After a change in Scotland's political dynamic after the 2014 Referendum, PB schemes were introduced to promote national identity and political sovereignty, which resulted in the introduction of 4 PB schemes in Glasgow, one tackling child poverty levels in the Calton district.
Problems and Purpose
These participatory budgeting processes were set up with an acute focus on addressing inequalities in Glasgow and encouraging participation from vulnerable social groupings frequently excluded from political processes. These pilot areas were chosen with the clear objective of addressing inequalities through the PB process. [2] In Calton, the primary aim was to address child poverty and child obesity levels. 41% of children in these areas live below the national poverty line, 5% higher than the Glasgow average. [3] In the Pollokshield ward, the primary aim was how PB could address racial inequalities and ensure better access to resources for Black and Minority ethnic groups (BME). The aim was to promote accessible, inclusive PB for everyone. [4].
Background History and Context
Following the 2014 Independence Referendum and 2016 Brexit vote (which Scotland opposed by 62% to 38%), there was a greater desire in Scotland for political sovereignty, partially to fulfill an ever-increasing national identity.[6] Thus, the Scottish government set out an unprecedented level of political and legislative support for community empowerment and the implementation of local democratic processes. [7]
PB was therefore brought in to create inclusive, democratic opportunities and spaces for all citizens to exercise their voting right, and have a well-informed say in national matters.
Calton
Calton has high rates of lone parent households (51%) and 41% of children in these areas live below the poverty line. [8] The well-evidenced connection between poverty and child obesity has also led to almost 1/10 children in these areas being obese, a figure 38% higher than the rest of Glasgow. [8] Essentially, PB schemes were brought in to tackle persistent inequalities in health and education, which are disproportionately higher than the rest of Glasgow.
Pollokshields
Pollokshields is a culturally diverse area in Glasgow. Of its 30,000 people, ⅓ identify as BME. Pollokshields East has a child poverty level 5% higher than the Glasgow average, and a 54% proportion of overcrowded houses. [9] These inequalities indiscriminately affected Pollokshields BME community. Thus, this initiative was primarily aimed at tackling racial inequality.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
Glasgow’s PB pilot schemes were commissioned and sponsored by the Scottish government and the Glasgow City Council (GCC). [10] [11] These initiative leaders demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting inclusive, accessible PB within disadvantaged communities. These leaders led the transition towards the target of 1% of 2021 council budgets being allocated by PB. [12] GCC’s task included providing the initiatives’ engagement and participation of typically excluded vulnerable groupings, and overseeing the pilot’s strategic oversight and direction.
GCC worked with a range of regional and national charities, which brought invaluable experience and expertise to the initiative. The Young Mover’s (YoMo) charity is a youth-led charity commissioned to support youth empowerment in PB through a range of services across Glasgow, such as active citizenship, lifelong learning and volunteering. [13] [14] PB leads were chosen on the basis of which organisations were most suited to that specific initiative. For instance, YoMo had significant experience operating on social media, which was the primary mode of scheme awareness raising. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was commissioned to lead the development of addressing ‘childhood poverty’ in Calton, viewing the initiative as a prime challenge. [15] CPAG undertook lobbying and generated evidence to develop policy recommendations, aiming to eradicate childhood poverty. They developed a brand, ‘Calton W9’, and promotional content to be used on social media. The racial equality charity Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) led the pilot and supported the development of a citizen’s panel (CP) in Pollokshields. [16] CRER led the delivery of PB information sessions across the ward, accompanied by the development of a range of online guidance and support materials for Pollokshield community members to develop PB applications. The Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA) was commissioned to ensure people with disabilities could participate in PB motives. [17] The CP’s for Calton and Pollokshields, made up of local residents, developed targets for the overall vision and criteria of the projects. [18] In general, there was effective, cohesive communication between regional and national vested parties. These parties jointly decided on a digital voting platform as means of furthering the initiatives’ reach and engagement.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
GCC demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting inclusive and accessible PB. As these initiatives were underpinned with a clear focus on addressing inequalities (child poverty and racial inequality,) there was an emphasis on recruiting underprivileged groups, typically marginalised from political processes. In this respect, the initiative was by no means exclusive, but was targeted at recruiting people from a particular economic background. These participants were selected so that the residents of the PB schemes played a direct role in decision-making, and so the participating bodies were representative of the initiative objectives. In both initiatives, the primary mode of communication from organisers to potential participants was social media.
Pollokshields:
The CRER were selected due to their relevant expertise, and Pollokshields being a highly diverse area. CRER were responsible for leading the pilot, and supporting the CP development. The process of community engagement and awareness-raising started in summer 2019. They aimed to promote inclusive, accessible PB. A number of PB information sessions were delivered across the ward to inform people about the project and how they could contribute to its success. Provisions were made for BME communities who required additional support. [19] CRER orchestrated the formation of a CP comprising 15 residents from across the ward. In order to gather views among the wider community, the CP developed a community survey based on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Measurement Framework.
Calton
CPAG had experience in eradicating child poverty, thus it seemed logical for them to be commissioned as Calton lead. CPAG developed the ‘Calton W9’ brand and online promotional content to be used for social media platforms. It began the process of community engagement and PB awareness raising in summer 2018. This was successful in establishing a 15-member CP, who understood how to engage local people in the project. Community outreach was integral in both initiatives’ promotion strategies. CPAG worked in coalition with ‘Urban Fox’ to promote content to be used on social media platforms. [20] Communication to potential participants was predominately conducted through social media, and local group engagement. This included community-based, face-to-face canvassing with local venues such as the Forge shopping centre. [21] The official report states no stipend or other enticements were offered to participants.
Methods and Tools Used
Participatory Budgeting — PB is a process involving citizens in the decision of how to spend money, driven by the desire to reallocate public money locally and democratically to priority initiatives, as identified by local people. [22]
Citizens' Panel — A CP is a large, demographically representative group of citizens who help assess public preferences and opinions [23].
This initiative adopted a CP approach to PB, where small groups of a community represent the wider community in the planning, development, and implementation of the overall PB process. [24] The structure of Glasgow’s PB differs from regular PB by including a CP. This was done in order to serve the individual, rather than generic needs of each initiative. It also enhanced community engagement, empowerment, and political participation, following a period of Scottish political change. Using this approach meant that deliberative processes were tailored to a local community context and community interests were represented throughout. This panel had a strong emphasis on dialogue and deliberation, which permitted exploration, discovery, and learning. This ultimately resulted in a more informed and considered PB process.
Deliberation was used in both initiatives. Deliberation is when participants discuss issues to find viable solutions. [25] In Calton, there was a period of intense dialogue and deliberation where themes and approaches to support child poverty were discussed. [26] This period allowed panel members to discuss and gain the necessary information to make informed decisions.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Public participation in these schemes occurred predominately through CP’s. A youth CP with ten members developed and led a PB process, with a net spend of approximately £30,000. [32] GDA played a significant role in the CP and disabled people relationship. This was then followed by exploratory meetings and discussions with people in each of the PB schemes to work out how they would like to contribute and what individual support was required to facilitate their involvement. [33] Community members were given ample opportunity to participate either online or in-person. All of the processes were inclusive, and not yielded to encourage a particular recommendation.
First, citizens were informed about what PB is, their role in it, and how it would work in their area. The objective here was to increase awareness for the PB schemes amongst social groupings that previously had little PB exposure. GDA were also commissioned to ensure people with disabilities could participate effectively within their respective PB processes. [26] GDA took a leading role in this development, delivering bespoke PB capacity-building and related programmes for people with disabilities. [27]
Next came Community Engagement, where GDA contributed approximately 1500 hours of specialist support across the initiatives to enable 60 people with disabilities to engage with the PB processes development. This involved a period of intensive engagement phase in each of the ward areas comprising of outreach, PB promotion and information distribution. [28] The objective was to ensure that the voice of disabled participants were fully heard and their views equitably represented.
GDA then delivered bespoke PB capacity-building for people with disabilities in each of the ward areas. This included meetings and personal development, such as collective learning and deliberative dialogue. [30] Capacity building training among CP’s in each ward was delivered alongside PB leads and local partners. GDA facilitated the connection between CP’s and disabled people, ie: local partners and PB leads. Eventually, a CP of people with disabilities was developed and supported by GDA. This panel could participate in the development and implementation moving forward, ensuring the needs and aspirations of people with disabilities were equitably represented. [31]
Public participation varied in the two assessed PB schemes. When assessing them, one must acknowledge the difficulty and uncertainty in assessing community engagement, empowerment, and participation.
Calton:
Pilot lead CPAG began the process of community engagement in summer 2018. CPAG underwent public lobbying, generated evidence, and developed policy recommendations with the overall aim of reducing child poverty. Public engagement was carried out predominately through the ‘Calton W9’ brand development, which developed online content for social media promotion. [34] The overarching method (PB) improved the democratic process, as it promoted inclusive deliberation representative of community views. The public engagement strategy evidently achieved some success, establishing a community-representative 15 member CP. This local community panel was integral in raising the scheme’s profile and awareness among the community through their own personal networks.
An intense period of deliberation and dialogue followed. This deliberation period manifested in a 13-target list that the panel publicised for public applications. As much as possible, all participant opinions were accounted for. The panel also discussed themes and approaches to support those affected by child poverty. The panel received 22 applications, with over 1,200 votes cast by Calton citizens. Half of these votes were cast via an online platform, with the other half being made at a community-voting event. Results were released via social media, but were delayed due to technical issues. In total, 10 projects were funded to help eradicate child poverty.
Pollokshields:
The CRER officer leading the Pollokshields pilot began the process of community awareness-raising and public engagement in early summer of 2019, with a focus on inclusivity. This initiative was focused on promoting racial justice and providing equal opportunities for the BME community. The aim for this ward was to promote inclusive, accessible PB. Information sessions, accompanied by the development of a range of online guidance and support materials were accepted and constituted. As in Calton, members of the public played an integral role in awareness strategies. The Pollokshields CP predominantly engaged with participants using social media and local focus groups. [35]
Secondly, CRER supported the formation of a 15-member CP from across the ward area. CRER also played an integral role in the implementation of a survey, which aimed to gather community views of priority activities such as education, health, justice, and security. [36] This survey was developed on the basis of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The results from this survey were efficient, as they underpinned the panel’s discussion and development of the PB funding application criteria. This was applied primarily online, accompanied by a range of online guidance and support for members to develop applications to become constituted, and voted on by community members, which re-iterates the project's inclusivity. At the time of writing, the PB funding application criteria was ongoing, and thus remains incomplete. The final decision-making consensus will be left to the remaining CP discussions.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Calton:
The primary aim of the Calton initiative was to develop policy recommendations to reduce childhood poverty, a persistent issue in the district. The period of deliberation and intense dialogue amongst the Calton CP resulted in a list of 13 workable targets, each aimed at attracting funding applications that would have an impact on Calton’s child poverty issue. [37] As external stakeholders, the pilot leads CPAG were not tied to any binding ratification process. CPAG had a background in developing successful policy recommendations for child poverty schemes, thus were given relatively free reign in initiatives running. For this reason, it seems likely their recommendations will be implemented, although further ratification would have helped ensure this. The ten projects funded were all aligned with the targets developed, so are well-adjusted to the wards' needs. The finances needed for policy implementation may however prove an impediment to the project’s success.
Impact on Policy
The Calton initiative achieved its intended policy recommendation results. The quality and reach of the PB awareness raising was efficient. The quality of dialogue and deliberation among the CP, and the strategic development of the child poverty targets were also successful. [38] However, Calton’s CP would have liked greater support in developing the PB process, partially a result of the CPAG delegation being extremely stretched. Overall, Calton PB achieved relative success in reducing child poverty, which aligned with the overall project's theory of change of reducing inequalities in deprived areas.
Impact on Community and Individuals
As the project was relatively recent, and individual social capital is a difficult entity to quantify, the analysis here is dependent on the projections of the CGPH report. However, it appears this initiative increased social capital through a public attitudinal change towards political and deliberative processes. This assumption is based on the success of CPAG’s community engagement in the project of alternative social groupings within the Calton community, and the 1,200 votes and 22 applications that were cast. [39] The publication of materials in Chinese and Polish also helped attain an inclusive, cross-racial representation. Collectively, the pilot PB scheme proved a rich source of learning which can inform the continued development and implementation of future PB schemes across Glasgow. [40] However, there have been no similar initiatives in Glasgow since, partially due the initiatives recency, and the economic and social COVID-19 fallout.
Pollokshields:
The primary aim of the Pollokshields initiative was to promote accessible, inclusive PB for everyone and tackle racial inequality. CRER, the pilot lead, supported the implementation of a survey to gather the views of the community on a range of priority actions. This survey served to underpin the panel’s discussion and development of the PB funding application criteria, which is ongoing. [41] The policy recommendations will be representative of the ward community views, and progress towards addressing the overall aim of the national ‘leadership gap’. [42]
Impact on Policy
At the time of the official report publication, no policy recommendations had been published. However, the delay of initiative will likely reduce the effectiveness of these recommendations, and the lack of transparency in the scheme prior to CRER’s involvement. CRER revolutionised the initiative, and re-invigorated community involvement in the scheme. However, the effectiveness is hindered by these early shortcomings.
Impact on the Community and Individuals
This initiative increased social capital in Pollokshields by facilitating high quality dialogue and deliberation from a diverse representation of the ward. However, several participants were disheartened by the initial lack of clarity and progress in Pollokshields, and were not re-engaged until CRER’s involvement in late 2019. Furthermore, the initiative increased PB awareness, and helped establish Glasgow’s PB learning network. [43]
Overall Impact of Democratic Goods
One way to assess the outcomes of Glasgow’s PB scheme is to consider the effects on democratic goods using Graham Smith’s framework. Smith uses the framework of democratic goods of considered judgment, popular control, and inclusion. [44]
Considered Judgment refers to a citizen's capacity to make informed, reflective decisions. In principle, citizens have direct knowledge and understanding of issues under consideration, and are therefore key to problem-solving. Considered judgment was seemingly strong in Calton, with measures taken to ensure CP members were well-informed of all potential decisions following the designated deliberation period. After the CPAG-led period of community engagement, awareness was raised of the ward issues. This allowed eligible voters to gain appropriate information from alternative diverse perspectives. This process gave participants information to allow them to develop considered judgment.
Popular control is more complex to assess. It refers to the extent to which participants influence segments of the decision-making process. Regular citizens were given ample opportunity to apply to the CP. Regular communications were provided for interested individuals regarding joining the Calton CP, and they were allowed to contribute to voting and problem definition. In terms of options analysis, another of Smith’s categories for popular control, there was a period of deliberation and dialogue where CP members were able to express their opinions to create expectations in shaping the policy recommendations. For options selection, the workable list of ’13 targets’ is determined by the Calton CP participant’s views. However, the actual implementation of these targets ultimately lies with GCC, thus there is less popular control.
The leaders of the Calton and Pollokshield PB schemes took measures to ensure inclusiveness, and that the voice and presence of participants was empowered. Additionally, the CP needed to be representative of its community and the project targets. To ensure this, social media and PB community promotion were used to inform citizens about their eligibility to participate. Materials were also published in Chinese and Polish, two common languages in Calton. [45] In Pollokshields, the aim was to promote inclusive, accessible PB, hence CRER was commissioned. [46]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Glasgow’s Centre for Population Health was approached by the GCC in April 2019 to conduct a short-term evaluation of the four PB pilot areas. [47] The majority of information in this section will be based on this evaluation.
Calton
A productive feature in Calton was CPAG’s community engagement and PB awareness strategy. This proved successful in establishing a 15-member panel, which comprised a representative community sample. The panel members themselves further raised the profile and awareness of PB across the ward area through social media and in-person engagement. The outcome of this was the panel receiving 22 applications, and over 1,200 votes being cast by community members. [48] When accounting for the fact this was the first PB scheme in Calton, these figures are positive. This initiative was also successful in empowering CP members to deliberate and decide upon 13 targets that would target child poverty eradication.
A lesson learned was to ensure greater support to CP members. These members reported being pressured by the timescales of the project, and would have liked more support in developing the PB process. [49] Evidently, the pilot leads needed to provide greater assistance to CP members, particularly as the report fails to mention these participants had previous democratic process experience. In future, the organisers need to improve the working relationship between organisers and participants in order to ensure maximum efficiency.
Pollokshields
The Pollokshields PB scheme's most efficient feature was the commissioning and involvement of CRER. Their involvement brought experience and leadership, and has instilled their values in the delivery of PB in diverse communities [50]. It also made the project's scope more adjusted to dealing with racial inequalities. Overall, CRER formulated an inclusive and accessible PB scheme, representative of the Pollokshields community.
However, the progress of this initiative was far slower than other PB pilots. There was an initial lack of clarity as to the visions and aims of the pilot, which negatively impacted the PB scheme's potential. [51] This was partially due to GCC not having the expertise to run the scheme efficiently prior to CRER’s involvement, as well as the project being underfunded. If the initial organisers had better analysed the social and racial factors in Pollokshields, it is likely the scheme would have experienced better success. The participants benefited from the scheme’s shift in focus, and CRER being commissioned. A lesson learned for the founders would be to set out clear goals prior to commencement, or commission an external body with expertise earlier on.
Overall Initiative
A productive feature of the overall project was the CP’s dialogue and deliberation approach. This allowed for exploration, learning, and scrutiny, which endorsed more robust, informed, and considered decision-making. [52] This facilitated better democratic quality in the PB processes, as it encouraged greater innovation and collective reflection amongst participants. Furthermore, this process also empowered citizens to better understand other participants' viewpoints, so that the citizens were well accustomed to making decisions representative of their ward’s aims.
Participants were satisfied with GCC making active changes to addressing the national ‘leadership gap’, and making progress towards the 2021 1% PB aim. [53] Participants felt, through surveys and deliberative dialogues, that they were able to play an active role in making tangible changes to the communities in which they reside. In this respect, project expectations were met.
However, participants were not satisfied with the communication between the PB leads and the CP. In this sense, expectations were not met as participants were misinformed on a number of matters. In future, PB leads should focus on more frequent communication on matters such as PB timelines, funding constraints, and decision-making reasoning, which were all found to be issues in the pilot schemes. [54] This will ultimately help bridge the gap between participants and initiative leads.
A recommendation to be applied in future similar initiatives will be to set a robust equality framework prior to the PB schemes' commencement. This framework should be co-produced with equality organisations as well as communities of interest and identity in order to maximise the PB scheme potential and ensure it is adjusted to be representative of that area's needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. This will also help ensure deliberative methods are at the core of PB, enabling participation in decision-making regarding local budgets and mainstream services. [55]
A good way to measure the success of a democratic innovation is to analyse whether the initiative achieved its purpose. The overriding purpose of these PB schemes was addressing inequalities and engaging frequently excluded groups in the PB process. It appears this purpose was met, as these participants were introduced to a democratic process that was previously relatively unknown in Glasgow, and thereafter encouraged public support for the 1% 2021 council budget PB aim. The schemes have also proven to be a rich source of learning that can inform the continued development and implementation of PB across Glasgow. [56] The Calton and Pollokshield schemes funded a range of schemes, which helped tackle inequalities in deprived areas. Although these initiatives had timing shortcomings, the initiative achieved relative success for a pilot scheme, which hopefully can be developed in future similar initiatives.
See Also
References
1] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.1-27.
[2] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.10.
[3] Harkins, C,. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.12.
[4] Harkins, C,. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[5] BBC News (2016). ‘EU Referendum: Scotland backs Remain as UK votes Leave’. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
[6] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.6.
[7] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.8.
[8] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[9] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.10.
[10] Participedia Contributors. (2017). The Government of the United Kingdom. Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/4808
[11] Participedia Contributors (2021). Glasgow City Council. Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/7578
[12] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.4.
[13] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[14] Participedia Contributors (2021). The Young Movers (YoMo). Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/7579
[15] Participedia Contributors (2021). Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/7580
[16] Participedia Contributors (2021). Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER). Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/7581
[17] Participedia Contributors (2021). Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA). Participedia. https://participedia.net/organization/7582
[18] https://participedia.net/organization/7583
[19] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[20] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.12.
[21] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.22.
[22] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.3.
[23] Citizens' Panels. (2021, March 21st), Healthcare Improvement Scotland: Community Engagement. https://www.hisengage.scot/informing-policy/citizens-panel/.
[24] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.3.
[25] Participedia Contributors (2012). Deliberation. Participedia. https://participedia.net/method/560
[26] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.13.
[27] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[28] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.10.
[29] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.11.
[30] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.10.
[31] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.11.
[32] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.11.
[33] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.11.
[34] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.11.
[35] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.13.
[36] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[37] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.13.
[38] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.13.
[39] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.14.
[40] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.17.
[41] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.17.
[42] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.18.
[43] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.24.
[44] Smith, G,. (2009). Studying Democratic Innovations: An Analytical Framework, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8-29.
[45] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.13.
[46] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.16.
[47] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.17.
[48] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.14.
[49] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.14.
[50] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.14.
[51] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.15.
[52] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.20.
[53] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.4.
[54] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.3.
[55] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.24.
[56] Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City Participatory Budgeting Pilot Wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health, pp.27.
Sources Consulted
BBC News (2016). ‘EU Referendum: Scotland backs Remain as UK votes Leave’. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102 [Accessed: 29 May 2021].
Citizen’s Panels. (2021, March 21st),Healthcare Improvement Scotland: Community Engagement. Available at: https://www.hisengage.scot/informing-policy/citizens-panel/. [Accessed: 27 May 2021].
Coalition for Racial Equalities and Rights. Available at: https://www.crer.scot/ [Accessed: 22 May 2021].
Harkins C, Egan J., (2012), The role of participatory budgeting in promoting localism and mobilising community assets. But where next for participatory budgeting in Scotland? Glasgow: GCPH; Available at: https://www.gcph.co.uk/publications/321_participatory_budgeting-learning_from_govanhill_equally_well_test_site [Accessed: 23 May 2021].
Harkins C, Moore K, Escobar O., (2016), Review of 1st generation participatory budgeting in Scotland. Edinburgh: What Works Scotland. Available at: http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ReviewofFirstGenerationPBinScotland.pdf [Accessed: 25 May 2021].
Harkins, C. (2019). An Evaluation of Glasgow City participatory budgeting pilot wards 2018/19, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health. Available at: https://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/7721/An_evaluation_of_Glasgow_City_participatory_budgeting_pilot_wards_2018-19.pdf [Accessed: 21 May 2021].
Lightbody, R., (2017), ‘Hard to reach’ or ‘easy to ignore'? Promoting equality in community engagement. Edinburgh: What Works Scotland. Available at: http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WWSHardToReachOrEasyToIgnoreEvidenceReview.pdf [Accessed: 24 May 2021].
Smith, G. (2009). Studying Democratic Innovations: an analytical framework, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 8-29. Available at: 10.1017/CBO9780511609848.002. Accessed: 28 May 2021.
External Links
Glasgow City Council on the Calton Ward: Glasgow City Council. (2017). City Ward Factsheets 2017: Ward 9-Calton. Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3710&p=0. Accessed: 3 June 2021.
Glasgow City Council on Pollokshields: Glasgow City Council. (2017). City Ward Factsheets 2017: Ward 6-Pollokshields. Available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6022&p=0. Accessed: 3 June 2021.