The following case follows the implementation and process of Participatory Budgeting in Lousa, Portugal. It also identifies why it was needed and whether it was successful or not.
Note: the following entry is missing citations. Please help us verify its content.
Problems and Purpose
Participatory Budgeting (PB hereafter) is the process in which the public, and people in positions of power, can work together to decide how to spend a public budget effectively. This is a successful and innovative idea as it allows the people to be directly involved and make a difference in their community and country, and consequently improve their quality of life. It also encourages groups such as low-income citizens and younger generations to become more involved as well. There are three main reasons why PB would be chosen to be implemented. Firstly, it can help address concrete issues (such as proposing ways to share decision-making on resource allocation between those who are elected and inhabitants). Secondly, the majority of roughly 2,700 PBs today experienced go further than the ‘stakeholder’ approach. Finally, throughout the last 24 years there have been a variety of models used and implemented, which shows the varying motivations and objectives, which were in line with the specific tools and local government cultures in the specific local context.
Background History and Context
Lousã is a municipality in the district of Coimbra, which is in central Portugal, with the most recent record of its population at 17,604. The municipality boasts natural resources which has assisted the towns economic growth in previous centuries. This is in addition to various secondary activities, such as the pulp and paper industry, electronics and manufacturing olive oil, wine and liqueur’s and tourism, which have also boosted their economy. Portugal became one of the first countries in the world that introduced Participatory Budgeting at a national level, following the years of experience gained from using PB on the local level. There are 8 groups of proposals of Participatory Budget Project (PBP) that work within the territory scope: 1 nationwide; 1 for every mainland region of Portugal; 1 for the 2 Autonomous Regions (Azores and Madeira). These groups can work together because they do not end up competing with each other as they each have their own and equal financial allocation. Additionally, Portugal was one of the EU countries affected by the financial crisis of 2007/8. Therefore, following this in 2008, Participatory Budgeting was introduced in Portugal, along with various other initiatives, in an attempt to increase citizen participation. Currently, Portugal boasts 118 participatory budgets at the local level, and over the past decade the government has invested €91 million in this process (OECD, 2018). They implemented this following the Brazilian Participatory Budgeting experiences, where the primary test of Participatory Budgeting happened in Lisbon. With the success of this other municipalities, such as Lousa, then followed. PB was introduced in Lousa for continued annual cycles beginning in April of 2015. Previous evidence shows that if Participatory Budgeting in implemented properly it can lead to an increase in citizen engagement, intergenerational understanding and in perceptions of public service providers.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
Following the success of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil, it was then first introduced to Portugal by the Lisbon municipal council in 2008. It was then taken up by numerous more municipalities around Portugal, including Lousa, in the hopes of improving communities. Yet, what the local councils can achieve with PB is limited by the percentage of National Budget which is available and transferred to them, which for Lousa is $70,000. Their abilities are limited to a few tasks of administrative decentralisation and how to manage various electoral processes. It is the Municipal Executive who chooses the proposal that he thinks is best, which is then executed using the $70,000. Furthermore, in Lousa, those who are responsible for choosing which proposals are successful are elected municipal officials. For these local councils, it is either a citizen or a President who has been voted who runs the executive body. There are separate but co-existing elections that exist in local councils such as Lousa. For the Municipal Assemblies, only some of their members are elected directly, and they must outnumber the presidents who have been elected for the Local Council. Participant Recruitment and Selection
PB in Lousa is aimed towards contributing towards citizens, namely the residents and workers in Lousa, being more informed and active in the various governance processes at the local level. Any citizen over the age of 16 (meaning residents, workers and students) in the municipality of Lousa is able to participate in PB. It could be argued that citizens may have chosen to participate in PB as it would allow them to address issues faced by the municipality, discussing and gaining solutions from elected officials and residents.
Lousa introduced a new initiative that would encourage the participation of younger citizens, known as the Youth Participatory Budget, which was to raise awareness of aspects of the Municipal Advisory Council for Youth and Sports (CCMJD) and the School Teachers that had young citizens. Many ideas were presented and discussed, such as the idea for a ‘Skate Park’, which was put forward by the Project Youth Employment Centre and the Viva la Lousa High School Association, which also had the full support of the Student Association. The City Council approved Participatory Budget Rules in 2013, where multiple briefings were moved forward in different parts of the county in order to gather ideas. These were attended by hundreds of young people and approximately 31 project ideas were collected. This shows that the City Council in Lousa actively worked towards attempting to further increase participation by younger citizens of Lousa, to help them directly impact and improve their future. Politically, prior to the introduction of PB, Portugal had seen a separation of similarities and participation between citizens and politicians. The Presidential election in 2011 saw only 4,431,849 of 9,543,550 registered voters actually vote (same as one before), meaning that roughly 53% of registered citizens did not vote. This can prove that citizens in Portugal were unhappy with the centralised system of government, which would show why the introduction of PB was so important.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
PB in Lousa is aimed towards contributing towards citizens, namely the residents and workers in Lousa, being more informed and active in the various governance processes at the local level. Any citizen over the age of 16 (meaning residents, workers and students) in the municipality of Lousa is able to participate in PB. It could be argued that citizens may have chosen to participate in PB as it would allow them to address issues faced by the municipality, discussing and gaining solutions from elected officials and residents.
Lousa introduced a new initiative that would encourage the participation of younger citizens, known as the Youth Participatory Budget, which was to raise awareness of aspects of the Municipal Advisory Council for Youth and Sports (CCMJD) and the School Teachers that had young citizens. Many ideas were presented and discussed, such as the idea for a ‘Skate Park’, which was put forward by the Project Youth Employment Centre and the Viva la Lousa High School Association, which also had the full support of the Student Association. The City Council approved Participatory Budget Rules in 2013, where multiple briefings were moved forward in different parts of the county in order to gather ideas. These were attended by hundreds of young people and approximately 31 project ideas were collected. This shows that the City Council in Lousa actively worked towards attempting to further increase participation by younger citizens of Lousa, to help them directly impact and improve their future. Politically, prior to the introduction of PB, Portugal had seen a separation of similarities and participation between citizens and politicians. The Presidential election in 2011 saw only 4,431,849 of 9,543,550 registered voters actually vote (same as one before), meaning that roughly 53% of registered citizens did not vote. This can prove that citizens in Portugal were unhappy with the centralised system of government, which would show why the introduction of PB was so important. Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction
The participation of people was ensured through required face-to-face voting, where each person had to show ID (identification document or a citizen’s card). The participation process here includes the six participation sessions held in the following six weeks of its starting date. These sessions are meant to allow any citizen to present ideas, or an idea, in the form of constructive debate, which will reveal their proposal for Lousa. It is then down to the chosen technical team to evaluate and decide the pros and cons and whether or not they will be able to successfully implement this in Lousa, both in terms of funding and whether or not it would truly benefit the municipality. Yet, it could also be argued that, in terms of public interaction, whilst anyone over the age of 16 is able to participate, there is a pre-existing bias that those with less money are still less likely to involve themselves in this process ‘Through complete opened has an obvious appeal, those who choose to participate are frequently quite unrepresentative of any larger public. Individuals who are wealthier and better educated tend to participate more than those who lack these advantages, as do those who had special interests or stronger views.’ (Fung, 2006). This, therefore, means that it is unlikely that those who participate in the process of PB in Lousa cannot be fully representative of the wants and needs of everyone, so there is a natural and pre-existing problem with the participation aspect of PB. A further reason which would encourage people to get involved is the aspect of being able to help dictate what the budget is spent on.
Methods and Tools Used
Today, Participatory Budgeting can be considered more as a ‘device’ used in urban regions.
There are multiple ways and methods in which you can use to involve citizens. To understand this, we have to identify between two different categories, those being deliberative (which is the aspect which encourages discussion and debate) and aggregative (which is the approach that is based on the participants votes). The first process is argued by many as a vital part of PB, yet with modern advances in technology there are more ways in which people can get involved with their community, by making it easier to participate it is further encouraging them. However, there is no recorded evidence of this method of Participatory Budgeting being used in Lousa, which remains using more traditional methods (Williams, E and St. Denny, E and Bristow, D, 2017). Furthermore, in order to effectively measure the success PB has on a local government is to collect baseline data which allows the measurement of improvements for the objectives that were set.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The participation of people was ensured through required face-to-face voting, where each person had to show ID (identification document or a citizen’s card). The participation process here includes the six participation sessions held in the following six weeks of its starting date. These sessions are meant to allow any citizen to present ideas, or an idea, in the form of constructive debate, which will reveal their proposal for Lousa. It is then down to the chosen technical team to evaluate and decide the pros and cons and whether or not they will be able to successfully implement this in Lousa, both in terms of funding and whether or not it would truly benefit the municipality. Yet, it could also be argued that, in terms of public interaction, whilst anyone over the age of 16 is able to participate, there is a pre-existing bias that those with less money are still less likely to involve themselves in this process ‘Through complete opened has an obvious appeal, those who choose to participate are frequently quite unrepresentative of any larger public. Individuals who are wealthier and better educated tend to participate more than those who lack these advantages, as do those who had special interests or stronger views.’ (Fung, 2006). This, therefore, means that it is unlikely that those who participate in the process of PB in Lousa cannot be fully representative of the wants and needs of everyone, so there is a natural and pre-existing problem with the participation aspect of PB. A further reason which would encourage people to get involved is the aspect of being able to help dictate what the budget is spent on.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
For PB to be truly successful, it is highly important that citizens in a municipality are able to identify the changes that are being made due to their contribution in PB. Without obvious achievements as a result of decisions implemented by PB, it loses its advantage point, and citizens will soon come to think that their involvement at this local level is still not having an impact on their lives or how their local government is run. Also, in Lousa the range and success of outcomes are limited before the process of PB even really begins. This is because in comparison to much larger municipalities, such as Porto Alegre, the budget allocated by the government is much smaller.
The PB model used in Lousa was influenced by that used in Cascais. Much like Lousa, Cascais faced an electoral abstention rate that was well over 60%, meaning the introduction of PB was essential (URBACT, 2018). As PB was successfully introduced, it began to stand out for its representativeness, and had a strong impact on the region, by increasing the voter rate and enhancing the investment of its people. This successful model of PB became the inspiration for the model behind PB in other municipalities across Portugal, like Lousa, who aimed to recreate what Cascais had done.
Analysis and Lesson Learned
Participatory budgeting in Lousa has allowed the municipality to increase participation, by allowing the already small population to use this process to become invested in small scale projects, which aim to enhance aspects of their lives. Furthermore, PB meant that the small scale, and previously traditional, system of governance received a change that allowed it to become more modern, and therefore also more effective.
Yet, there are inherent drawbacks to the model of PB used in Lousa, and with PB in general. The most obvious of these considers the range and type of people who actually participate, and the scope of participation itself. Those most likely to participate and contribute ideas for PB would be those who were previously involved politically anyway, meaning that PB did not fully succeed in encouraging everyone to participate and have a say in the future changes in Lousa. This therefore implies that decisions made are not reflective of the wants of the majority population of Lousa, but rather the politically (and in most cases also financial) elite, and that this could mean that this minority are in a position to hijack the process.
However, this is a flaw of PB in general too, along with the criticisms that PB does not consider the long-term effects of any decisions made, but rather focuses on the immediate gains. Furthermore, PB requires a lot of support from the government, which can put a strain on relationships between the government and its population, especially if the expectations of the people are not met. Yet, considering the small-scale requirements needed for Lousa, PB has improved some aspects of governance and everyday life, such as enhancing the sense of community.
See Also
Participatory Budgeting
References
IOPD (2015). Youth Participatory Budgeting. [online]. Available at: https://oidp.net/en/experience.php?id=838 [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Les classiques des sciences sociales (2018). Participatory democracies: a slow march toward new paradigms from Brazil to Europe. [online]. Available at: http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/allegretti_giovanni/participatory_democracies/participatory_democracies_text.html [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Williams, E and St. Denny, E and Bristow, D. (2017). Participatory Budgeting: An Evidence Review. Available at: https://www.oidp.net/docs/repo/doc215.pdf [Accessed 7 December 2018].
IODP (2015). Open and participatory council of the City of Cordoba. [online]. Available at:
https://oidp.net/en/experience.php?id=1139 [Accessed 7 December 2018].
apolitical (2016). Portugal has announced the world’s first nationwide participatory budget. [online]. (Last updated October 27 2016). Available at: https://apolitical.co/solution_article/portugal-world-first-participatory-budget/ [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Participedia (2017). Participatory Budgeting in Lisbon, Portugal. [online]. (Last updated 24 August 2018). Available at: https://participedia.net/en/cases/ten-years-lisbon-participatory-budgeting-portugal [Accessed 7 December 2018].
The Crick Centre (2014). Participatory Budgets in Portugal – A New Route to Public Engagement? [online] (Last updated 12 November 2014). Available at: http://www.crickcentre.org/blog/participatory-budgets-portugal-new-route-public-engagement/ [Accessed 7 December 2018].
International Observatory on Participatory Democracy (2016). X Distinction for best practices in citizens’ participation. [online]. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O1Ey_OMskl-yJA_liWbcTyFj6y2nKaGu/view [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Dias, N. (2018). Hope for Democracy: 30 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/37168636/The_National_Participatory_Budget_in_Portugal_Opportunities_and_Challenges_for_Scaling_up_Citizen_Participation_in_Policymaking_in_Nelson_Dias_org._Hope_for_Democracy_30_years_of_Participatory_Budgeting_Worldwide_447-466_Faro_Portugal_Oficina [Accessed 7 December 2018].
URBACT (2018). Bridging the gap: A model for cities to strengthen citizen participation and promote participatory democracy. [online]. Available at: http://urbact.eu/bridging-gap [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Tadamun (2013). Benefits and Limitations of Participatory Budgeting. [online]. (Last updated 23 June 2013). Available at: http://www.tadamun.co/2013/06/23/benefits-and-limitations-of-participatory-budgeting/?lang=en#.XApvja2cY_U [Accessed 7 December 2018].
OECD Forum (2018). Participatory democracy: Portugal’s new frontier. [online]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/participatory-democracy-portugal-new-frontier.htm [Accessed 7 December 2018].