Problems and Purpose

Though this PB was not initiated to address a specific problem or event, since inception its stated purposes are: improving citizens’ understanding of the budgeting process, boosting cooperation between communities, and finding solutions to practical problems within the city by implementing citizens’ ideas [2].

Background History and Context

As of 2018, the population of Tartu was 96,974, making it the second largest city in Estonia. With an average age of 39.9, Tartu has an ageing population with 41.7 percent of the population over the age of 45, despite its position as a university city naturally attracting many young people. Moreover, Tartu has historically struggled to engage their young people in local politics, creating a situation where they feel their voices have been squeezed out of the debate. Increasing youth engagement has, therefore, become a key goal of the local government [3]. 

Estonia in general has been described as following the template set by other post-Soviet nations: characteristically low trust of institutions and limited engagement with said institutions on the local or national level. Tartu, however, does not conform to this characterisation. Rapid and significant investment in technology, which was then adopted by the local government, resulted in a population generally more involved in comparatively transparent decision-making processes than similar cities in other nations and within Estonia itself [4]. The local government had the desire to capitalise on this and, as such, members of the City Government and the City Council were highly enthusiastic about the idea of a PB when it was explored in seminars run in 2011 for local decision-makers on the topic of Participatory Budgeting as part of the project “Participatory Budgeting in Local Governments”. These seminars were implemented by the Estonian non-governmental organisation e-Governance Academy (eGA).

Tartu’s political culture, though far from perfect in relation to youth engagement, certainly made the city well placed to launch a PB [5].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Although the funding and impetus for the project was provided by the Tartu City government, a decision was made to invite the eGA to be an external expert organisation managing the whole process of designing the PB. The eGA was chosen because of their role running the aforementioned seminars, and because it was believed its political neutrality would increase the credibility and legitimacy of the process among different political parties as well as citizens. In general, the eGA was given a fairly large space to operate in, and was able to decide how to begin setting up the rules of the process [6].

Although the idea of engaging civic organisations and the wider public in the process of designing the PB’s model was discussed, ultimately it was assumed that more useful feedback would be received if people were offered a way to practice the process first (using a test model) and only then asked to give their thoughts and comments on it. External experts from the eGA used feedback received during and after the pilot (between August 2013 and December 2013) to redesign and improve the process for the future [7]. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The process has two key participant groups, the general population (any citizen over 14 can participate) and the experts that make up the panel to filter the ideas produced by the general population. The general population are asked to propose ideas as well as vote on the final list of proposals, while the experts simply filter and feed back to the community [8]. The experts are drawn from the city itself as well as universities, civil society, and the public and private sectors, and provide a breadth of knowledge about the feasibility of each initiative. They feed this back to the citizens in open forums, so the process remains transparent [9].

No material enticements, like a stipend or food, are offered by the city to promote engagement. Instead, the city’s Public Relations department attempts to attract citizens through advertising campaigns, including flyers and the use of publicity screens [10]. Initially, no effort was made to recruit any specific groups or types of people, however, more recently, the city has recognised a lack of youth engagement. As such, it has introduced a targeted campaign encouraging them to use social media to encourage their peers to participate, and has even utilised local celebrities to help encourage youth engagement [11].

Methods and Tools Used

A participatory budget is a process by which the citizens have a level of control over the ways in which some public money is used [12]. Participatory budgets are implemented in different ways, but each contains three key phases: the idea generation phase, the filtering phase (to narrow these ideas down to only those that are feasible), and a phase in which the remaining proposals are voted on [13]. Whilst earlier PBs focused heavily on social justice and including marginalised groups, as in Porto Alegre, this has largely been lost, though it does still feature in some PBs [14] [15]. 

Tartu utilises a bespoke idea generating tool, The Idea Collection Map. It is designed to streamline the process by which citizens are able to submit proposals requiring only a few lines of description linked to the specific geographic location of the site of their proposed initiative. This cuts back on onerous paperwork for the citizen and thus lowers participation costs [16].

Tartu is also a member of the URBACT network. This network was established to foster integrated development aimed at tackling common challenges to urban areas. Two of their four main objectives focus on policy design and implementation, making them well suited to the implementation of the PB in Tartu. Through a variety of projects URBACT aims to replicate the success of innovations globally and better equip governing bodies through cooperation and communication with other bodies within the network [17] [18] [19].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The Tartu PB chose its methods and tools through analysis of PBs elsewhere (most notably Lisbon and Paris) and through the guidance of NGOs, primarily the eGA.

All methods of proposing ideas are open to all citizens over the age of 14 [20]. Participant costs are kept low by supplementing traditional methods, such as submitting ideas via post and email, with Tartu’s proprietary e-democracy software Volis, a program with which the citizens may be familiar as it is used to facilitate various local government processes, like the issuing of ID cards, in Tartu [21]. Tartu has also moved beyond those methods with which people are familiar, trialing the ‘idea collection map’ to streamline the submission process. The brief descriptions placed on the interactive, online map are then fleshed out into concrete, actionable proposals by city planners [22]. Following the initial collection of proposals, the closed forum of experts considers the technicalities of each proposal. This ensures that, come the voting stage, each innovation is within budget, possible within the 12-month timescale, and will produce no unintended negative consequences. The information produced by the experts is then made directly available on the Tartu website.

Because outreach has become a major focus in Tartu, with a desire to increase youth engagement (a group who have been historically underrepresented), projects deemed feasible by the closed expert panel are presented to the public through social media and the cities website, and those who submit proposals are encouraged to share their contributions and encourage further participation and engagement.

Since its inception, participatory budgeting in Tartu has attracted more and more voters every year, with a total of 7,260 votes cast in 2020 and representing 9.2 percent of the eligible population [23]. However, youth participation rates were noticed to be very low, as of January 2017 16–19 year-olds accounted for only 3% of those who voted in the process. A meeting aimed at addressing the problem found that this stemmed from a negative perception of the participatory budgeting process, with young people feeling that it was “complicated”, “boring” or that their ideas would never be chosen [24]. However, the nature of the Tartu design offers minimal opportunities for participants to have their opinions heard beyond submitting proposals and voting on them. Although they can pose questions to the expert panels mentioned in the previous sections, citizens cannot pitch their proposals and create a dialogue with other participants in the way that they can with some other PBs.

Every citizen over 14 can cast a maximum of three votes [25]. Voting takes place through two mediums: in person and online. E-voting can be done through Volis and requires a form of voter ID or government ID. Alternatively, voting can be done in-person at the Tartu City information hall. This blended approach to voting has improved the process by lowering participant costs [26]. The first-past-the-post voting system used, coupled with the lack of a discursive element phase, makes it clear that promoting discussion on the pros and cons of each project is not a particular priority for the designers of the process.

After the election the city council, whose role it is to implement the two chosen projects, announces the successful proposals. The public relations department, specifically, continues their role in informing the public about the process by communicating these results to the public at large.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The project's theory of change, its three initial aims of improving the understanding of the budgeting process, boosting cooperation between communities, and solving practical problems in the city, have been achieved to differing degrees [27]. The information on the projects implemented and their effects on the city and its communities is limited and as such it is hard to say what impact the project has had on its stated aims. Moreover, this lack of information makes it unclear what effect this project has had on government policy or other examples of participatory budgets.

Information does exist, however, on general levels of participation and from this we can draw tentative conclusions that some of the goals are being met. Overall, participation has increased to 9% of the eligible electorate in 2017, a marked increase from initial participation [28]. This seems to be due, at least in large part, to cooperation with the URBACT network. Their Integrated Action Plan focuses on training officials to properly interact and facilitate e-democracy in order to allow the electorate to better engage in the new process [29]. An increase in participation demonstrates both a shift in public opinion in support of greater citizen representation and an overall development of community ties. Participants were actively encouraged through both outreach programs and media to make videos on proposals and share them with friends. Statements from URBACT group meetings suggest this has had a positive effect, however, this is difficult to quantify [30].

The limited amount of money available to be allocated by the public naturally limits the scope of the projects that can be selected and so a lot of the projects are relatively small in scale as only 150,000 EUR (about 1% of the budget) is allocated each year to tackle local issues. Practical problems in the city have still been addressed, however, such as the scheme to improve pavements for the visually impaired [31]. 

In conclusion, though the evidence of the PBs successes are limited, it is clear that practical problems are indeed being addressed in the city. However, though we can clearly see that participation is improving, it remains unclear to what extent this is due to an improvement in cooperation between communities or if it has engendered a better understanding of the budgeting process. 

Analysis and Lessons Learned

This section uses Graham Smith’s analytical framework, designed to allow for qualitative comparison of different types of democratic innovations. The simplicity of the Tartu PB leads to a trade-off between various goods. Although it aids efficiency and transparency (and aspects of transferability), these come at the expense of popular control and considered judgement (and different aspects of transferability). The section will also place Tartu in the wider literature around Participatory Budgeting and, in doing so, consider how well it achieves inclusiveness. 

Smith’s Framework

Smith’s framework consists of four democratic goods, namely inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement and transparency, accompanied by two institutional goods: efficiency and transferability. Inclusiveness consists of two aspects of participation: presence and voice. Popular control considers the degree to which participants are able to influence four stages of the decision-making process: problem definition, option analysis, option selection and implementation. Considered judgement entails how far citizens understand both the technical details of the issue under consideration and the perspectives of other citizens. Transparency focuses on the openness of proceedings to both participants and the wider public Efficiency explores the costs (monetary, time, etc.) to both citizens and public authorities. Transferability concerns evaluating whether designs can operate in different political contexts, understood in relation to scale, political system or type of issue [32].

The Simplicity Trade-off 

Overall efficiency is achieved well. Citizens’ participation costs are kept low: they are only involved in proposing and voting on projects, and not involved in the lengthy processes of discussing and/or implementing them. These costs are reduced further due to their ability to engage in both project proposals, and voting, online. Whilst the online element is not transferable to places without the necessary IT infrastructure, overall low participation costs aid transferability by allowing for the scheme to be implemented in places with poor citizen engagement.

The lack of need to arrange complex citizen deliberation/involvement in implementation also keeps organiser costs low in two regards. Firstly, financial costs are reduced by not having to pay moderators for discussions. This makes the scheme transferable to localities with poorer organisers (eGA). Secondly, in terms of time costs, there is only four months from the beginning of the presentation of ideas phase to the voting phase. This is much quicker than, say, the Paris PB, where collective discussion alone takes an entire month [33]. The simplicity and brevity of the process also aids transparency, as it is easier for participants to understand and keep their bearings in a quick and simple process. Transparency is also aided through information on the various stages of the process being easily accessible online. 

However, this simplicity greatly diminishes popular control and considered judgement. Only two of Smith’s stages are entirely under popular control: problem definition (through citizens submitting policy proposals) and option selection (through voting on proposals) [34]. In practice popular control over option selection has been strong due to high rates of voter turnout. Tartu’s participation rate has increased with 9.2% of the population participating in 2020 [35]. Whilst youth participation rates were much lower, there has been a concerted effort to improve this.

Although implementation is handled by city officials and thus has no element of popular control, there are some elements of popular control over option analysis. Although it is experts that assess the feasibility of ideas, those who propose projects do have some ability to discuss the project and its feasibility with them. Due to the lack of a discussion phase this serves as the only substantive form of capacity building in regards to policy. This significantly harms the transferability of the PB, as although the relatively simple projects that participants in the Tartu PB consider (such as improving roads and pavements) may not require extensive capacity building, more complex areas of policy require more information in order to reach informed decisions. 

The lack of discussion also harms the other aspect of considered judgement, as there is no opportunity for participants to hear and empathise with the views and perspectives of their fellow citizens. It is highly likely that the presence of more discussion phases would greatly improve considered judgement and the option analysis aspect of popular control. For example, they could incorporate some phases of the Paris PB, such as “co-construction and collective discussion” between project proposers and neighbourhood councils and civic associations, or consultations between council administrators and project leaders [36]. More discussion would also help the PB to achieve its stated goal of boosting cooperation between communities. Deliberative processes have previously helped improve community cohesion between divided groups. For example, the Deliberative Poll in Omagh in Northern Ireland managed to improve sectarian feelings amongst participants [37].

Although the PB is somewhat successful in its stated goal of improving understanding of the budgeting process, this is understanding of only this particular part of the budgeting process. Whilst citizens who engage with or hear about the PB know how the 1% of the city budget set aside for it is spent, they are no better informed of the process that allocates the remaining 99%.

The Wider Literature and Inclusiveness 

Tartu is very much a new school PB, in that it lacks the social justice principles that initially inspired PBs in Porto Alegre [38]. None of its three stated goals (improving understanding of the city budget and its shaping process, boosting cooperation between communities, and finding solutions to practical problems within the city) relate particularly to social justice or including marginalised groups. Instead, the Tartu PB very much fits the new school “best practice” model as described by Ganuza, where it is part of a wider “toolkit of ideas for innovative good governance” [39].

Krenjova and Reinsalu (2013) identify two local contextual reasons for this approach. Their first reason is compelling, compared to PBs in less developed countries (such as those in Latin American cities), where the focus on social justice is driven by a desire to fix urgent problems such as unpaved streets or open sewers, in Tartu these basic needs are largely already [40]. The second reason is less persuasive. They argue that there is an absence of groups that have been particularly marginalised, and claim that governance practises in place prior to the implementation of the PB were fairly inclusive of all groups. However, turnout of less than 60% in the most recent local elections, coupled with a relative poverty rate of around 15% (as of 2011) suggest that there is a politically and socially marginalised portion of Tartu’s population [41] [42].

This lack of focus on social justice and including marginalised groups has negatively impacted the presence element of inclusiveness. Whilst there is a lack of data on the exact demographics of participants, it is clear that the scheme initially struggled to engage one group which has poor engagement with the political process in most countries: young people. Youth participation rates were very low, as of January 2017 16–19 year-olds accounted for only 3% of those who voted in the process. This is initially surprising, given the evidence that internet voting (of the sort available in Tartu) can attract new participants to participatory budgeting processes, particularly younger citizens [43]. It may demonstrate that access alone isn't enough to guarantee the presence of the marginalised, members of those groups (such as young people) must feel they have a reason to participate [44]. Indeed, a meeting aimed at addressing low youth participation in Tartu found that it stemmed from a negative perception of the PB, with young people feeling that it was “complicated”, “boring” or that their ideas would never be chosen [45]. It may be possible to improve inclusion if the PB engaged in a more sustained engagement campaign, and specifically targeted marginalised groups, as the Milan PB does [46].

See Also

https://participedia.net/organization/7959

References

[1] Estonian Smart City Cluster. 2022. Participative budgeting comes again — Estonian Smart City Cluster. [online] Available at: <http://smartcitylab.eu/news/participative-budgeting-comes-again> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[2] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[3] Ugeo.urbistat.com. 2022. Age classes by gender Municipality of TARTU CITY, old-age index and average age of residents. [online] Available at: <https://ugeo.urbistat.com/AdminStat/en/ee/demografia/eta/tartu-city/23279246/4> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[4] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[5] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[6] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[7] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[8] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[9] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[10] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[11] Citego.org. 2021. Tartu (EE) - Increasing citizen participation in eGovernance. [online] Available at: <http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-2029_en.html> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[12] Baiocchi, G. and Ganuza, E., 2014. Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society, [online] 42(1), pp.29-50. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0032329213512978?casa_token=F8HTkHCVBsgAAAAA:yw6STk8hpr89enrF0v4tnqhV6HfPXfIV-Q0Qb9_EsOBBe7opYpNo2rDBLyFkmApdMQrxvm3wjECoSg> [Accessed 20 December 2021].

[13] Spada, P. in Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre 1989-present – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5524> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[14] Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre 1989-present – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5524> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[15] Smith, G., 1983. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[16] Citego.org. 2021. Tartu (EE) - Increasing citizen participation in eGovernance. [online] Available at: <http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-2029_en.html> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[17] URBACT. 2022. URBACT at glance. [online] Available at: <https://urbact.eu/urbact-glance> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[18] URBACT. 2022. Tartu. [online] Available at: <https://urbact.eu/tartu> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[19] URBACT. 2022. News from our cities and networks – 8 October 2021. [online] Available at: <https://urbact.eu/URBACT-city-network-news-8-october-2021> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[20] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[21] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[22] Citego.org. 2021. Tartu (EE) - Increasing citizen participation in eGovernance. [online] Available at: <http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-2029_en.html> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[23] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[24] Urbact.eu. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/urbact-citystories-tartu.pdf> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[25] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[26] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[27] Citego.org. 2021. Tartu (EE) - Increasing citizen participation in eGovernance. [online] Available at: <http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-2029_en.html> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[28] e-Governance Academy. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Tartu City - e-Governance Academy. [online] Available at: <https://ega.ee/project/participatory-budgeting-in-tartu-city/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[29] e-Governance Academy. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Tartu City - e-Governance Academy. [online] Available at: <https://ega.ee/project/participatory-budgeting-in-tartu-city/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[30] e-Governance Academy. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Tartu City - e-Governance Academy. [online] Available at: <https://ega.ee/project/participatory-budgeting-in-tartu-city/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[31] Citego.org. 2021. Tartu (EE) - Increasing citizen participation in eGovernance. [online] Available at: <http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-2029_en.html> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[32] Smith, G., 1983. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[33] Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Paris, France – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5008> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[34] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[35] Ebrdgreencities.com. 2021. Participatory budgeting: Tartu, Estonia – EBRD. [online] Available at: <https://www.ebrdgreencities.com/policy-tool/participatory-budgeting-tartu-estonia/> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[36] Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Paris, France – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5008> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[37] Participedia.net. 2021. A Deliberative Poll on Education Policy in Northern Ireland – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/462> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[38] Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre 1989-present – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5524> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[39] Ganuza, E. & Baiocchi, G., 2012. The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), pp. 16-30.

[40] Krenjova, J. & Reinsalu, K., 2013. Good Governance Starts from Procedural Changes: Case study of Preparing Participatory Budgeting in the City of Tartu. Social Research, 3(32), pp. 28-40.

[41] Participedia.net. 2021. Participatory Budgeting in Paris, France – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/5008> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[42] Participedia.net. 2021. A Deliberative Poll on Education Policy in Northern Ireland – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/case/462> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[43] Spada, P., Mellon, J., Peixoto, T. and Sjoberg, F., 2016. Effects of the internet on participation: Study of a public policy referendum in Brazil. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, [online] 13(3), pp.187-207. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19331681.2016.1162250?journalCode=witp20> [Accessed 16 January 2022].

[44] Wampler, B. and Touchton, M., 2022. Participatory budgeting: adoption and transformation. [online] Opendocs.ids.ac.uk. Available at: <https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13366> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

[45] Urbact.eu. 2021. [online] Available at: <https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/urbact-citystories-tartu.pdf> [Accessed 26 December 2021].

[46] Wampler, B. and Touchton, M., 2022. Participatory budgeting: adoption and transformation. [online] Opendocs.ids.ac.uk. Available at: <https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/13366> [Accessed 17 January 2022].

External Links

Tartu City Government https://www.tartu.ee/en/node/1193

eGA https://ega.ee/project/participatory-budgeting-in-tartu-city/ 

Participedia page on PBs https://participedia.net/method/146 

Notes