The spreading of Participatory Budgeting in Europe. …siteresources.worldbank.org/.../Allegretti-Durban-short.pdf · Arch. Giovanni Allegretti CES (Center for Social Studies –

Arch. Giovanni AllegrettiCES (Center for Social Studies – University of Coimbra - Portugal)

ARNM (Rete del Nuovo Municipio - Italy)

"The spreading of Participatory Budgeting in Europe. How the season of networks is strengthening social and

technical issues?".

For personal history, in the last 10 years I have been used to watch PB from different and complementary perspectives.

Listening to your questions, those days, I added a new “post-colonialist view”, since I discover how complicated could be having to act in dozens of different contexts where decentralisation and local autonomy are still incomplete, and where the mechanism of “donors” obliges to waste times in different typologies of unintelligible reporting…

Some general statements about

PB in Europe

Talking about a continent as it was just one country is not easy, especially if considering processes strictly related to the INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS and evolving societies…

And it is even more difficult for PB which is not a “technique” but mainly a META-METHOD which principles could be implemented through very difficult techniques…

I decided to start exposing some LIMITSwhich Europe had to face in adapting participatory budgeting to its nuanced and multi-differentiated context when the idea of Latin America started to reach us…

EXPOSING THESE LIMITS will imply exposing some strategies put in place to overcome them…

In the last 5 years, the number of European PBs raised from a dozen to more than 150 cases.

In Europe they are recent (since 2003) but growing fast.

98

3

1

2002 2004 2006 2007

Fast growth of PBs in Portugal (now 21 on 308 cities, hosting a total of 14% of national population)

AS IT IS PROVED BY CASES LIKE PORTUGAL

Source: Nelson Dias, 2008

Presupuestos Participativos

2001

Presupuestos Participativos

2004

Presupuestos Participativos

2007

Source: Ernesto

Ganuza, 2007OR SPAIN

(1994-2002) (2003) (2004)

(2005)(2006)

(2007)

OR ITALY, WHERE TWO PHENOMENA ARE VERY CLEAR, WHICH SUPPORT THE “CONTAGIOUS EXPANSION”…

1) horizontal networking

2) and scaling-up, which means experiences promoted at regional or provincial level (supporting municipal ones)

Source: G. Allegretti, 2008

In the 2 last years, national bottom-up networks of PBs are taking shape in these countries, as in UK (where the Minister of Local, Mrs. Blear, recently declared PB as the future ‘organising principle’ for local strathegicpartnership funded by the state) or in Sweden, where the National Association of Local Authorities (SALAR) is supporting a project for 7 experimental PBs…

Also a transnational body saw the light in 2007 (around the FAL-Local Authorities Forum foir Social Inclusion) gathering together administrations, universities and activists around the “MALAGA DECLARATION” which tries to state some undeniable principles for a really politically-committed PB …

Differences & Limits

Different sizes of EU cities with PB...

Establishing a common standard for European PBsseems very difficult, being that they are very

different in terms of SIZE…

Even if the majority of European cases are supported by leftist Municipalities (or Regions), in some countries (like Germany) there is a balance between the political belonging of supporting parties

Parties runningPB in Portugal

…Political leadership

Source: Marc Bloch Institute, 2006

...and even models of URBAN MANAGEMENT

Córdoba (2001) Albacete (2002)

Logroño (2006)

Cabezas San Juan (2000-03) Rubí (2000-03)

Porto Alegre

Universal Procedures Mix Procedures

Sevilla (2004)

Santa Cristina (2004)

Leganés (2005)

Figaró (2005)

Torreperogil(2005)

Puerto Real (2005)

Terrassa (2005)

Puente Genil (2001)

San Sebastián (2003)

Jérez de la Frontera

(2004)

Getafe (2004)

Petrer (2004)

Córdoba (2005)

Almansa (2003)

Puertollano (2004)

Civic OrganitationsProcedures

Castellón (2006)

Málaga (2007)

Viladecavalls (2005)

Parets del Vallés

(2005)

Campillo (2006)

IN TERMS OF “WHO IS

ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE”

Source: IESA/GANUZA, 2008

THE SPANISH CASE

Porcentaje de presupuesto municipal que se decide mediante los presupuestos participativos

15,4

11,93

1,632,86

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Municipios con menosde 10.000 hab

Municipios entre10.000 y 50.000 hab

Municipios entre50.000 y 200.000 hab

Municipios con más de200.000 hab.

Very different average percentages of budget invested through PB

They differs in term of allowing:

1) JUST CONSULTATION of CITIZENS

2) DEEP DELIBERATION

3) DECISION OF PRIORITIES I the hand of participants

(this usually have a country prevalence)

THEY DIFFER IN TERMS OF “QUALITY AND COMPLEXITY OF ASSESSMENT REPORT ON THE BUDGET)

(I heard yesterday that this is a problem that DONOR SYSTEM is causing to you, so that I hope that the PARIS DECLARATION ON AID EFFECTIVENESS (OECD 2005) will work in this respect, having it among its five principles which should shape aid delivery: 1) OWNERSHIP: Developing countries will exercise effective leadership over their development policies and strategies; 2) ALIGNMENT: Donor countries will base their support on recipient countries' strategies, institutions, and procedures; 3) HARMONISATION: Donor countries will work so that their actions are more harmonised, transparent, and collectively effective; 4) MANAGING FOR RESULTS

5) MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

But undoubtedly they share some common endemic limits which characterized European PBs since their beginning: 1) their “experimentalist approach” (which often limited the use of PB’s principles in single thematic sectors, or at the micro-level of sub-municipal policies); 2) their reduced emphasis on “redistribution” and “social justice”;3) the ignorance of MDGs4) their reduced “emancipatory strength” (ie the interest to empowering weak social groups);5) the reduced commitments in analyzing direct and side effects, wider impacts or even “who” really participates6) They mainly deal with EXPENSES, with few effects on revenues(except MILTON KEYNES or SWITZERLAND cases)

They are often “pilot” projects either limited to a city sector (urban districts have an historic tradition in many countries) or to a thematic issue (a department). So hey act more as “sectorialpolicies” than as a pivotal engine for all the city policies…

Origin of participatory budget implementation in 19 selected cities/districts

16

3

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

top down interaction top down/bottom up bottom up

They also share a common approach: being mainly proposed by institutions through TOP-DOWN procedures

Source: Marc Bloch Institute, 2006

OTHER STRUCTURAL COMMON LIMITS which we are facing make us feel AFRICAN SITUATION as a paradigm of some of our future difficulties to be faced:

1) The progressive CUTS in Local Authorities’ BUDGETS (transfer by central State) which require new strategies for FUNDING. In somecountries (Greece) no autonomy is granted…2) The homogeneity of the audience, manly consisting of middle class and elderly people…3) The growing social complexity of our MULTICULTURAL societywhich rises cost of communications and human resources required…4) the difficulty of matching QUANTITATIVE SUICCESS with qualitative outputs

In The URBACT Project “INCLUIR” we arrived to the conclusion that PB, in itself, is not a space which eliminates exclusion, if explicit measures to guarantee equal access to everybody are not

undertaken…

Overcoming limits

Postgraduate ParticipationMadrid

Postgraduate ParticipationBarcelona

San Sebastián (2003)

Córdoba (2001)

Cabezas San Juan (2001-03)

OIDP

Kaleidos

Internet Porto Alegre

Córdoba

Getafe(2004)

Puente Genil(2001)

Jérez Frontera (2004)

Albacete (2002)

Santa Cristina (2004)

Universidad Autónoma Madrid

PostgraduateParticipation

Sevilla

Logroño (2006)Castellón (2006)

Málaga (2007)

PARTICIPATORY SPANISH NETS INFLUENCE show how UNIVERSITIES and other bodies weight in stimulating changes....

Source: IESA/GANUZA, 2008

Through networks of experiences, several European PB grew up in quality,

merging with participatory planning techniques and elaborating “outreach”methods to better involve weak social groups and other actors (usually called “silent voices”) traditionally not taking part to public debates on budget revenues and expenses.

2

12

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

working class upper working/middle class middle class

The latter is very important, being that EUROPE seems a context in which mainly MIDDLE CLASS participates

spontaneously, and two type of actors are “naturally absents”:

Source: Marc Bloch Institute, 2006

1) The WEAKEST (especially homeless and immigrants) for DIFFICULTIES IN ACCESSING;

2) The MOST POWERFUL (private sector, high level donors) for BELIEVING THAT THERE ARE OTHER SPACES where IMPORTANT DECISIONS are undertaken…

To involve the latter (see the case of Grottammare)

TTTTT

Principles of PB have been applied to other parallel mechanisms which are not exactly PB (because they do not deal with public resources) but could be complementary in finding new funding which could counterbalance the serious State cuts to local authorities.

On the other hand, women, children, disables, teenagers and extra-europeanimmigrants have been the main target of “outreach” actions specifically aimed at democratizing the “access” to participation in financial programs.

In Modena, all theinformation material have been translatedinto 6 languages(russian, arabic, philippino…)

Several cities provide “babysitting sessions”and “game-room” beside the public meetings

Other “doubled”meeting,

repeating them twice in different

hours (Venice Lido)

Cultural eventsto reinforce identity and socialization within difficult neighbourhood were also used to inform about the participatory process, together with lotteries for participants

... Self-ruling was also used to guarantee equality in

access to every participants (EXAMPLE: limiting the time

of interventions, building GLBT GROUPS (as the TRANSEXUAL Group in

Seville), or obliging to have 50% FEMALE DELEGATES in

Seville).

Also ROTATING the placeswhere meetings are held (including libraries, youth centres, churches) tried to REACH NEW participants,

and give them confidence…as in Venice

Some cities (especially in France and Germany)

random selected citizens in residents’ list to guarantee TURN-OVER to participantsMIXED SYSTEMS

Especially in Spain, Germany and Portugal several “SCHOOL PB” or “CHILDREN PB” were created, in order to involve directly young citizens and building critical attitudes…

But also for indirectly involving the parents, and elaborate more simple communicative tools together with children (simplified balances, games)

‘Fulcros’ do novo processo participativo dicomanense:

Responsabilizing children for presenting their proposal also in

the GENERAL ARENA…

And they created (as Seville) SCHOOL OF PARTICIPATION for stimulating self-appraisal of technical skills through

PAULO FREIRE’s methods which guarantee people that the institutions are not “addressing” their decisional attitudes with the excuse of training

and capacity building…

In Modena, Italy, an experimental process in 2006 opened to E-mail real timesuggestions duringPB assemblies, streaming themeetings bywebcam. Some stops during thediscussion bring to participants theon-line suggestionsto be evaluated.

News on-demandare sent throught

SMS or e-mail

To involveCOIMMUTERS andYOUNG PEOPLE used to differentcommunicationlanguages

Opening TELECENTRES

where everybody can access ICTs

In Spain, the small city of Jun (Granada) provided every family

With a computer, E-alfabetisation, internet access and web-keycodes

So that now the Municipal Council can organise public on-line sessions during the voting of the Budget. Councillors stops some minutes to analyse family voting on proposed priorities, before deciding if listening to the consultation or not…

Tt was made possible by the small size of the city (2800

inhabitants)

Still limited to SPAIN and UK is the use of “budget matrixes” or “social criteria” which could improve the “redistributive capacity” of PBs giving SPECIAL SCORES to some choices. These last tools intend to represent actors which are not actually participating to the project (as future inhabitants, or weak groups) but whose needs are not less important than those of present participants. They also try to represent the “environmental needs”being that environment cannot have a direct voice…

Other tools, beyond specific targets

BEYOND SPECIFIC TARGETS, some measures are also being carried on

for the GENERAL PUBLIC, so to reinforce TRUST in PUBLIC

INSTITUTIONS

Among them:

Enhance the Creativity of

communication, without reducing the “seriousness”of the process…

Crossing the territory is a way to do OUTREACHING and better control what is

going on WHEN is going on…

Extending citizens’ control on budgets to the public works’implementation phase. The last action aims to strengthen

people voice to the entire life of public choices .

Proposal

Conflict

implementationProject

decision evaluation

management

Conflict Vandalism& luck ofcaring

In SEVILLE citizens’delegates (in the second year of their mandate) control call for projects and building sites

Using the WEB toverify the STATUS of every approvedwork, and even

BUILDING POPULAR

OBSERVATORIES (as in France)

Trying to spatialise PEOPLE’S DEMANDS

TTTTT

Seville’s maps and PB logosall around the building

sites...

AND CONCRETE OUTPURTS wich give TRUST in ISTITUTIONS

Avoiding to MISUSE the WEB

Sistema Cartaceo Sistema elettronico Totale

787 251 1038

Voti annullati 26 (1 scheda bianca e 5 nulle)

Without taking into account the “digital divide” and the gapsin ITs alfabetisation…

Some challengesfor the future

Beyond the “concrete” positive outcomes in term of TERRITORIAL

REDISTRIBUTION of public resources,

PB in Europe has shown a strong potential of combating ABSTENSION

in ELECTIONS (see CARNIDE in Lisbon, or Rome XI) and been an important tool for strengthening

representative democracy

WE MUST PASS FROM SIMPLE EXPERIENCES (where a mix of discourse and uncontrolled

action prevails) TO BROADER EXPERIMENTS (where monitoring and exact

knowledge of the outcomes could gain centrality).

So we need to:

Posgraduate ParticipationSevilla

Posgraduate ParticipationMadrid

Posgraduate ParticipationBarcelona Terrassa (2005)

Viladecavalls (2005)

Parets del Vallés(2005)

Petrer (2004)Sevilla (2004)Torreperogil(2005)Campillos (2006)

Córdoba (2001)

ParticipatoryCooperativeETCs

Figaró (2005)

ParticipatoryCooperativeMadrid

Leganés (2005)

Cabezas San Juan (2000-03)

Puerto Real (2005)

Rubí 2000-03

Internet Porto Alegre

Strenghtening MORITORING and relationship with Universities for bettering PB experiences

Source: IESA/GANUZA, 2008

STRENGHETING THE LEGAL ROOTS OF PBs

In the last year: Some examples (Tuscanian Law

169/07 on participation, Lazial Law on Finances) are trying to reduce

fragility and volatility through legal enrooting. Even some municpalities

are registering PB in the city Statutes to preserve it from political change…

Tipo de influencia en las decisiones por tamano de hábitat

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

Municipioscon

menos de10.000

hab

Municipiosentre

10.001 y50.000

hab

Municipiosentre

51.000 y200.000

hab

Municipioscon más

de201.000

hab.

Grandes inversiones

Programas y servicios

Pequenas Infraestructuras

EXTENDING the centrality of PB and its influence on primary

choices…

Source: IESA/GANUZA, 2008

USE PBs to stimulate a democratization of society

Because in many cases we ask transparency to institutions, but

our NGOs are untransparent, undemocratic and part of a

clientele network…

Thanks for your patienceon behalf of the PORTUGUES NETWORK OF PARTICIPATORY

BUDGETs