. Holst, and G. Aakvaag, 175–192. De Gruyter Open Poland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legard, S., and B. Goldfrank. 2021. The systemic turn and participatory budgeting: The case of Rio Grande do Sul. Journal of Latin American Studies 53 (1): 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen, P. 2021. Policy on the move: The enabling settings of participation in participatory budgeting. Policy Studies 2: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2021.1895981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, S.G. 1992. The politics of international agenda-setting: Reagan and north-south relations. International Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 313–329. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbach, R.W., and J.A. Vasquez. 1981. Search of theory: A new paradigm for global politics. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, S. 2011. Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori Peru. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Mandating PB: Evaluating fifteen years of Peru’s National Participatory Budgeting law. In Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide, ed. N. Dias. Epopeia/Oficina.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, S., and W. No. 2021. Participatory budgeting via National law: What works and what Doesn’t. People Powered.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nez, H., and J. Talpin. 2010. Généalogies de la démocratie participative en banlieue rouge: un renouvellement du communisme municipal en trompe-l'œil? Genèses 79: 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez, T. 2018a. Democracia e Participação no Rio Grande do Sul: um Balanço de 25 anos de experiências. In Democracia na América Latina: Democratização, Tensões e Aprendizad, ed. M.V. Espiñeira Gonzales and D. Cruz, 304–333. CLACSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez, Tarson. 2018b. International diffusion of participatory budgeting practices.

    Google Scholar 

  • OIDp. 2020. “My budget”: A national participatory budgeting experiment in South Korea. https://oidp.net/en/practice.php?id=1236.

  • Pateman, C. 2012. APSA presidential address: Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PB Network. 2015. Decaffeinated participation: Where has the social justice in participatory budgeting gone?. PB Network https://pbnetwork.org.uk/decaffeinated-participation-where-has-the-social-justice-in-participatory-budgeting-gone.

  • Peixoto, T., and T. Steinberg. 2020. Citizen engagement. Emerging digital technologies create new risks and value. Washington: The WB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittella, G., and G. Allegretti. 2022. "fleeing ideas" (IIF): Reflections on a participatory budget experiment, in Italy's Bollate prison. In Direitos Humanos, Políticas Carcerárias e Concepções de Justiça, ed. M. Ribeiro Henriques and A. Guerreiro, 53–65. JUS.XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porto de Oliveira, O. 2017. International policy diffusion and participatory budgeting: Ambassadors of participation, international institutions and transnational actors. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2020. Policy ambassadors: Human agency in the transnationalization of Brazilian social policies. Policy and Society 39 (1): 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. 2021. Why citizen participation succeeds or fails. A comparative analysis of participatory budgeting. Bristol University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L.M. 2002. The tools of government. A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampaio, R. 2014. Orçamentos participativos digitais: um mapeamento mundial das experiências já realizadas e suas contribuições para e-participação e e-democracia [Digital participatory budgets: a global mapping of experiences already carried out and their contributions to e-participation and e-democracy]. PhD Thesis, UFBA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, B. 2005. Democratizing democracy. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2019. Tradução intercultural: Diferir e partilhar con passionalità. In Boaventura de Sousa Santos: Construindo as Epistemologias do Sul Para um pensamento alternativo de alternativas, ed. M.P. Meneses, J.A. Nunes, C. L. Añón, A.A. Bonet, and N.L. Gomes, vol. I, 261–296. CLACSO. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvt6rkt3.10.

  • Saward, M. 2003. Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serageldin, M., ed. 2005. Assessment of participatory budgeting in Brazil. Inter-American Development Bank/Graduate School of Design Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sgueo, G. 2016. Participatory Budgeting: An Innovative Approach (January 7, 2016). EPRS—European Parliamentary Research Service: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2712213; https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2712213.

  • Sintomer, Y., C. Herzberg, A. Röcke, and G. Allegretti. 2012. Transnational models of citizen participation the case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation 8: Art. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintomer, Y., A. Röcke, and C. Herzberg. 2016. Participatory budgeting in Europe. Democracy and public governance. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. 2009. Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sorice, M. 2019. Partecipazione democratica. Teorie e problemi. Mondadori Università.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spada, P., and G. Allegretti. 2020. When democratic innovations integrate multiple and diverse channels of social dialogue. In Using new Media for Citizen Engagement and Participation, ed. M. Adria, 35–59. IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swieringa, R., and R. Moncur. 1975. Some effects of participative budgeting on managerial behavior. NAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tshishonga, N.S. 2020. Forging civic and democratic governance from below through virtual state and communities: Case studies of communities of practice. IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDESA/CEPA. 2022. Guidance note on participatory budgeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-Habitat. 2020. Exploring the role of participatory budgeting in accelerating the SDGs: A multidimensional approach in Escobedo, Mexico. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gossum, P., B. Arts, and K. Verheyen. 2010. From “smart regulation” to “regulatory arrangements”. Policy Sciences 43: 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-010-9108-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampler, B. 2012. Participatory budgeting: Core principles and key impacts. Journal of Deliberative Democracy 8: 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampler, B., S. McNulty, and M. Touchton. 2021. Participatory budgeting in global perspective. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. 2009. Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies 3: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2011. Evaluación del Presupuesto Participativo y su relación con el presupuesto por resultados. World bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/791401468295194694/pdf/625880WP0P11620ci0n0del0Presupuesto.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    Giovanni Allegretti & Gianluca Sgueo

Authors
  1. Giovanni Allegretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianluca Sgueo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Allegretti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Arts, University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy

    Francesca Gelli

  2. Department of Architecture and Arts, University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy

    Matteo Basso

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Allegretti, G., Sgueo, G. (2022). Connecting the Dots of an Implicit Agenda: The Case of Participatory Budgeting as a Travelling Policy. In: Gelli, F., Basso, M. (eds) Identifying Models of National Urban Agendas . Comparative Studies of Political Agendas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08388-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08388-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08387-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08388-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation