Problems and Purpose

People with disabilities who lack social activities may face social neglect or even exclusion, leading to an increase in unemployment among people with disabilities.

To address the issue of employment of persons with disabilities, the Sanxia case aims to

· Increase social inclusion. Through participatory democracy, ensuring that the voices of persons with disabilities and stakeholders are fully and respectfully heard.

· Gain better governance. Optimising taxpayers' money, building public trust and strengthening cooperation between the public and private sectors [3].

· Promote public trust. The public lacks trust in the political progress, and their trust keeps declining. Their participation is also extremely limited [4]. It’s a nice choice to extend the impact of public participation in the employment of people with disabilities to more areas of public administration.

Background History & Context

The success of the iconic Sunflower Campaign in 2014 led to a surge in participation in social movements as people in Taiwan province began to pursue more direct forms of democracy [5]. Inspired by this, people with disabilities have also begun to pursue democratic activities related to their rights. However, it is difficult to reconcile the contradiction between drastic social change and the search for social stability and economic development [6].

According to New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu, an effective way to bring the government and the people closer together in the area of public administration is to allow residents to take on more responsibility as "public people" [7]. According to the survey, the top-down measures to help people with disabilities in Taiwan have been met with a lukewarm response and far less effective than expected [8]. On 8 November 2014, hundreds of people with physical and mental disabilities and their supporters took to the streets to protest, demanding that the government must fulfil the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Implementation Act and uphold the employment rights and opportunities of people with disabilities. This phenomenon demonstrates the need for active democratic input, grassroots participation and democratic deliberation in the government's handling of disability issues [9]. PB is an efficient direct democratic tool that allows the voices of people with disabilities to be heard more widely when top-down legal means struggle to achieve the desired results.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

City Mayor Eric Chu was the planner and coordinator of the PB project in Taipei, completing the pre-preparation and coordination of interests for the project in 2015. The idea of participatory budgeting of disabled people employment was provided by Ministry of Labor [10]. Also, the project budget was set aside and allocated by the Ministry of Labor, and administrative assistance was provided for the activities [11].

The project manager is Ye Xinyi, from faculty of Sociology of Taipei University. He worked to increase the participation of people with disabilities in a joint effort by all parties. The project formed a seven-member advisory committee [12].

The project was supported by several relevant departments such as social welfare, transport, education, economic development, regional offices, etc. They have provided specific assistance in their areas of expertise to the project [13]. The successful implementation of the project was closely linked to the efforts of the community members and the NGOs. They actively helped the government to mobilize local citizens and to disseminate new ideas and suggestions to people. The project has also received help from some 20 social welfare foundations and trade unions throughout Taiwan [14].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The core target group of this project is people with physical and mental disabilities in the Sanxia area. To ensure communication with people with disabilities effective, the team worked with local social welfare agencies to mail all presentations and promotional materials directly to their mailboxes, and recorded the programme content into an audio book to minimize the difficulty for people with vision disabilities [15]. Furthermore, the combination of digital mode and conventional offline method can increase involvement. Therefore, any additional data that decision-makers require to make are shown on a website and Facebook page made especially for information disclosure.[16].

Taking into account the Sanxia's complex terrain, the organisers arranged a complimentary bus to transport attendees. Sign language interpreters, live captioning and large printed material packs were also provided. To increase participation, the team offered four alternative options in addition to the traditional offline voting method: online voting, physical voting, postal voting and fax voting [17].

Thanks to these efforts, the number of participants in all phases of the participatory budget was higher than expected, with a total of 1,000 people, representing about 50% of all people with disabilities in the Sanxia area, and a turnout of 14.16% of voters, including people with disabilities and their family members. The largest number of participants were those with mild and moderate impairment, both with over 35% [18]. Voters were more likely to be male than female, and more jobless people than employed people cast ballots. The participation of people with physical and mental disabilities was uneven, the more severe the impairment of people with existing physical and mental disabilities, the less likely they were to participate in the discussion [19].

Methods and Tools Used

The main method used was participatory budgeting. The core of participatory budgeting is a form of decision-making in which citizens are actively involved in prioritized spending of public resources [20].

An Executive Committee was established at the very beginning. It consisted of 5-7 experts from various fields such as budget allocation, PB promotion, community organizations, disability rights, local government, etc. Two people with disabilities served as members of the committee. The responsibilities of this committee checking the progress of implementation, helping to make feasible recommendations and monitoring the achievement of selected plans [21]. The specific methods were as follows:

The team conducted research to understand the general situation of disabled persons in City and Sanxia. (Unemployment rates and resources for employment rehabilitation)

The process included 3 sessions of town hall meetings (intended for collecting the opinions from disabled persons), 2 workshop sessions introducing PB basics to officers, 1 Proposal review meeting, and numerous occasions for informal opinion exchange organized by community members [22].

To evaluate the process, the organizers administered questionnaires at all sessions.

The announcement of the proposals was followed by a 10-day exhibition of the proposals and a face-to-face presentation workshop. Adequate discussion and exhibition ensured that the public had a full understanding of the proposal [23].

Information about the initiative, including videos of the meetings, was made available via an interactive website and Facebook page to help raise awareness of the PB among the public [24]. The public could submit their comments or suggestions on relevant issues via the Facebook. 

What Went On: Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

The PB process followed four stages: 1) brainstorming, 2) creating a proposal, 3) voting, 4) executing the budget [25].

1. Brainstorming

During the brainstorming process, participants were able to share their views and different positions. The process stimulated new ideas and concepts from the participants and led to more suggestions to promote the employment of people with physical and mental disabilities. The brainstorming session was divided into two phases [26].

Firstly, workshop sessions were held in which the organisers invited a total of 74 participants from 40 civil society organisations and institutions from all over Taiwan and the Sanxia region to participate. They were introduced to the basic objectives, meaning and process of participatory budgeting and were encouraged to come up with feasible solutions to improve the employment of people with physical and mental disabilities. The significance of inviting corporate bodies to participate is as follows [27].

· They are also in a better position to implement proposals and can contribute to the success of the project.

· By inviting corporate bodies to participate, they can remove some of the prejudices against people with disabilities and put themselves in the shoes of people with disabilities [28].

The next stage was the town hall meetings. 16 organisations and 200 people with physical and mental disabilities and their companions were invited to participate in the discussions. The discussion was conducted in small groups, allowing the organisations to understand the current problems and demands of people with physical and mental disabilities in a three-hour period [29].

The three town hall meetings were held in three different locations and a number of measures were taken to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities. What’s more, table leaders, who have been trained to deliberate, are responsible for managing the topics and directions of the discussions, so as to avoid deviating from the topics and wasting limited time [30].

2. making proposals

The formal presentation phase of the programme was held a month after the end of the town hall meetings, with five group proposals. Proposal review sessions were held at this stage. Prior to the proposal review session, proposers practical proposals that be implemented, taking into account legality and feasibility. At the proposal review meeting, the programme facilitator on the specific design and implementation of the programme [31].

For proposals, the facilitator only the eligibility of the proposing group, including

· whether the proposing group participated in the previous brainstorming phase.

· whether the proposal is relevant to the issue of employment for people with physical and mental disabilities

· whether the implementation in the Sanxia region, and to make suggestions on the content of the proposal but not to force changes to the proposal. Maximum assurance that proposals will not be interfered with by other interest groups [32].

3. Voting

The third stage was the voting stage. To ensure the fairness and validity of the ballot, the organisers prepared a wealth of information about the programme to ensure that everyone who voted was fully informed about all the items before casting their vote. This included mailing leaflets and election bulletins to the homes of people with disabilities, and recording the content of the programme on audio for people with poor eyesight [33].

There were multiple ways to vote: 1) Online; 2) Offline. For the Offline voting, the organisers held a 10-day exhibition of the proposals at the Sanxia Library and during which participants could vote for their preferred proposal. 3) Via mail. The organisers would also send ballots to the homes of people with disabilities [34].

413 people voted and two proposals were selected, receiving NTD 2 million each for implementation [35].

4. execution and monitoring

After the selected programme was selected, the Physical Disability Counselling Section of the New Taipei City Labour Bureau was responsible for the subsequent monitoring of the programme implementation. It continuously monitored the programme arrangements and plans of the Incorporated Organisation, actively communicated with the contractor and checked whether the project is being implemented [36].

The government also appointed experts to conduct visits and inspections to provide professional advice on implementation. In addition, the Sanxia Old Street Neighbourhood Management Committee helped to provide a venue for the physically and mentally challenged trainees to have the opportunity to showcase their training achievements [37].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

As one of the first participatory budgeting project focusing on people with physical and mental disabilities, the trial project played a pioneering and exemplary role, raising 4 million Taiwan dollars in project funds to be fully utilised [38]. It gave people with physical and mental disabilities a sense of empowerment and a strong desire to get involved.

Over the course of the project, more than 1,000 people participated, reaching nearly half of the number of people with disabilities in the area. The proportion of participants with mild and moderate injuries exceeded 35%, which was the largest proportion of participants [39]. The number of male voters is more than that of women and more unemployed than employed. What’s more, the participation of people with disabilities was uneven, the more severe the impairment of people with existing physical and mental disabilities, the less likely they were to participate in the discussion. Organisers intending to organise similar projects should think about how to better cater for this particular group of people with disabilities, and how to get more people to participate to get a more even distribution of voters.

The project's influences, outcomes, and effects will be analysed at three levels: 1) governmental level 2) individual level 3) social dimension.

1. Government level

This participatory budgeting has given government stakeholders in Taipei a better understanding of the classification of people with physical and mental disabilities. At the beginning of the project, the initiators only focused on people with physical disabilities; it was during the process that they became aware of the employment needs of the other three types of disabilities: mentally disabled, visually disabled and mentally disabled [40], and gave new consideration to what kind of jobs are suitable for each of the different types of them.

The project made the government realise how difficult it was for this particular group of people to participate in society. After the project, various committees in government bureau (Labour, Social Affairs, Education, etc.) created special seats for representatives of the physically and mentally disabled group. The Department of Labour, in particular, has set up more than one committee representing physically and mentally handicapped groups, trying to ensure that the voices and needs of special groups can be received in a timely manner, which is more conducive to the improvement of the daily lives of people with disabilities. For example, the Sanxia area became the most accessible area in the whole of Taiwan province for the replacement of disability cards after this campaign, and the Ministry of Transport introduced accessible buses [41].

2. Individual level

(1) Participants: In 2018, the ROC Alliance for the Physically and Mentally Handicapped conducted interviews with the physically and mentally handicapped participants to look back on this participatory budget from the perspective of the people with disabilities. It can be found that based on the adequate funding and attention, the participants' initial entry into the workplace and their business ventures went well. However, due to the lack of follow-up support from the government, very few are still benefiting from it after several years [42].

(2) Non-participants: Not only did the project raise public awareness of the employment situation of people with disabilities, but it also raised the trust of the public in the government. At the beginning of the project, there were many people who questioned the project and thought that the government would not listen to the public seriously [43]. However, as the project progressed, more and more participants were willing to express their true views. The satisfactory results of the project made it clear to the general public that their participation was making a positive difference to democratic institutions, giving the public more confidence to participate in supporting the new democratic process and further expanding the possibilities for political innovation.

3. Social dimension

(1) Civil society: the project encouraged NGOs to provide vocational training and encouraged young people to participate in social organisations, mobilising residents to consider democracy and further energising communities.

(2) Institutions (corporate bodies): Facilitate multifaceted cooperation between government, social groups and corporate organisations. Through cooperation, we can further understand The current employment situation and the problems faced by people with disabilities are better understood through cooperation, and it is more conducive to providing a good employment environment for people with physical and mental disabilities on all fronts.

Although this participatory budgeting project is targeted at a specific group of people, the overall implementation process is similar to other projects, and as the first project of its kind in the world, it is a worthwhile and easily transferable experience.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The Sanxia project is one of the first PB project to focus on the employment of people with disabilities, but there are still many shortcomings. In order to fully assess the strengths and limitations of the project, we used the analytical framework developed by Smith [44], who argued that this could be done by analysing the 'democratic goods' at different stages, looking at six key democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. Based on the above criteria, we can evaluate this project in terms of academic aspects.

Inclusiveness

Talking about inclusiveness, the organisers promoted the active participation of people with disabilities through various means such as accessible and supportive activities [45]. In terms of data, the participation rate of the participatory budget for employment of persons with disabilities in the Sanxia was all above expectations. The attendance rate for this event was 14.16% [46], which was substantially more than anticipated. However, through interviews with people with disabilities who had participated in this participatory budget in 2018, we learnt that although the organisers promoted the event through various channels such as social media and physically and mentally challenged groups [47], some of the citizens who took part in the voting were unaware of the previous forums, and of the profound exchanges between the disabled people and the proposing groups [48]. In addition, some people with physical and mental disabilities received invitations but were unable to be accompanied by their companions, making it difficult for them to participate, especially those with severe disabilities [49]. In the town hall sessions, the questionnaire revealed that the participation rate of participants decreased as the level of impairment increased. More than 35% of participants had mild and moderate impairments and participants had severe impairments or more seldom participated [50]. In order to further increase participation, we recommend that:

1. Effectively promote the public participation process. Despite the abundance of promotional activities, government written notices are the main source of information on activities for people with disabilities [51]. Therefore, there is a need to increase the promotion of other channels and to effectively monitor the implementation of the publicity programme.

2. Additional resources are needed to target those who are difficult to reach [52]. For example, for people with severe disabilities and above, organizers need to increase the time and staff costs. Providing them with door-to-door publicity that ensuring information can be received accurately and encouraging them to express their own opinions.

With regard to the level of participation, nearly 100 people with mental and physical disabilities spoke to the corporate bodies about their current problems and participated actively in the activities [53]. However, interviews with the city council revealed that some people with mental disabilities were less able to participate and were unable to follow the topics or to understand the discussions [54]. Moreover, most people with disabilities have low self-esteem due to the prejudice and indifference they have suffered for a long time, and are afraid to speak up in meetings. Therefore, the government can adopt an open space approach combined with deliberation by first explaining the topic in an easy-to-understand manner and providing advice on the topic, so that people with disabilities can have a basic understanding before the formal discussion is held.

Popular control

(1) Organisers

The organisers were the initiators of this PB and were involved throughout the project, taking on a major role in the evaluation and implementation of the programme. The Ministry of Labour initiated this PB in the hope that it would better address the issue of employment for people with disabilities, as the top-down Disability Act was ineffective [55]. The organisers planned to involve organisations and people including disabled people's organisations, civil society organisations and corporate businesses. After the proposals were presented, they were evaluated, and after the feasibility of the proposals was confirmed, they were then put to a vote by the disabled participants. The proposals selected by the vote were finally implemented with the support of 2 million Taiwan dollars. This shows that the Ministry of Labour had taken a major responsibility in this PB and that thoughtful consideration in every process had ensured the smooth and successful implementation of the project.

(2) People with disabilities

In this PB, people with disabilities took on the role of problem-setter and decision-maker. In the first session, people with disabilities took part in three town hall meetings, where they identified their difficulties in finding work in small groups and took part in a questionnaire to explain in detail their current difficulties [56], so that organisers and business groups could clearly understand their needs and propose possible solutions to their problems. In the final session, people with disabilities took part in a 10-day voting process, which resulted in two of the five proposals being voted on for implementation [57]. It is clear that people with disabilities are the target group that this PB is intended to help and that they are very involved.

(3) CSOs

The CSOs were less involved in this case and were mainly involved in the pre-case brainstorming process [58], making suggestions on the dilemmas faced by people with disabilities and the content of the programme. Their overall impact on the process and outcome of the PB was relatively small.

Considered judgement

Only a portion of the opinions of the participants in the participatory budgeting process for the Sanxia Disability Employment Promotion Programme could be expressed. It is admirable that the proposal group's programme mostly reflected the ideas of the members following the brainstorming session. Through brainstorming, the team was able to better understand the needs of the participants, develop the team's empathy, and create a solution that incorporated their suggestions. People with disabilities, for instance, complained that they were unable to adjust to the demands of the workplace due to their conditions; as a result, the group offered a pre-employment training programme to improve their employability.

The project did not, however, properly represent the opinions of those with disabilities living in Sanxia during the voting phase.Many of the participants in the voting session, according to their memories, did not fully comprehend the ideas they were voting on before they cast their ballots.Voting was not just a reflection of what the participants believed; the sponsor groups' ongoing advocacy of their proposals played an important role in the participants' decision-making process [59]. Therefore, while there is certainly potential for improvement, the Sanxia Disability Employment Promotion Programme generally expresses the views of those with impairments. To improve, people can learn more about the project through open discussion sessions and make the best decisions possible.

Transparency

Ye Xinyi and Lin YouSheng believe that this initiative has marginally succeeded in terms of transparency. Internally, firstly, an executive committee was established. An executive committee was set up to guide and oversee the pilot scheme's relevant programmes in the spirit of participatory budgeting, ensuring that multiple positions and opinions are secured and taken into account throughout the process. Secondly, an employment forum briefing session. In order to inform business organisations of the process and the core spirit of participatory budgeting, employment forums and briefing sessions was held for those business organisations that may wish to submit a programme. Externally, in the early stages of preparation and communication, briefings were organized for the pilot project, and "Action Forum" were held to provide a platform for dialogue for any person or group wishing to learn more about the participatory budgeting and project process [60]. The overall planning of the project, the flow and arrangement of the series of activities, the discussions of the Executive Committee, the minutes of the town hall meetings, the content of the proposals, etc. were all published on the accessibility website, ensuring that the selected projects were followed up several times during the implementation process to ensure the quality of the project [61]. 

However, the significance of increased transparency lies in the fact that participants are fully involved in the project process and able to give feedback in the subsequent practice phase [62]. There is room for improvement in the project in order to ensure that the outputs of the budget match the inputs of the population. This is because, although academics and experts are regularly invited as consultants to review the implementation and progress and to comment on the implementation of the selected programmes, and the results are continuously published via the internet, the feedback from public opinion is not further made public. As a result, it is difficult to understand the views and opinions of local people with disabilities on the implementation of the selected scheme.

In order to improve the transparency of the whole project, we suggest that the following aspects need to be improved: local governments can hold public meetings and seminars for people with disabilities, and send commissioners to the grassroots to provide advisory services to people with intellectual disabilities, so as to further enhance the public's clear understanding of the project. Establish an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure that the target group is fully involved in every stage of the project, and that at each stage, a specialist is responsible for documenting and following up the detailed process. Particular attention should be paid to whether the implementation of the project is consistent with what was envisaged at the time of the vote and what adjustments need to be made to better meet the needs.

Efficiency

The project was not particularly efficient. First of all, the government and institutions have spent a lot of money and resources to support disabled people to start their own businesses, but the projects proposed, such as making handmade soap and opening a café [63], have not turned out to be very fruitful. This is due to the lack of follow-up financial support and the fact that these types of projects are not competitive in the marketplace for people with disabilities. Secondly, during the voting process for the selection of projects, many representatives received a large number of votes based on publicity and received government funding, but ultimately did not fully implement the project, resulting in unsatisfactory results.

To improve the efficiency of the project, long-term inputs and outputs should be more integrated. Democratic participation programs should focus on long-term investments rather than lump sum payments. It is recommended that the government hold open forums for people with disabilities every year to maintain their motivation, promote political participation of people with disabilities, and enhance their trust in the government.

Transferability

The ability to replicate the PB project is determined by the government's concern for disadvantaged groups and the team's ability to implement it. Firstly, the New Taipei City Government focused on the physically and mentally challenged groups, saw their difficulties in employment issues and tried to find suitable solutions through participatory budgeting. The Labor Bureau commissioned Taipei University to carry out a participatory budgeting project on employment promotion programmes for the physically and mentally challenged in the Sanxia [64]. With the strong support of various government departments, the project was able to stay focused on the needs of people with physical and mental disabilities. In the process of democratic practice, a high level of government attention to a particular group can improve the precision of decision-making and the efficiency of implementation.

From another aspect, PB projects had paradigms to learn from, both internationally and practical examples, and macro-procedures could generally meet expectations [65]. However, projects for disadvantaged groups were more difficult and require specialization. As in the case of the multiple forums, the project team wanted to provide participants with an accessible experience, considering that most people with physical and mental disabilities are slow to receive information and have difficulty travelling [66]. This placed a higher demand on the ability to execute and collaborate efficiently in each session. In addition to this, the funding for this project points out that it is only four million NTD and does not require a high financial outlay [67]. So, the cost is reduced in terms of transferability.

Overall, the participatory budgeting project for people with physical and mental disabilities in Sanxia region was a successful attempt. Despite his shortcomings in implementation and design, it has facilitated the PB project in Taiwan Province and provided valuable experience for other projects. It has also contributed to the transformation of democratic governance in Taiwan by formally introducing participatory budgeting for Taiwan. Finally, it fills a long-standing gap in PB projects in the field of disability employment by being the first PB project to focus on this area.

References

[1]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[2]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[3]  Williams, E., St Denny, E. & Bristow, D. 2017. Participatory budgeting: An evidence review. Public Policy Institute for Wales: p.8.

[4]  Park, A., Bryson, C., & Curtis, J. (Eds.). (2014). British Social Attitudes 31. London: NatCen: p.14.

[5]  Haas, M. L. and D. W. Lesch (2013). The Arab spring: change and resistance in the Middle East, Westview Press.

[6]  Wan, P. Y.-z. (2020). "Outsourcing participatory democracy: Critical reflections on the participatory budgeting experiences in Taiwan." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 14(1).

[7]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[8]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[9]  盧孟宗,& 葉欣怡 (2020). "審議民主及其不滿: 以參與式預算先驅計畫的質疑或." Taiwanese Sociology(40): 111-142.

[10]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[11]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[12]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[13]  林宏勳 (2015). "身障就業參與式預算說明會." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.pb.ntpc.gov.tw/latest-news/events/327-%E8%BA%AB%E9%9A%9C%E5%B0%B1%E6%A5%AD%E5%8F%83%E8%88%87%E5%BC%8F%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E6%9C%83.html.

[14]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[15]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161:189.

[16]  Democratic Society (2016) Digital tools and Scotland’s Participatory Budgeting programme - A report by the Democratic Society for the Scottish Government February 2016. The Democratic Society, Edinburgh. Retrieved from http://www.demsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DS-Digital-Tools-paper.pdf

[17]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161:189.

[18]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 81.

[19]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161:191.

[20]  Cabannes, Y., & Delgado, C. (2015). Participatory budgeting. Environment and Urbanization, 27-46.

[21]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 78.

[22]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[23]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 80.

[24]  林宏勳 (2016). "三峽身障就業參與式預算巷仔口論壇最終場結束 歡迎創意提案." 2022, from https://www.pb.ntpc.gov.tw/latest-news/events/324.

[25]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[26]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[27]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[28]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[29]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197

[30]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[31]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[32]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf.

[33]  林宏勳 (2015). "身障就業參與式預算說明會." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.pb.ntpc.gov.tw/latest-news/events/327-%E8%BA%AB%E9%9A%9C%E5%B0%B1%E6%A5%AD%E5%8F%83%E8%88%87%E5%BC%8F%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E6%9C%83.html.

[34]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[35]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[36]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 69-95.

[37]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[38]  林祐聖,& 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197.

[39]  葉欣怡,& 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 81.

[40]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf. p.31.

[41]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf. p.32.

[42]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf. p.76-84.

[43]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟 (2018). "身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf. p.92.

[44]  Smith, G. (2009) Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (Theories of institutional design). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609848.

[45]  林宏勳 (2015). "身障就業參與式預算說明會." Retrieved 12th December, 2022, from https://www.pb.ntpc.gov.tw/latest-news/events/327-%E8%BA%AB%E9%9A%9C%E5%B0%B1%E6%A5%AD%E5%8F%83%E8%88%87%E5%BC%8F%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E6%9C%83.html.

[46] 葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[47]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[48]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[49]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[50]  林祐聖, & 葉欣怡.(2018). 弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例. 社區發展季刊, 161, 187-197.

[51]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[52]  Williams, E., St Denny, E., & Bristow, D. (2019). Participatory budgeting: An evidence review. n/a.

[53]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[54]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[55]  葉欣怡 and 林祐聖 (2017). "參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例." 民主與治理 4(1): 76.

[56]  葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[57]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022]. p.13.

[58]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[59]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[60]  葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[61]  葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[62]  葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[63]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[64]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].

[65]  葉欣怡, & 林祐聖. (2017). 參與式預算的臺灣實踐經驗: 以三峽區的身心障礙者就業促進方案試辦計畫為例. 民主與治理, 4(1), 69-95.

[66]  林祐聖 and 葉欣怡（2018）."弱勢者在公民參與中的美麗與哀愁：以三峽身心障礙者就業促進參與式預算試辦計畫為例." 社區發展季刊 161: 187-197

[67]  中華民國身心障礙聯盟. 2018. 身心障礙者公民意識調查-以新北市三峽地區為例 [Online]. 中華民國身心障礙聯盟. Available: https://www.enable.org.tw/uploads/icon/report/20190104.pdf [Accessed 12th December 2022].