Problems and purpose

Participatory budgeting (PB), launched in 2020, the participatory budgeting programme in Lahti, aimed to empower citizens. The process was split into two rounds, with the first round aiming to focus on strengthening participation within the city’s operations. In addition, it was also attempting to strengthen community, increasing transparency in decision making and making public spending more efficient. The Lahti model is built heavily on participation and co-operation in all phases [1]. Citizens are fully involved in the decision-making process in order to create a sustainable process, with the aim to carry on the PB process in Lahti.[2]

Background and historical context

Finland has had a great interest in participatory budgeting, with regard to local governance since 2012 [3]. There have been similar projects in Helsinki, launched in 2018, which has seen longevity and success. With there being an interest in strengthening citizen participation, the Local Governance Act (1995) ,which focuses on increasing citizen participation, suggests PB as a method of participation. Furthermore, Finland historically has been democratically progressive. The global state of democratic index ranked Finland 8^th in the world, in 2022, in regard to level of democracy.[4] The Citizens’ Initiative Act in 2012, is a clear example of Finland’s democratic nature. The Act introduced legislation which meant that citizens legislative proposals could be discussed in parliament when there a minimum of 50,000 Finnish citizens of voting age who supported it.[5]

Lahti is known for championing eco-innovation, having become the Europeans green capital in 2021[6].The city ,in 2020, had around 120,000 residents making it the ninth biggest city in Finland.  Within Lahti there was a strong political will ,among citizens, to try PB, whereas the city organisations were less keen with there being cutbacks among financial resources, thus making the process difficult.[7] The implementation of PB, was aimed at strengthening citizens participation in city’s operations. With a focus in the planning phase on producing a sustainable method of participation, in order to progress democratic practice in the city[8]. Prior to the implementation of PB, the municipality conducted a survey which measured the extent of the local citizens current levels of involvement in the city’s operations, whilst also investigating the citizens levels of interest in different types of citizen participation, for instance PB.

Organising, Supporting and Funding Entities

Participatory budgeting in Lahti was done in collaboration with Tampere University and LAB University, together with the project Empowering Participatory Budgeting in the Baltic Sea region (EmPaci). With EmPaci seeking to create close involvement of municipalities and citizens through participatory budgeting due to the Baltic region being characterised by fragmented living areas[9]. The Municipality placed the Department of Citizen Participation in charge of PB, which is managed by the municipal manager directly.  The first round of PB saw a budget of 100,000 Euros, which citizens could propose and budget ideas with. Initially the aim was to correlate annual meetings, that were already set with different divisions within the city, with the PB schedule. The idea being that there would be an assessment of the process to develop the model further [10]. After the first round, there were surveys sent out to all citizens to gauge what their thoughts were on the process. This allowed for improvements to be made to the process for the second round of PB.  The second round took place in 2021 and saw the budget double to 200,000 Euros.

The PB process was overseen on both rounds by a select small core PB group, this was made up of two participatory operations coordinators, a communications expert and the rest was made up of other municipality employees [11]. The core group was reduced in the second round. Citizens were invited to support the process by becoming PB guardians, who were ordinary citizens that volunteered in order to aid the process by organising the PB process within their own communities. Furthermore, there were PB coaches who were members of city organisations who aided the municipality in regard to the operational aspects of PB[12]. These roles aimed to allow for the process to operate smoothly and easily while introducing and easing citizens and city authorities into this innovative way of operating. 

Participation recruitment and selection

In both rounds, all citizens within Lahti were invited to take part. Campaigns had to move online due to COVID-19, this meant that the PB process was mostly promoted on social media. [13]

The municipality oversaw the selection of figures which were aimed at easing the process. PB guardians were volunteers and selected through a process which was not open to applications and selected via the PB core group. Whereas the PB coaches were handpicked by employees within the organisation and these positions were also not open to applications. 

Furthermore, the first round used surveys in order to aid the development of the project for further rounds. These surveys were open to all citizens not just those that had taken part in the first round.  They were made available on the municipality website. In addition to this Lahti, led 17 individual interviews. Participants were civil servants and local politicians. These interviews covered a variety of different topics which related to PB, for instance assessing the successes and difficulties with PB, their overall attitudes, motivation and commitment towards the PB process whilst also evaluating the lessons learnt within organisations[14]. These were conducted as semi structured thematic interviews collecting empirical data.[15]

Methods and tools used.

Due to Covid-19, the plans for PB had to be adapted to the pandemic restrictions, which did not allow for in person meetings. The process used pre-existing ICT systems, which were not designed for PB, such as Maptionnaire, which is a platform based on maps which is usually used for city planning, and Webropol, which is a survey-based platform[16]. Ideas were gathered on Maptionnaire, and voting was conducted on Webropol. With ideas being reviewed by experts in order to ensure that they are possible within the framework of the process before the voting stage.

The evaluation process included the support of the EmPaci projects. LAB and TUNI supported the process by conducting a citizen survey  to understand the wants and needs of citizens in the process while also evaluating the first round [17]. There were further data collections from citizens, city officials and political decision makers. With surveys and interviews used to help deepen understanding of the process. These surveys asked open ended questions which allowed respondents to expand on their opinions on the process. With questions focused on how the process was run and citizens views on it [18]. 

In the second round, because the Covid-19 situation eased, there were opportunities for City PB staff to go and meet citizens at live pop-up events. This being an attempt to boost participation and awareness for the project[19].  These events helped raise awareness for the process while also building citizens understanding of the process, so they felt like they had sufficient knowledge to participate.

What went on: deliberation, decisions and public interaction?

The process began prior to the implementation of PB with a survey in 2019, which intended to discuss what citizens wanted with the project. This was in order to maintain sustainability of the process and encourage participation and also engage citizens in the process prior to its implementation.

The process had four phases:

-       Ideation

-       Co-development

-       Voting

-       Implementation

The residents started with the ideation process. Where citizens were asked to tell the city about ideas which were related to wellbeing, the environment, community or children. [20] Once ideas had been proposed there was a focus on evaluating the proposals and selecting the ones which had the most potential to be developed further. They must meet certain criteria such as legal, implementable in one year, related to the themes, within budget, maintainable and sustainable for the city’s organisation and supportive of equality.[21]

 The city was split into four areas:

-       Southern

-       Eastern

-       Northern

-       Entire City

Each area is then given 25% of the budget, to spend on proposals. The process then enters the co-development phase, where citizens comment on the ideas and develop them in workshops which were either online (first and second round) or in person (second round). These were open to anyone in the city, along with PB volunteers (coaches and guardians) who acted as a connection between the process and citizens. This helped to ease the process and allow citizens to feel comfortable [22]. 

 Citizens could then vote on proposals in their area and the entire city, which followed the themes that were chosen: wellbeing, environment, community and sport. Voting was accessible either in person, in community buildings such as in libraries, or online on the website. There was the opportunity to vote for any number of proposals as long as the final total was equal to the local budget. In order to spread the message of the project and encourage participation.

This led to the final phase: Implementation.  In both rounds citizens were fairly active in submitting ideas.  The first round saw 58 eligible proposals. There were 10 winning proposals which included things such as:

-       A cherry park (Entire city) – 25,000 Euros

-       A disc Golf course (North) – 25,000 Euros

-       Monitored Bicycle parking area (East) – 6000 Euros

-       Development of Porvoonjoki nature path (South) – 10,000 Euros

The next stage was the implementation stage with the municipality aimed to implement all proposals within a year [23].

The evaluation process is seen as the most vital phase, where there was an assessment of the first round. This led to improvements and developments within the second round. In the evaluation phase, issues around the amount in the budget were raised leading to an increase to 200,000 Euros in the second round. Further issues arose surrounding the geographic areas, with arguments about the city centre being matched with a more rural area like Nastola[24]. This led to the creation of a fifth area in the process, the city centre, with the aim of increasing representation of differing demographics.

The second round saw more of a focus on spreading awareness for the process. Increased communication aimed to raise further awareness on the project. Although there were slight changes to the areas and budget the process still followed the same four stages as the first round. The second round also saw more in person ,events such as workshops aimed at making the process accessible and also informing citizens about the project.

(Picture 2 goes here)

There was an increase in the account of participants in the second round both aspects : proposing and voting. There was an increase in proposals from 713 to 957 (Table 1), in the second round compared to the first round. There was also an increase in voting rate from 3.3% to 3.9%. Although resources were cut, with fewer PB guardians and PB core employees, the project saw more projects being implemented.

There were 33 successful projects in the second round. With the winning proposals including things such as:

-       Enlisting the youth to clean up the city (Entire City) 8,000 Euros

-       Opening a hobby horse track (South) 1,000 Euros

-       Extending the Linnaistensuo nature trail (East) 4,000 Euros

-       Fishing rods hire in Ankkuri (North) 2,000 Euros 

-       Guarded Bicycle parking in the Market square (City centre) 5,000 Euros

Influence, Outcomes and Effects

Overall, the project was successful in engaging citizens. With a total of 4,691 , around 4 % of the population, voting in the second round (2021). This was an increase in the amount from the initial round (2020), 3,896 citizens voted. This shows that the process has had success in building a relationship between citizens and the city’s organisation. 

PB in Lahti, has not been implemented for a sufficient amount of time to have a long-term policy impact.  However, there is a potential to evaluate the level of success achieved in both rounds by considering the desired outcome of the project. The initial aims of the participatory budgeting were to strengthen the relationship between local officials and citizens in order to strengthen communities, while also focusing on making public spending efficient and increasing transparency in decision making. Lahti also wanted to ensure the process was sustainable with the idea of further continuation in mind after the initial two rounds. 

In regard to the main aim strengthening the relationship between city officials and citizens, the success of increased participation in the second round demonstrated the outreach attempts were working. Citizens were continuing to engage with the process. With the collaboration capacity reliant on individuals participating whereas the organisation only partly impacted participation. Citizens expressed their desire to engage in the decision making in both rounds[25]. This engagement demonstrates the project was successful in regard to strengthening the relationship of local officials and citizens. 

However, PB in Lahti cannot be fully regarded as successful in this aspect.  There was clear engagement from Citizens in the PB. However, the municipality could do more to engage more citizens in PB. The process is currently controlled by a small number of key actors this  should be instead, shared more universally. There was a core group of officials, who were enthusiastic and had strong political group. Resources were inadequate and there were communication issues with funding and the reduction in staff in the second round [26].  The project lacked significant support from officials. With the survey results concluding that some municipal employees who were in charge of the process felt that PB was an unnecessary burden and lacks to add anything to the overall relationship between the municipality and local residents [27]. 

However, the process has proved sustainable, so far, with there being further rounds of PB. The analysis of round one demonstrated the desire to ensure the process worked so that it could continue. The changes in the second round helped encourage further participation and made the process more desirable. Although the city could have implemented a campaign to encourage further participation, it is sustainable, and therefore successful, with a new round starting January 2025. 

Analysis and Lessons learnt.

Graham Smith offered a comparative analysis of democratic innovation, discussing six democratic and institutional goods and their significance for the design of democratic innovation. This section will use Smith’s approach to evaluate the PB process. 

Inclusion refers to the insurance that all citizens have the opportunity to participate. When investigating how inclusive a democratic innovation is, attention must be paid to whether it encourages citizens from different social backgrounds to participate [28]. In Lahti everyone was invited to take part in the participatory budgeting process. Citizens were invited to submit their ideas online making it accessible to all. Although the digital divide raises questions about the inclusiveness of the ideation process. The digital divide refers the gap that exists due to not everyone having equal access to digital tools. [29] .Inclusion may have been in danger if this digital divide was present in Finland, due to potential barriers preventing participation due to the online process. However, Finland is one of the most connected countries in the world, with 96% of households having access to broadband.[30] Suggestions were anonymous which allowed for citizens to feel at ease as there was no potential for them to be shamed online. However, the process lacked resources especially with regard to communication. Pulkkein et al, suggested that the process initially had high levels of excitement towards the process however the organisation was unable to harness this potential as a resource. If the organisation had enlisted more enthusiastic individuals and utilised existing ones (PB guardians) there would have been greater participation. [31]Furthermore, the voting stage was inclusive. There were two ways of voting either online or in person: 97% of votes were online and 3% in person.[32]. Citizens were able to participate even if they were unable to vote online due to socio-economic factors. The most engaged and involved in the process were working- aged women.[33] With 60% in the whole process being women. The organisation could have done more to further engagement in the process. Cuts to communication demonstrating the lack of advertisement of the PB process. The process relied on word of mouth as opposed to municipal campaigns in order to be efficient and keep costs low.

Considered Judgement refers to the understanding of citizens in regard to the technical aspects of a certain issue and their awareness of perspectives of other citizens [34] . Citizens in Lahti, felt uninformed about the process due to the lack of communication.  Furthermore COVID-19 had an impact on holding in person events. In the first round, in 2020, all meetings for instance, face to face meetings and campaigns were cancelled and PB was mostly promoted on social media.[35].This may have had an impact on the ability of citizens to have a deep understanding of the PB process. Whereas in the second round, in 2021, restrictions had been eased this allowed for in person popup events where PB officials could speak to citizens in order to aid their understanding of the process.[36] The city introduced PB guardians and coaches who helped to promote the process and help citizens to understand. PB guardians were enthusiastic and passionate, however the city failed to utilise their position.[37]This impacted citizens understanding of the process and the connection between the organisation and citizens. 

Smith introduces this notion of Popular Control, with democratic innovation often neglecting to give efficient control over decision making processes[38]. Within the process in Lahti, citizens co-development was relied upon. With surveys prior to the start of the process, in 2019, aimed at gauging citizens perspectives on how the process should be run. There was also an evaluation stage after the end of the first round, 2020, which asked for citizens views on the project and how it could be improved. Citizens were highly involved in the development of the process demonstrating that they had elements of control within decisions made in regard to the process. However, some stages of the process neglected to give sufficient control to the decision-making process. Popular control, within the process, was limited due to the agenda setting that existed. In order for citizen proposals to be considered acceptable, they had to follow certain themes, for example wellbeing. This however limited popular control due to the removal of freedom for citizens in certain elements of the decision-making process. 

Transparency refers to the organisations ability to provide information and understanding of how the process works internally and externally. In Lahti, there was transparency in most of the phases however the internal decisions regarding the filtration phase were unclear at times. Between the ideation and voting stage emerged a filtration phase, in which city officials would assess if the proposals met their criteria. However, the transparency around how these decisions were made was lacking. Although the city of Lahti, did provide transparency on the criteria for the proposals suggesting why certain proposals didn’t make it to the voting stage. It neglected to educate the citizens on the internal decision-making process at the filtration stage. Wampler suggested that governance may use the PB process to create an attractive image that they are engaging in democratic innovation and change, while influencing the process to protect their own agendas.[39] The Lack of transparency within the filtration stage may lead to this concept. However, there were transcripts of surveys which provided transparency on the influence of citizens between the first (2020) and second (2021) round of PB in Lahti. These surveys had an impact on how the process was adapted and provided some transparency on how decisions were made. 

The process in Lahti, was efficient. The voting and Ideation phases utilised existing ICT systems, which were not PB specific, such as Maptionaire and Webropol. This was a cost effective and feasible way of adapting to the problems of COVID-19 and its impact on the process. Furthermore, the process in Lahti was time efficient, with the ideation stage taking place in late spring and voting finishing in early autumn. [40] .The projects were also implemented by the end of the following year. This prevented prolonged engagement of citizens who may have other prioritises and demands of their time. [41]. Furthermore, the process didn’t require much internal spending, it utilised existing departments such as the Citizen Participation Department. The city also recruited volunteers to act as PB coaches and guardians who helped support the grass-root levels of the process making the process cost effective on multiple levels. In addition to this, part of Lahti’s criteria for proposals was that it was cost efficient and had no unsustainable running costs.[42] 

Ultimately the process proved to be transferable, the initiative used citizens input throughout which made the process sustainable. The city was able to implement PB with high levels of engagement. This was also cost effective through utilising existing institutions to ensure the sustainability of the process. Popular Control was present from prior to the implementation of the process. Furthermore, the process was inclusive and removed barriers to participation. The process is highly adaptable, which ensures its transferability. The main overall issue with the process is the lack of transparency, this partly hinders its transferability. 

References 

[1] City of Lahti (2020) Participatory budgeting in Lahti. Available at https://www.lahti.fi/paatoksenteko/osallistujavaikuta/osallistuva-budjetointi

[2] Svartstom, A. (2021) CECI projects recognised good practices were involved in the participatory budgeting in Lahti. (Online) LAB Open. Avaliable at https://www.labopen.fi/en/lab-pro/ceci-projects-recognized-good-practices-were-involved-in-the-participatory-budgeting-in-lahti/

[3] Lehtonen, P. (2018). “Shifting the power to people: Opening the practices of governance with participatory budgeting”, Nordicom Information, Vol 40, No1, pp.63-69

[4] global state of democracy initiative (n.d.). Country Rankings – The Global State of Democracy 2023. [online] sveltekit-prerender. Available at: https://www.idea.int/gsod/2023/countries/.

[5] Setälä, M. and Schiller, T. (2012). Citizens’ Initiatives in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230369900.

[6] Harper, P. (2021). Lahti, Europe’s Green Capital of 2021. [online] EME Outlook Magazine. Available at: https://www.emeoutlookmag.com/sustainability/560-lahti-europes-green-capital-of-2021 [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[7] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[8] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[9] Interreg Baltic Sea Region. (2020). Empowering Participatory Budgeting in the Baltic Sea Region. [online] Available at: https://interreg-baltic.eu/project/empaci/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[10] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[11] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[12] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[13] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[14] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[15] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[16] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[17] EmPaci. 2020. Empowering Participatory Budgeting in the Baltic Sea. Available at: https://www.lab.fi/en/project/empowering-participatory-budgeting-baltic-sea-region-empaci

[18] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[19] Heinonen,A (2021). Spreading Finnish PB Knowledge Through ‘Train the Trainer’ Videos. [online] LAB Focus. Available at: https://blogit.lab.fi/labfocus/en/spreading-finnish-pb-knowledge-through-train-the-trainer-videos/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[20] Maptionaire (2022). Participatory Budgeting 101: The City of Lahti Demonstrates How It’s Done. [online] www.maptionnaire.com. Available at: https://www.maptionnaire.com/customer-stories/participatory-budgeting-101-the-city-of-lahti-demonstrates-how-its-done [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[21] City of Lahti (2020). Participatory budgeting in Lahti. [online] Lahti. Available at: https://www.lahti.fi/en/city-and-decision-making/osbu/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[22] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[23] City of Lahti (2020). Participatory budgeting in Lahti. [online] Lahti. Available at: https://www.lahti.fi/en/city-and-decision-making/osbu/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[24] Svartstom, A. (2021) CECI projects recognised good practices were involved in the participatory budgeting in Lahti. (Online) LAB Open. Avaliable at https://www.labopen.fi/en/lab-pro/ceci-projects-recognized-good-practices-were-involved-in-the-participatory-budgeting-in-lahti/

[25] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[26] L-M, Sinervo, Bartocci, L., Lehtonen, P. and Ebdon, C. (2024). Toward sustainable governance with participatory budgeting. Journal of public budgeting, accounting & financial management, 36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-11-2023-0205.

[27] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[28] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[29] Kayode, S-O., Frank, E. and Olaoye, G-O. (2024). Impacts of the digital divide on political participation and Civic Engagement. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378705004_Impacts_of_the_digital_divide_on_political_participation_and_Civic_Engagement.

[30] Statista. (n.d.). Topic: Internet usage in Finland. [online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/7400/internet-usage-in-finland/#:~:text=Finland%20is%20one%20of%20the%20world [Accessed 17 May 2024].

[31] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[32] Svartstom, A. (2021) CECI projects recognised good practices were involved in the participatory budgeting in Lahti. (Online) LAB Open. Available at https://www.labopen.fi/en/lab-pro/ceci-projects-recognized-good-practices-were-involved-in-the-participatory-budgeting-in-lahti/

[33] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[34] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[35] Reiz, A., Fellmann, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Heinonen, A. (2022). Selecting the Right Software for Supporting Participatory Budgeting in Local Government – Reviewing Suitable Solutions. [online] researchportal.tuni.fi. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_9.

[36] Heinonen,A (2021). Spreading Finnish PB Knowledge Through ‘Train the Trainer’ Videos. [online] LAB Focus. Available at: https://blogit.lab.fi/labfocus/en/spreading-finnish-pb-knowledge-through-train-the-trainer-videos/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].

[37] Pulkkinen, M., Sinervo, L.-M. and Kurkela, K. (2023). Premises for sustainability – participatory budgeting as a way to construct collaborative innovation capacity in local government. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbafm-04-2022-0077.

[38] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[39] Wampler, B. (2012). Participatory Budgeting: Core principles and Key Impacts. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 8(2), p.12. doi:https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.138.

[40] Svartström, A. (2021). CECI projects recognized good practices were involved in the participatory budgeting in Lahti. [online] LAB Open. Available at: https://www.labopen.fi/en/lab-pro/ceci-projects-recognized-good-practices-were-involved-in-the-participatory-budgeting-in-lahti/.

[41] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[42] City of Lahti (2020). Participatory budgeting in Lahti. [online] Lahti. Available at: https://www.lahti.fi/en/city-and-decision-making/osbu/ [Accessed 15 May 2024].