28

ISSN 1392-3110

Socialiniai tyrimai / Social Research. 2013. Nr. 3 (32), 28–40

G­­d G­v­rnanc­ Starts fr­m Pr­c­d­ral Chang­s: Cas­ st­d­ ­f Pr­paring Participat­r­ B­dg­ting in th­ Cit­ ­f Tart­

J­lizav­ta Kr­nj­va (McS), Kristina R­insal­ (PhD)Project Manager, Estonian e-Governance Academy, Tõnismägi 2, 10122 Tallinn, Estonia,

PhD student at Tallinn University of Technology

E-mail: [email protected]

Program Director of Local Governments, Estonian e-Governance Academy, Tõnismägi 2,

10122 Tallinn, Estonia

E-mail: [email protected]

AbstractThem­ingo­lof­hisp­peris­oex­minepr­c­ic­l

experience in good govern­nce ­­ ­ loc­l level b­disc­ssing ­he ini­i­­ive c­lled P­r­icip­­or­ B­dge­ing(PB). The p­per seeks ­o m­p ch­llenges, choices ­nddecisive f­c­ors ­h­­ c­n be dis­ing­ished in ­he PBprep­r­­ionprocessb­presen­ing­c­ses­­d­of­heCi­­ofT­r­­.I­foc­sesspeciic­ll­on­hefe­rs,b­rriers­nd­rg­men­s of ­he loc­l poli­ici­ns ­nd ofici­ls involvedin­heprep­r­­ionprocess.Thes­­d­reve­ls­h­­poli­ic­lconfron­­­ion, in­nci­l cons­r­in­s, composing ­he PBdecision-m­kingbod­­swell­sovercoming­heproblemof ex­r­worklo­ds c­n becomem­jor ch­llenges in ­heprocessofprep­ringforPB.

K­­w­rds: loc­l govern­nce, p­r­icip­­or­ b­d-ge­ing,p­r­icip­­ionpr­c­ices.

Intr­d­cti­nCi­izen p­r­icip­­ion or, ­o be more precise,

­ l­ck ­hereof, h­s become one of f­vo­ri­e ­opicsof n­mero­s poli­ic­l doc­men­s ­nd ­c­demicp­pers.Oneco­ldeven­rg­e­h­­i­h­s­­rnedin­o­commonrhe­oricinever­d­­poli­ics­­­lllevels.However, ­his rhe­oric ver­ r­rel­ m­­eri­lizes ingood ex­mples of ci­izen re­l empowermen­ ­ndinvolvemen­indecision-m­kingprocesses.Scep­icsof p­r­icip­­ion migh­ ­rg­e ­h­­ if ­he ­im is ­om­ke sophis­ic­­ed ­nd dific­l­ socio-economic­ndpoli­ic­ldecisions,­hen,­ogive­nex­mple,if­bridgeneeds­obeb­il­,peoplesho­ldno­be­skedhow­odoi­bec­­seengineerssho­ldbeinch­rgeof s­ch ­ ­­sk (Cell­r­ 2011, in Krenjov­, R­­dl­2013).Ino­herwords,i­isof­en­ss­med­h­­peoplel­ck knowledge necess­r­ ­o p­r­icip­­e in p­blic­ff­irs. However, even if one ­rg­es ­h­­ ­here isindeednoneed­o­skci­izenshow­ob­ild­bridge,i­migh­s­illbe­goodide­­o­sk­hemwhere­op­­i­(ICEGOV2011,inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013).In­hecon­ex­ofP­r­icip­­or­B­dge­ing(PB),onemigh­goevenf­r­her­nd­skpeoplewhe­her­he­w­n­­bridge­­­llor­he­wo­ldprefer­h­­­hem­nicip­li­­spen­f­ndsonsome­hingelse.

PBis­nemergen­phenomenon­nd­growingin­ern­­ion­lpr­c­iceinm­n­co­n­ries.I­provides­noppor­­ni­­­ndsp­cefor­hep­blic­oshif­frombeing­mereservice“­ser”­ow­rdbeing­ninvolved“m­ker ­nd sh­per” (Demedi­k e­ ­l. 2012, 186).Thebenei­sofPBincl­dedemocr­c­,­r­nsp­renc­,ed­c­­ion, eficienc­, soci­l j­s­ice ­nd comm­ni­­developmen­. Since ­here is consider­ble rese­rchon p­r­icip­­or­ democr­c­ ­nd ­he necessi­­ ofenh­ncing i­ (e.g., Kim ­nd Lee 2012; Höch­l,P­r­cek, S­chs, 2011), ­he presen­ p­per does no­foc­sono­­lining­he­dv­n­­gesofPB.Wewo­ldonl­briel­ci­eJohnDewe­’sexpression:“Them­nwhowe­rs­heshoeknowsbe­­erwherei­pinches”(Lerner2011,31).

An­l­sing PB c­n pose ­ consider­blech­llenge.Thisismos­l­bec­­seofdifferencesinPBpr­c­icesin­ermsof­heformofci­izenp­r­icip­­ion­ndmoni­oring­ndm­n­ging­heprocess.Thescope­nd combin­­ion of differen­ elemen­s v­r­ fromc­se ­o c­se ­nd ­he ver­ no­ion ­nd deini­ion ofPBrem­ins­m­chcon­es­ediss­e1.While­hereis­ growing bod­ of rese­rch describing ­he ­lre­d­implemen­edPBpr­c­ices­nd­heirres­l­s,­hereis­l­ckof­n­l­sisof­heprep­r­­ionprocessofPB­ndi­sch­r­c­eris­ics.Thisp­perseeks­oill­hisg­pb­m­pping­hech­llenges,choices­nddecisivef­c­ors­h­­ co­ld be dis­ing­ished in ­he PB prep­r­­ionprocess.I­foc­sesspeciic­ll­on­hefe­rs,b­rriers

1AsLerner(2011)­rg­es,­dvoc­­esinsomeco­n­riesh­vein­er-pre­edPB­ome­n­n­kindofp­blicinvolvemen­inb­dge­ing.Whileherefers­os­chini­i­­ives­shelping­hegovernmen­s“­olegi­imizeold(ornew)cons­l­­­ionpr­c­ices­h­­giveci­izensnopower­odecidespending”(Lerner2011,31),Zh­ng­ndLi­o(2012)in­heirs­­d­onNewJerse­m­nicip­li­iess­­­e­h­­“­hemech­nismsofPBincl­dep­bliche­rings,ci­izens’s­rve­s,­d-

visor­bo­rds­ndfor­msorworkshopsopen­oci­izens”.Thisp­perrefers­o­hecri­eri­proposedb­Sin­omer,Herzberg­ndRöcke (2005): (1) ­hein­nci­ldimensionh­s ­obedisc­ssed,(2) ­heci­­ levelh­s ­obe involved, (3) ­heprocessh­s ­oberepe­­ed,(4)­hereh­s­obesomeformofp­blicdeliber­­ion,(5)some­cco­n­­bili­­isreq­ired.

29

­nd ­rg­men­s of ­he loc­l poli­ici­ns ­nd ofici­lsinvolved in ­he prep­r­­ion process. The p­perpresen­s­c­ses­­d­of­heCi­­ofT­r­­,Es­oni­.

S­r­c­­r­ll­, ­he p­per irs­l­ presen­s ­heme­hodolog­­sedinrese­rch­nd­henproceeds ­o­he sec­ion ­h­­ de­­ils ­he design of ­he v­ri­blesof ­hePBprocess­ndo­­lines ­hem­in ­heore­ic­l­ss­mp­ions concerning ­he m­jor decisions ­h­­f­ce ­he developers of PB. The ­heore­ic­l p­r­ iss­pplemen­edwi­hcon­ex­­­lf­c­ors­h­­­re­ss­med­ode­ermine­hechoiceof­hePBdesign­ndcons­i­­­e­hech­llenges­h­­­hedevelopers­reconfron­edwi­h.The empiric­l p­r­ of ­he p­per, irs­l­, foc­ses onex­mining­hecon­ex­­­lf­c­orsofEs­oni­­ndT­r­­inp­r­ic­l­r,­nd,secondl­,­n­l­ses­heprep­r­­ionprocessof­hePBdesignindep­h,o­­lining­hefe­rs,b­rriers ­nd ­rg­men­s disc­ssed d­ring mee­ings­nd in e-m­il convers­­ions.Fin­ll­, ­he el­bor­­edPBmodelofT­r­­isbriel­presen­ed2.

1. M­th­d­l­g­Thecond­c­edrese­rchin­hepresen­p­peris

­c­ses­­d­.In­n­icip­­ionofobjec­ionsconcerningin­bili­­­ogener­lise­n­­hingfrom­singlec­seor­ possibili­­ ­o look ­­ ­he problem s­bjec­ivi­­, i­sho­ldbeno­ed­h­­­hec­ses­­d­form­­isperfec­l­s­i­edforgener­­ingcon­ex­-dependen­knowledge,which is p­r­ic­l­rl­ signiic­n­ in rese­rching PB.Moreover,­hec­ses­­d­me­hod­llows­herese­rcher­orem­inclose ­o ­heme­ningf­lch­r­c­eris­icsofre­l life even­s (Fl­vbjerg 2006). Fin­ll­, ­s H­nsE­senckcl­ims,“some­imeswesimpl­h­ve­okeepo­re­esopen­ndlookc­ref­ll­­­individ­­lc­ses–no­in­hehopeofproving­n­­hing,b­­r­­herin­hehopeof le­rning some­hing!” (E­senck1976, 9, inFl­vbjerg2006).ThePBprep­r­­ionprocessin­heCi­­ofT­r­­,Es­oni­,is­n­l­sedb­presen­ing­hefe­rs,b­rriers­nd­rg­men­sdisc­ssedin­hefoc­sgro­p.The vir­­e of ­he l­­­er lies in ­he ­bili­­ of­ gro­p process ­o prod­ce ­ consider­ble ­mo­n­of inform­­ion:­speopleeng­ge in­di­log­e, ­heconvers­­ion isnonline­r­nddifferen­perspec­ivesc­nbebro­gh­­p­­­n­­ime(Johnson2002).

Thefoc­sgro­pin ­hisrese­rchconsis­edof10–12peoplerepresen­ingever­poli­ic­lp­r­­in­heCi­­Co­ncil.In­ddi­ion­op­r­­represen­­­ives,­hegro­pincl­ded­heCi­­Secre­­r­whoisresponsiblefor­heci­­’slegisl­­ive­c­s,­heHe­dof­heLeg­lDep­r­men­ ­nd ­n ofici­l from ­he Fin­nci­lDep­r­men­.Theini­i­­ive­opilo­­heprojec­c­mefrom ­heM­­or­nd ­hisme­n­ ­h­­ ­heM­­or­ndDep­­­M­­orswere­lsop­r­of­hegro­p.L­s­b­­no­le­s­,­heP­blicRel­­ionsDep­r­men­w­s­lso2D­e­osp­celimi­­­ions,­hereisnode­­ileddescrip­ionofex-

is­ing ­heore­ic­lPBmodels in ­hisp­per.For­morede­­iledoverview,seeSin­omere­­l.(2010).

involved in developing ­he PB process. The foc­sgro­pcoincidedwi­h­heWorkGro­p(WG)­h­­w­sinvolvedin­heel­bor­­ionof­hePBdesign.

Thechoiceofp­r­icip­n­sfor­hefoc­sgro­pw­sp­r­i­ll­b­sedonself-selec­ion­ndp­rposef­lselec­ion. A le­­er of invi­­­ion w­s sen­ ­o ­llp­r­ies in ­heCi­­Co­ncil, briel­describingwh­­PB is­ndproposing ­o­­­end­mee­ing ­odisc­ssi­s implemen­­­ion possibili­ies in T­r­­. The Ci­­Secre­­r­, ­hehe­dof ­heL­wDep­r­men­­nd ­herepresen­­­ive of ­he Fin­nci­l Dep­r­men­ wereperson­ll­ invi­ed ­o ­­ke p­r­ d­e ­o ­he speciicsof­he­opicdisc­ssed.Simil­rl­,­herew­s­gener­l­nders­­nding­h­­­hecomm­nic­­ion­spec­of­hePBprocessiscr­ci­l;­herefore,­heP­blicRel­­ionsDep­r­men­w­s­ssigned­nimpor­­n­role.Over­ll,­hree disc­ssion sessions ­ook pl­ce be­weenApril2013­ndJ­ne2013,e­chl­s­ingfor­woho­rs3.E-m­ilcomm­nic­­ionbe­ween­heWGmembersw­senco­r­gedfrom­heonse­.Oneof­he­­­horsof­hep­per w­s involved ­s ­n exper­ in designing ­ndpl­nning­hePBprocess­ndw­s,hence,­hef­cili­­­orof ­he disc­ssion. The sessions were recorded ­nd­r­nscribed. Addi­ion­l so­rces incl­de second­r­li­er­­­re­n­l­sis­nde-m­ilconvers­­ions.

2. Th­­r­tical fram­w­r­ 2.1. D­signing th­ PB pr­c­ss: ch­ic­s and chall­ng­s

As no­ed ­bove, ­he pr­c­ices ­nd me­hodsof implemen­ingPBv­r­gre­­l­, from ­he speciicformofci­izenp­r­icip­­ionin­heb­dge­­lloc­­ionproced­re ­o ­hecon­rolmech­nisms­sedonce ­heb­dge­ h­s been ­pproved (Sin­omer e­ ­l. 2005;C­b­nnes 2004, 28 in Krenjov­, R­­dl­ 2013).Th­s, i­ is r­­herdific­l­ ­o“m­p ­hecon­o­rs”ofPB.However,b­sedon­hes­n­hesisofexis­ingPBrese­rch,i­ispossible­oo­­line­heb­sicph­sesof­hePBproced­re(seeT­ble1).Thev­ri­blesof­heprocessdesignwereex­r­c­ed­ndconsolid­­edfromC­b­nnes(2004),Sin­omere­­l.(2010),F­ng(2006),Ebdon­ndFr­nklin(2006)­ndT­lpin(2007)4.

3 M­rked­sWGsessionsbelow.4Thev­ri­blesof­heprocessdesignh­vebeens­n­hesizedb­oneof ­he­­­hors­sp­r­of ­hem­s­er’s ­hesis (seeKrenjov­2012). The­ were ex­r­c­ed from rese­rch cond­c­ed b­ C­-b­nnes(2004)whichdr­wson25experiencesinL­­inAmeric­­ndE­rope­ndfrom­glob­ls­­d­b­Sin­omere­­l.(2010­)whichel­bor­­ed6modelsofPBinE­rope.Thecri­eri­­h­­­hemodels­reb­sedonh­vebeenin­egr­­edwi­h­hev­ri­bles­nddis­rib­­edbe­ween ­hes­­gesof ­hePBprocessdevelopedb­­he ­­­hor of ­he ­hesis.Addi­ion­ll­, ­he fr­mework h­s beens­pplemen­edb­F­ng’sdimensions­ndsomecomponen­sfromEbdon­ndFr­nklin(2006)onke­elemen­sofci­izenp­r­icip­-­ioninb­dge­ing.L­s­l­,­heq­es­ionsofproced­re,fr­ming­ndimplemen­­­ionr­isedb­T­lpin(2007)h­vebeen­­kenin­o­c-co­n­whileel­bor­­ing­hefr­mework.Formorede­­iledrefer-ences­o­heseso­rces,seeKrenjov­(2012).

30

T­ble1PB pr­c­ss d­sign variabl­s

PB d­cisi­n-ma­ing b­d­ • Whose­s­p“­her­lesof­heg­me”?

Participati­n

• How­rep­r­icip­n­sselec­ed?• Whichp­r­icip­­ionmech­nismsc­nbe­sed?(p­blicmee­ings,foc­sgro­ps,sim­l­-­ion,­dvisor­commi­­ees,s­rve­s,e­c.)• Howdoci­izensp­r­icip­­e?(direc­vs.indirec­p­r­icip­­ion)• How­remee­ingsorg­nized?(­erri­ori­lor­hem­­icb­sis;ci­­,dis­ric­orneighbo­r-hoodlevel)

D­lib­rati­n • Wh­­isbeingdeliber­­ed?(inves­men­sorservicedeliver­,projec­sorgener­l­re­s)• Howdop­r­icip­n­scomm­nic­­e­ndm­kedecisions?Emp­w­rm­nt • Wh­­roledoes­hecivilsocie­­pl­­?C­ntr­l and m­nit­ring • Whochecks­heimplemen­­­ionof­heb­dge­?So­rce:Krenjov­,R­­dl­(2013)

The irs­ v­ri­ble, ­he disc­ssion of ­he PBprep­r­­ion process ­r­di­ion­ll­ s­­r­s wi­h, is­he PB d­cisi­n-ma­ing b­d­. In o­her words, ­decisionh­s­obem­de­s­owhichbod­/ins­i­­­ionis going ­o se­ ­p “­he r­les of ­he g­me”, ­h­­ is,m­n­ge ­he whole process of selec­ing ­hemes fordisc­ssion,cri­eri­for­lloc­­ingreso­rces,n­mberofmee­ings,e­c.According­oC­b­nnes(2004),ci­edb­Krenjov­,R­­dl­(2013,26),mos­PBc­sesf­llbe­ween­woex­remes:­hespeciicPBCo­ncil­nd­hepre-exis­ingsoci­l­ndpoli­ic­lfr­meworkss­ch­sneighbo­rhoods.Thevir­­eof ­heformer is ­h­­­heb­dge­becomes­hefoc­lpoin­ofp­r­icip­­ion,while in ­he l­­­erb­dge­ingc­nend­p­sno­ ­heforemos­ concern ­nd loc­l ne­worksmigh­ no­ bemodiied(C­b­nnes2004;H­ller­ndF­­lkner2012).Someschol­rs­rg­e­h­­­heM­­or’soficesho­ldbe direc­l­ involved in coordin­­ing ­he process(Goldfr­nk 2007), while o­hers do no­ excl­dem­n­gemen­of­hePBprocessb­­nindependen­­nd­n­ligned bod­/exper­ wi­ho­­ ­ ves­ed in­eres­ in­heo­­come(Thomson2012;Demedi­ke­­l.2012;Lerner2011).Ch­llenge­ndchoices­­­hiss­­ge­lsoconcerninvolvemen­ofci­izensinprep­ringforPB(Demedi­ke­­l.2012).

ThePBdecision-m­kingbod­is­lsoinch­rgeof de­ermining ­he propor­ion of ­he b­dge­ or ­he­mo­n­ofmone­­obegiven­op­blicdeliber­­ion.C­b­nnes(2004,28)o­­lines­his­spec­­s­sep­r­­ev­ri­ble, l­belling i­ “m­n­gemen­ of sc­rci­­ orf­ll con­rol of p­blic reso­rce”.Ag­in, signiic­n­differences exis­ be­ween c­ses, r­nging from less­h­n1% ­o100%of ­heb­dge­.C­mpin­s,Br­zil,forex­mple,implemen­ed­hePBs­s­em­h­­­llowsci­izens ­o de­ermine 100% of ­he m­nicip­li­­’sreso­rces(H­llere­­l.2012).This,ofco­rse,is­nex­remeex­mple.T­pic­ll­,less­h­­20%of­he­o­­lb­dge­is­nderdisc­ssion(Lerner2011).

Thenex­­spec­­obedecidedwhileprep­ring­he PB design is participati­n ­nd ­ll ch­llenges

­nd op­ions s­rro­nding i­, r­nging from selec­ionofp­r­icip­n­s­oorg­niz­­ionofmee­ings.Am­chdeb­­ed iss­e is efic­c­ of p­r­icip­­ion.The self-selec­ionprocess,forins­­nce,issome­imesviewed­s involving iss­e ex­remis­s (­s ­he mos­ ­c­ivep­r­icip­n­s),res­l­ingin­heso-c­lled“d­rksideofciviceng­gemen­”(Fiorin­1999,414,inL­Fr­nce,B­log­n2012).A­­hes­me­ime,s­­dies­lsos­gges­­h­­ p­r­icip­­ion sho­ld be open ­o l­rge n­mbersof people; i­ sho­ld provide ­wide ­ccess ­ndno­excl­de­n­one.Thereis­lso­n­ddedch­llengeofinvolving ­nderrepresen­ed gro­ps of socie­­,wh­­­heself-selec­ionprocessdoesno­ens­re.I­ is­lsoimpor­­n­ ­h­­ ­hechosenp­r­icip­­ionmech­nismsrel­­e­op­r­icip­­iongo­ls(Ebdon,Fr­nklin2006).As Demedi­k e­ ­l. (2012) s­gges­s, ­he ends(objec­ives­ndo­­comes)chosenfor­PBini­i­­ivesho­ld sh­pe ­he me­ns (s­r­c­­re ­nd processes)chosenin­hePBdesign.

Undo­b­edl­, ­he ­w­reness r­ising ph­seh­s ­o ­­ke pl­ce in order ­o inform ci­izens of­pcomingoppor­­ni­ies.Thisco­ldbedonevi­loc­lnewsp­pers,onlinemedi­,soci­lne­works,­elevision,m­ilor­n­o­herme­nsofcomm­nic­­ion.Lerner(2011,34)n­mesmobiliz­­ionofdiversep­r­icip­n­s­he gre­­es­ ch­llenge for PB in ­heUni­ed S­­­es:“How do ­o­ ­­­r­c­ diverse p­r­icip­n­s, be­ond­he­s­­ls­spec­s?”An­ddedn­­nceis­wodis­inc­­ppro­ches ­o org­nising ­hemee­ings: ­hem­­ic or­erri­ori­l. Us­­ll­, PB is cond­c­ed in ­wo w­­s:ei­her­hro­ghreg­l­rmee­ingsof­heneighbo­rhoods­nd ­hewholeci­­ (­erri­ori­l­ppro­ch)or ­hro­gh­he so-c­lled ­hem­­ic ­ssemblieswhich c­n be onho­sing,loc­leconomicdevelopmen­,­r­nspor­­­ion,e­c.(C­b­nnes2004,28).

The m­in poin­ of ­hese mee­ings isd­lib­rati­n, ­he s­bjec­ of which c­n v­r­ fromgener­l ­re­s ­o speciic projec­s. I­ is ­lso ­­ ­hiss­­ge ­h­­ ­he prep­r­­ion process sho­ld foc­s on

31

­heq­es­ionoffr­ming,­h­­is,onhowdeliber­­ivedecisions sho­ld be (e.g., oper­­ing ­hro­ghconsens­s or ­hro­gh ­more ­ggreg­­ive ­ppro­chs­ch­svo­ing).Consens­­ldecision-m­kingmigh­become ­ fer­ile gro­nd for ­he ­dminis­r­­ion ­om­nip­l­­e­hedisc­ssion(T­lpin2007);on­heo­herh­nd,­hereis­lw­­s­norm­­ive­rg­men­inf­vo­rof deliber­­ion ­s ­he scope ofm­­­ers ­h­­ c­n bedisc­ssedismorewide(Thompson2012).

Depending on ­he ex­en­ of civil socie­­’sinl­ence on ­he in­l decision, differen­ levels of­mp­w­rm­nt c­n be implic­­ed, r­nging from“selec­ive lis­ening” ­o de f­c­o decision-m­king.While “selec­ive lis­ening” s­­nds for ­ merecons­l­­­ionprocesswhereb­ci­izens’propos­ls­resimpl­­­kenin­o­cco­n­b­loc­l­­­hori­ies;def­c­odecision-m­king ­­ ­he o­her side of ­he spec­r­mme­ns ­h­­ ­he loc­l co­ncil h­s ­n oblig­­ion ­oofici­ll­­pprove­hep­r­icip­­or­b­dge­pl­n(F­ng2006,Herzberg2011inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013).

Fin­ll­,­decisionh­s ­obem­de­s ­owhoc­ntr­ls and m­nit­rsb­dge­implemen­­­iononcei­ h­s been ­pproved. These f­nc­ions ­re ­s­­ll­performed b­ ­he exec­­ive br­nch or b­ ci­izens(C­b­nnes2004,inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013)

2.2. C­nt­xt­al fact­rsI­ is obvio­s ­h­­ ­he prep­r­­ion process,

­h­­ foc­ses on ­he selec­ion of ­he PB design ­nddifferen­op­ionsi­h­s­ooffer,isgre­­l­inl­encedb­environmen­­l­spec­s­h­­­refreq­en­l­decisivein ­he el­bor­­ion of ­he PB s­r­c­­re ­nd in i­sfe­sibili­­­nd­pplic­bili­­over­ll.

Rese­rch on differen­ PB experiencesm­kesi­ possible ­o m­p sever­l ke­ con­ex­­­l f­c­ors.Cond­cive poli­ic­l ­nd civic c­l­­res cons­i­­­ef­vo­r­bleenvironmen­­lcomponen­s­h­­f­cili­­­es­ccessf­l implemen­­­ion of PB (Herzberg 2011,18;W­mpler2007,24;DeN­rdis2011,98;Fölscher2007, 132–134; Goldfr­nk 2007). Secondl­, ­s PBconcerns loc­l levelgovern­nce­ndde­lswi­h ­he­lloc­­ion of in­nci­l reso­rces, loc­l in­nci­l­­­onom­ is ­no­her impor­­n­ prereq­isi­e for i­sfe­sibili­­ (W­mpler 2007, 25;DeN­rdis 2011, 95;Fölscher2007,130–132).

Previo­s p­r­icip­­ion experiences, i.e. ­hehis­or­ of p­r­icip­­ion of loc­l governmen­s (LG),c­nserve­s­nindic­­orofre­dinessfor­ndpossible­ccep­­nce of PB (Kwei­ ­ndKwei­ in Ebdon ­ndFr­nklin 2006). For PB ­owork, ­here h­s ­o be ­cle­rin­eres­on­hep­r­of­hecivilsocie­­,­h­­is,­heci­izenr­h­s­obere­d­­ndwilling­op­r­icip­­e;­lso,­cle­rpoli­ic­lwillon­hep­r­ofm­nicip­ldecision-m­kers isvi­­l (Ebdon,Fr­nklin2006 inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013).Poli­ic­l­c­orsmigh­feel­hre­­ened

b­ci­izens’direc­p­r­icip­­ion in loc­lgovern­nce­s­he­obvio­sl­losesomedecision-m­kingsp­ce(C­b­nnes2004;W­mpler2007inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013).Asinves­ig­­edb­Zh­ng­ndLi­o(2012),­heM­­or’sgener­l­­­i­­de­ow­rdp­blicp­r­icip­­ionis of ­­mos­ impor­­nce. I­ h­s ­ s­rong imp­c­ on­he ­dop­ionofPB.Theirindings s­gges­ ­h­­ ­heex­en­­owhich­m­nicip­li­­eng­gesin­­wo-w­­di­log­ewi­h i­s ci­izensdependson ­hebeliefsof­he elec­ed ofici­ls ­nd ­he r­­ion­l ev­l­­­ions ofprofession­lm­n­gers, especi­ll­ ­he es­im­­ion ofci­izens’in­eres­­ndp­r­icip­­ioncos­.

Cer­­inl­, p­r­icip­­ion h­s i­s cos­, bo­h forci­izens­ndofici­ls.TheformerderivesfromDowns’ide­ ­h­­ individ­­ls ­lw­­s weigh cos­s ­g­ins­po­en­i­l benei­s, ­ndp­r­icip­­ion isno excep­ion(Downs 1957, in L­Fr­nce, B­log­n 2012). From­he governmen­’s perspec­ive, ci­izens’ presencein b­dge­ing is ­ho­gh­ ­o m­ke decisions moreexpensive (Zh­ng, Li­o 2012, 285). Tr­ns­c­ion­lcos­sofp­r­icip­­ionc­nd­mpenen­h­si­sm­mongpoli­ic­l eli­es who c­lc­l­­e incre­se in s­­ff ­ime­nd comm­nic­­ion (DeN­rdis 2011).AsDeN­rdis(2011) observes, ­he prev­iling belief, ­h­­ ci­izensl­ck ­he necess­r­ knowledge ­o p­r­icip­­e, c­nbecome­nobs­­cleinPBimplemen­­­ion.

I­­lsoc­n­lw­­sbe­rg­ed­h­­­heeconomicperspec­ivesho­ldbes­pplemen­edwi­h­hev­ri­bleof impor­­nce, ­h­­ is, ­he v­ri­ble ­h­­ me­s­resimpor­­nce­h­­­p­r­icip­n­­­­­ches­obeing­ble­oexpresshispreferences(Fiorin­1999, inL­Fr­nce,B­log­n 2012).As one s­­d­ s­gges­s, “perceivedefic­c­ is ­he bes­ de­ermin­n­ of gener­lizedcon­­c­”(Hirlinger1992,553,inL­Fr­nce,B­log­n2012, 2). Hence, ­he percep­ion of socie­­ ­h­­ i­svoiceisbeinghe­rd(whichisof­en­chieved­hro­ghm­l­iplep­r­icip­­or­experiences­h­­legi­imize­hegovernmen­) ­nd, ­s ­ conseq­ence,willingness of­hecivilsocie­­­op­r­icip­­e­re­ddi­ion­ldecisivecon­ex­­­l f­c­ors ­h­­ inl­ence ­he fe­sibili­­ ofPB.

F­r­hermore,sincePBprescribesp­r­icip­­ionin­he­lloc­­ionofin­nci­lreso­rces­­­hem­nicip­llevel, i­ prob­bl­ goes wi­ho­­ s­­ing ­h­­ ­he LGwilling­oc­rr­o­­PBh­s­oh­vesomedegreeofin­nci­l­­­onom­.Thismigh­be­re­lch­llengefor­m­nicip­li­­whichisdependen­ons­­­e­r­nsfersforvi­­lservices(Lernen,B­iocchi2007).

Exis­ing rese­rch provides ­n even lesss­s­em­­ic overview of ­he more loc­l levelch­r­c­eris­icsofm­nicip­li­ies.Thesizeof­nLG(e.g., i­spop­l­­ion) ispres­m­bl­decisive inhowp­r­icip­­ion will be s­r­c­­red (­ffec­ing ­he form­nd scope of p­r­icip­­ion ­s well ­s ­he me­hodsof p­r­icip­n­ selec­ion). L­rge ci­ies m­­ op­ for

32

m­l­i-l­­er p­r­icip­­ion wi­h ci­izens’ deleg­­esinvolved in ­he process.An ­l­ern­­ive for ­ l­rgeci­­wo­ldbe­­rge­edselec­ionoforg­nisedci­izens’represen­­­ives (­his, however, ­lso depends on ­hepoli­ic­l c­l­­re). Sm­ller ci­ies migh­ choose ­oeng­ge in p­r­icip­­ion vi­ self-selec­ion ­nd openmee­ings­­­he­ownlevel.Thesizeof­hepop­l­­ionm­­ ­lso inl­ence form­li­­ of ­he process ­nd­hemodeof decision-m­king. In sm­ller ci­ies, forins­­nce, consens­s-b­sed ­nd inform­l processesmigh­bemoreprob­ble(Krenjov­,R­­dl­2013).

Lerner(2011)poin­so­­­h­­e­hnic­ldiversi­­c­ncons­i­­­e­ch­llengefor­hedevelopers­s­he­­­­emp­­oge­­llgro­psinvolved­h­s­lsoinl­encingp­r­icip­­ion ­nd i­s op­ions. Co­ncil diversi­­is being ex­mined b­ Zh­ng ­nd Li­o (2012) ­s ­gener­ll­ f­vo­r­ble f­c­or ­h­­ v­l­es ­he inp­­ ofdifferen­perspec­ives­ndenco­r­gesover­llp­blicinvolvemen­.The­s­gges­,however,­h­­PBismorelikel­­oocc­rinhomogeneo­scomm­ni­ies.

Fin­ll­, ­he levelofLGprosperi­­ (indic­­edb­i­sperc­pi­­reven­es)islikel­­obe­hedecisivef­c­orin­hechoiceofempowermen­level­ndof­hedecision-m­king bod­. Even ­ho­gh m­nicip­li­­in­nces h­ve ­o be involved (­ccording ­o ­hedeini­ionofPB),­srese­rchondifferen­PBmodelsshows, ­he­ migh­ be combined wi­h priv­­e ­nd(non)governmen­­l reso­rces in order ­o provide­deq­­­e f­nding for implemen­­­ion. I­ is wor­hno­ing ­h­­ PB c­n be implemen­ed even wi­h ­limi­ed ­mo­n­ ofmone­. Pr­c­ices v­r­ from 1—10%of ­he over­ll implemen­ed b­dge­ (C­b­nnes2004,34).Prosperi­­m­­­ddi­ion­ll­inl­ence­hefoc­s of deliber­­ion, which r­nges from speciicprojec­s ­obro­dpolic­g­idelines.Am­nicip­li­­,s­r­ppedforf­nds,ismorelikel­­oinvolveci­izensin ­disc­ssionovergener­lpolic­priori­ies r­­her­h­n in selec­ion of new p­blic works (C­b­nnes,2004,W­mpler2007inKrenjov­,R­­dl­2013).

The ­ddi­ion­l con­ex­­­l f­c­or ­h­­ isincre­singl­ impor­­n­ in ­he inform­­ion ­ge isdesire­ndre­dinessof­m­nicip­li­­­o­seICTinp­r­icip­­ion.This f­c­ormigh­ becomedecisive ins­r­c­­ringdifferen­s­­gesof­hePBprocess,s­­r­ingfromg­­heringinp­­forvo­ingon­hein­ldecision.As v­rio­s e-PB experiences s­­r­ ­o emerge,impor­­nceof­hisv­ri­blec­nno­be­nderes­im­­ed.As s­­­ed b­ H­ller ­nd F­­lkner (2012, 24), whoex­minePBin­heUS,“­hein­egr­­ionof­echnolog­in­op­blicp­r­icip­­ionbecomes­ke­indic­­orofs­ccessofp­bliceng­gemen­”.The­seofICTinPBdesignbro­dens­hescopeofp­bliceng­gemen­­nd­llowsfor­morediverse­rr­­ofopinions­ndide­s­obepresen­ed.

3. Disc­ssi­nThissec­ionprovides­briefoverviewof ­he

environmen­­l ch­r­c­eris­ics ­­ bo­h, ­he n­­ion­l­ndloc­l,levels.I­­lsoo­­lines­hem­indisc­ssionpoin­s­nd­rg­men­sr­isedd­ring­hePBprep­r­­ionprocessinT­r­­.The­rg­men­­­ioniss­r­c­­redon­he b­sis of ­he design v­ri­bles presen­ed in ­heprevio­s ­heore­ic­l fr­mework. This sec­ion ­lsoindic­­escri­ic­lpoin­sin­heWGdisc­ssionsessions­nd presen­s rel­­ed disc­ssions ­h­­ ­re ­v­il­blein­hepresen­rese­rch.Thesec­ion­lsoreve­ls­hemos­ decisive f­c­ors behind ­he choices in ­hePBprocessdesign.

3.1. Envir­nm­ntal charact­ristics ­f Est­nia and Tart­

Ass­­­edin­he­heore­ic­lsec­ion,prep­r­­ion­nd,in­ll­,choiceof­speciicPBdesigns­rongl­depend on ­he environmen­ of LG. This sec­ionprovides ­noverviewof ­he con­ex­­­l f­c­ors ­h­­­re ­ss­med ­o inl­ence choices ­h­­ ofici­ls ­ndexper­sm­ked­ring­hePBprep­r­­ionprocess.

Es­oni­ is divided in­o 226 m­nicip­li­ies,incl­ding 33 ci­ies ­nd 193 r­r­l m­nicip­li­ies.The­differgre­­l­insize: ­hel­rges­ is ­hec­pi­­lci­­T­llinn,wi­h ­hepop­l­­ionof ­bo­­ 400000,where­s­wo­hirdsof­heLG­ni­sh­veless­h­n3000inh­bi­­n­s.Independen­LGswerere-es­­blishedinEs­oni­in­hee­rl­1990s,whenmos­legisl­­iononLGs­nd­heirin­nceswerewri­­en.TheCons­i­­­ionofEs­oni­s­­­es(in§154)­h­­loc­l­­­hori­iesh­ve ­he righ­ ­o m­n­ge loc­l iss­es: “All loc­l iss­essh­llberesolved­ndm­n­gedb­loc­lgovernmen­s,whichsh­lloper­­eindependen­l­p­rs­­n­­ol­w”.

Despi­e ­he righ­ ­o m­n­ge ­heir iss­es,loc­l in­nci­l ­­­onom­ of ­he Es­oni­n LGs isr­­her limi­ed. Expendi­­re ­­­onom­ is dependen­on ­he cen­r­l governmen­ ­hro­gh ­he m­nd­­or­services­ndf­nc­ions ­h­­­re imposedb­l­w­nd­h­­ ­c­­­ll­ cons­i­­­e mos­ expendi­­re ­re­s. In­ddi­ion, v­g­eness inwh­­ speciic­ll­ loc­l ­­sks­re enh­nces LG dependenc­ on ­he discre­ion of­he cen­r­l governmen­. Somem­nd­­or­ f­nc­ionsimposedb­l­w­rereg­l­­edb­­re­-speciicl­ws,le­vingLGsli­­leroom­odecidefor­hemselveshow­oprovide­heservice.Fin­ll­,reven­e­­­onom­isr­­her low,­smos­LGreven­es­c­­­ll­cons­i­­­e­r­nsfers from ­he cen­r­l governmen­ (Krenjov­2012).

I­ co­ld be ­rg­ed ­h­­, simil­rl­ ­o loc­lgovernmen­s inE­rope, loc­l­­­hori­ies inEs­oni­h­verel­­ivefreedomof­c­ion­ndbro­doppor­­ni­ies­odeveloploc­lcomm­ni­ies.However,­­­hes­me­ime ­he­ h­ve ­he oblig­­ion ­o offer ­lmos­ 70%of ­he services (soci­l ­ssis­­nce, ed­c­­ion, e­c.).

33

F­r­hermore,­hes­­­­s­ndroleofloc­lgovernmen­sh­ve differed ­nd h­ve been deb­­ed ­hro­gho­­his­or­­ndcer­­inl­d­ring­he­e­rsofindependence.Al­ho­gh n­mero­s responsibili­ies h­ve beendivided be­ween ­he cen­r­l governmen­ ­nd ­hem­nicip­li­ies formore ­h­n­dec­de, ­here is s­illconf­sion in­nders­­nding ­he roles, f­nc­ions­ndresponsibili­iesof­hedifferen­governmen­­llevels.As ­he cen­r­l governmen­ h­s cons­­n­l­ ch­ngedi­s expec­­­ionsof ­he loc­lgovernmen­s, ­m­­­­l­nders­­ndingh­sno­­lw­­sbeens­ficien­.A­­hes­me ­ime, ­he m­nicip­li­ies ­hemselves h­ve no­beenoverl­pro­c­iveindeveloping­heirini­i­­ives­nd­ppro­ches.This,in­­rn,­ffec­sci­izens’will­oen­er in­o­di­log­ewi­h ­heir loc­lm­nicip­li­ies(Reins­l­2008).

The exis­ence of s­ch ­ di­log­e cer­­inl­concerns­hepoli­ic­l­ndcivicc­l­­reof­heco­n­r­­ndof­hespeciicLG­h­­isc­p­bleofinl­encingPB form­­ion. Spe­king of ­he n­­ion­l level, forEs­oni­­sform­n­o­herCen­r­l­ndE­s­ernE­rope(CEE) co­n­ries, ch­nge from ­n ­ndemocr­­ic ­o­ democr­­ic regime h­s h­d ­n immense imp­c­on people’s belief s­s­ems (Ti­m­, Rämmer 2006).The democr­­ic regime ­h­­ ­he newl­ es­­blishedindependen­s­­­ew­slongingfor­ppe­redr­dic­ll­differen­ from ­he regime in­o whichm­n­ peopleh­dbeensoci­lisedfor­ll­heirlives(Mishler,Rose2001).Tr­s­inins­i­­­ions,oneof­hem­inindic­­orsof s­s­­in­bili­­ ­nd s­ccessf­l perform­nce of ­poli­ic­l s­s­em (Pe­­­i e­ ­l. 2011),w­s inevi­­bl­­ffec­ed b­ ­ ch­nge in ­he world his­or­ known­s coll­pse of ­he Sovie­ Union. Now­d­­s, i­ h­sprob­bl­ become common knowledge ­h­­ ci­izensof pos­-comm­nis­ socie­ies ­re likel­ ­o m­nifes­low­r­s­in­heins­i­­­ionsof­heirco­n­r­. Adesire­o pro­ec­ oneself from ­n in­r­sive ­nd repressive­­­hori­­ri­nregimelef­ i­sm­rkonm­n­people’spercep­ion of governmen­-rel­­ed ins­i­­­ions(Mishler,Rose2001).As ­ res­l­, ­he civic c­l­­reinEs­oni­ispres­m­bl­rel­­ivel­we­k.Gener­ll­,­heroleof­heEs­oni­nci­izenisseeninleg­l­erms.Thisme­ns ­h­­ ci­izens ­re foc­sed on ­heir leg­ls­­­­s ­nd oppor­­ni­ies ­o ens­re ­hemselves civil­nd poli­ic­l righ­s r­­her ­h­n on ­ss­ming soci­loblig­­ions­ndp­r­icip­­ingin­hegoverningof­heirs­­­eorm­nicip­li­­(Krenjov­2012).

In gener­l, Es­oni­ co­ld be s­id ­o bedomin­­edb­­nindivid­­lis­icpoli­ic­lc­l­­re. TheNPM p­r­digm, ­h­­ Es­oni­ e­gerl­ s­epped in­o,con­rib­­ed signiic­n­l­ ­o ­he developmen­ of ­heminim­lis­concep­ionof ­hes­­­e­swell­s ­o ­hewe­kl­ developed civil socie­­where p­r­icip­­ionr­­es ­re rel­­ivel­ low ­nd individ­­lis­ v­l­esprev­il. Poli­ici­ns ­­ ­he loc­l level ­re e­ger ­oeng­gein­one-w­­rel­­ionshipwi­hci­izens,mos­l­

b­ ­he disclos­re of p­blic inform­­ion (­c­ivel­5 or p­ssivel­6) ­nd emph­size people’s p­ssivi­­ inp­r­icip­­ion. From ­he individ­­l perspec­ive, in­­rn,being­ci­izendoesno­seem­oimpl­­mor­ld­­­­o­­kep­r­inpolic­-m­kingb­­,ins­e­d,h­s­shor­-­erm­­ili­­ri­n­in­(Krenjov­2012).

As no­ed ­bove, democr­c­ in Es­oni­h­s developed simil­rl­ ­o o­her pos­-comm­nis­co­n­ries. I­ h­s been ch­r­c­erised b­ r­pidins­i­­­ion­ldevelopmen­­nd­comp­r­­ivel­slowerdevelopmen­of ­he civil socie­­.However,Es­oni­isexcep­ion­ld­e ­o i­s ­echnologic­ldevelopmen­which h­s been f­s­er ­h­n in mos­ o­her pos­-comm­nis­ co­n­ries. Es­oni­ h­s inves­ed in ­ndcre­­ed ­ well-f­nc­ioning IT infr­s­r­c­­re whichin­egr­­es offering e-services ­­ bo­h levels, loc­l­ndn­­ion­l.The­seof­heIn­erne­­nde-servicesisrel­­ivel­high,me­ning­hereis­gener­lf­vo­r­blecon­ex­inwhich­opl­n­he­seofonline­oolsfrom­hever­beginningof ­hePBprocess.This is evenmore ­he c­se d­e ­o ­he ­lre­d­ exis­ing ­ools forLoc­lDemocr­c­Proced­ress­ch­s­heInform­­ionS­s­emforCo­ncils,VOLIS–speci­lsof­w­refore-decisionsb­loc­l­­­hori­ies.Thesof­w­redigi­­ll­gener­­es views for differen­ ­ser c­­egories ­ndrolesperformed(for­heco­ncil,governmen­,s­­­e,ofici­l, ­dminis­r­­or), links ­hem­ccording ­o ­heproced­r­l reg­l­­ions of ­he loc­l ­dminis­r­­ion,en­bles decision-m­king ­hro­gh ­he ­se ofdigi­­l ­­­hen­ic­­ion, ­llows members ­o vir­­­ll­p­r­icip­­e in ­he co­ncil ­nd i­s s­b-mee­ings (vi­­he In­erne­) wi­h f­ll righ­s (incl­ding vo­ing ­ndm­kingspeeches)­ndre­l-­imeoverview,e­c.Wh­­isespeci­ll­impor­­n­in­hecon­ex­ofPBis­h­­­hesof­w­reoffers­speci­lci­izens’viewwhichen­blesp­blic involvemen­ (­llows ­he ci­izens ­o presen­propos­ls,­mendmen­s­odr­f­s­swell­soffer­heiropinionsre­l-­ime).Theci­izens’view­lsos­re­msvideo ­nd so­nd from ­he loc­l co­ncil mee­ing.VOLISsof­w­reis­v­il­ble­o­llloc­lgovernmen­s­ndlevelsfor­(rel­­ivel­low)ixedserviceprice.S­ill,no­­llEs­oni­nLGsh­vejoined­hes­s­em.I­migh­be­hec­se­h­­loc­lpoli­ic­lle­ders­re­fr­idof­highdegreeof­r­nsp­renc­7.

T­r­­ h­s joined ­he Inform­­ion Co­ncilS­s­em­ndmigh­bes­id­os­­ndo­­­mongo­herLGs in Es­oni­. In f­c­, i­ c­nno­ be considered ­represen­­­iveci­­­mong­heEs­oni­nm­nicip­li­ies.Wi­h ­he pop­l­­ion of ro­ghl­ 100 000 residen­s,i­ is ­he second l­rges­ ci­­ of Es­oni­. Loc­­ed185 km so­­h of T­llinn, i­ is ­lso ­he cen­re ofSo­­hernEs­oni­.TheCi­­Co­ncilofT­r­­,chosen5Dissemin­­inginform­­iononi­sownini­i­­ive(OECD2001).6Providinginform­­ionon­heci­izens’req­es­(OECD2001).7For f­r­her inform­­ion­bo­­VOLISvisi­h­­ps://www.volis.ee/gvolis/?l­ng=en

34

b­­heelec­or­­eof ­heci­­ever­fo­r­e­rs, is ­herepresen­­­ive bod­ ofm­nicip­l governmen­.Ci­­lifeisdirec­edb­49membersof­heCi­­Co­ncil­nd5members of ­heCi­­Governmen­,mos­ recen­l­elec­edin­he­­­­mnof20098.

T­r­­ h­s been o­­s­­ndingl­ ­c­ive ininvolving ci­izens in decision-m­king processes ondifferen­loc­liss­es.There­regre­­ex­mples9 from

­he l­s­ co­ple of ­e­rs when T­r­­ h­s involvedci­izensin­heprocessofno­icing­ndrew­rdingbes­snow-cle­rers, enco­r­ged ci­izens ­o become ­hecre­­ors­nd­­­horsofnew­o­ris­broch­res­bo­­T­r­­, e­c. These ­re minor ever­d­­ loc­l iss­es.In­ddi­ion,­hereh­vebeen­wop­r­icip­­ionc­seswhich­rehighl­relev­n­in­hecon­ex­ofPB­ndfordisc­ssing­hegener­lre­dinessforPB.

One of ­hese c­ses is ­he w­­ ­he ci­­governmen­­sedonlinech­nnels­oprep­re­henewp­blic ­r­nspor­­­ion ­ender in T­r­­. The projec­w­sme­n­­or­isep­blic­w­reness­ndm­pp­blicopinion of ­he p­blic b­s ­r­nspor­­­ion ­s ­ new­ender w­s being prep­red.As ­ res­l­, ­he ci­­governmen­ received 552 pieces of feedb­ck fromci­izensvi­­heIn­erne­­ndsoci­lmedi­ch­nnels­nd­sed­hem­oimproveq­­li­­req­iremen­sforp­blicb­s ­r­nspor­­­ion in ­he new ­ender.The feedb­ckw­s­lso­sed­oimproveb­sro­­es­nd­ime­­bles­ccording ­o ci­izens’ needs. This c­se cle­rl­demons­r­­eshighre­dinessfore-p­r­icip­­ionfrombo­hp­r­ies,s­ppor­edb­­s­ficien­ITinfr­s­r­c­­rewi­hm­n­freewireless­re­sin­heci­­,high­seof­he In­erne­, gre­­ ­v­il­bili­­ of v­rio­s e-services­nd­long­r­di­ionof­sing­hem10.

Ano­her ex­mple of p­r­icip­­ion relev­n­ ­o­hisdisc­ssiondemons­r­­es­h­­­heci­­governmen­h­s ­­ken irs­ s­eps ­ow­rds combining ­he ­oolsof ­r­di­ion­l p­r­icip­­ion wi­h e-­ools in order ­oeng­geci­izens insp­­i­lpl­nningprocesses.Since2011T­r­­h­sbeenworkingon­hegener­lpl­nningof ­he ci­­ cen­re wi­h ­he ­im of es­­blishing ­heprinciples for i­s sp­­i­l developmen­ – where ­ob­ild ­nd where no­ ­o b­ild. The irs­ s­­ge ofgener­lpl­nningdr­f­ed­heci­­cen­redevelopmen­s­r­­eg­, incl­ding ­he ev­l­­­ion of ­he previo­sdevelopmen­s ­nd ­ se­ of possible s­gges­ions ­oimprove­hecen­re.Nex­­oonline­ools(fromonlineq­es­ionn­ires on Twi­­er ­nd F­cebook pos­s),­r­di­ion­l deliber­­ive democr­c­ ­ools s­ch ­sworkshopswereorg­nizedfordifferen­ci­izengro­pswhoh­ve­speciicin­eres­in­heci­­cen­re(shop8 For f­r­her inform­­ion see h­­p://www.­­r­­.ee/?l­ng_id=2&men­_id=13&p­ge_id=1119

9 For­descrip­ionof­hec­ses(­ccomp­niedwi­hvideos)see:h­­p://ep­r­icip­­ion.e­/co­n­r­/es­oni­/10

See­hedescrip­ionof­hec­seh­­p://ep­r­icip­­ion.e­/2012/10/­sing-online-ch­nnels-for-prep­r­­ion-of-­he-new-p­blic-­r­ns-por­­­ion-­ender-in-­­r­­/

owners, s­­den­s, e­c.). This experience ­nderlined­he impor­­nce of p­blic rel­­ions ­nd ­he e­rlies­possible involvemen­ of ­hemedi­ in ­he decision-m­kingprocess.Thedisc­ssionw­sini­i­­edb­­heloc­l d­il­ Tartu Postimees.A­irs­,­heCi­­Archi­ec­p­blished­heirvisionofhow­heriverb­nksco­ldbedevelopedin­heci­­cen­rein­hef­­­re.Thereweredr­wings­ndvideos­­­­ched.Thisini­i­­ed­m­jordisc­ssionin­hemedi­.Mos­p­blished­r­icleswereorderedb­Tartu Postimees.Dozensof­r­icleswerep­blishedindifferen­medi­,mos­of­heminTartu

Postimees.The­opicw­s­lsocoveredonTV­ndon­her­diowi­h­he­imofm­kingci­izens­hink­bo­­ci­­developmen­11.

However,­hereis­ch­nce­h­­p­r­icip­­ionin­heprocessofPBmigh­rem­inmodes­,p­r­doxic­ll­no­ bec­­se of ­he design of ­he process i­self b­­bec­­se of speciic con­ex­­­l f­c­ors. There h­vel­­el­beensomeins­­ncesinsome­re­sof­heci­­whereci­izensh­ves­fferedd­e­omisin­erpre­­­ion­nd­n­­­horised(­ndilleg­l)beh­vio­rofproper­­developers.The f­c­ ­h­­ ­he ci­­ governmen­ doesno­ ­lw­­s h­ve ­n ­ppropri­­e re­c­ion ­ndmigh­be­n­ble­och­nge­hesi­­­­ionh­sled­omis­r­s­in ­nd diss­­isf­c­ion wi­h ­he poli­ic­l le­dershipof T­r­­. The mis­r­s­ h­s ­lso incre­sed ­nd ­her­­ingof­hegoverningbod­decre­sedd­e­osomen­­ionwide poli­ic­l sc­nd­ls rel­­ed ­o ­he le­dingReformP­r­­inT­r­­.

3.2. PB pr­parati­n pr­c­ss in Tart­The­opicofPBw­sno­en­irel­newforT­r­­.

One of ­he ­­­hors of ­he presen­ p­per h­d beeninvolvedinorg­nising­ndr­nningsemin­rsinT­r­­in2011forloc­ldecision-m­kerson­he­opicofPBin­hefr­meworkof­heprojec­“P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­ingin Loc­l Governmen­s”12 which w­s implemen­edb­ ­he Es­oni­n non-governmen­­l org­nis­­ion e-Govern­nceAc­dem­(eGA).Alre­d­b­ck ­hen, i­seemed ­h­­ ­herew­s ­ fer­ile gro­nd for ­he ide­of PB inT­r­­, ­s ­herew­s ­ s­rong poli­ic­lwill­mong­hemembersof­heCi­­Governmen­­nd­heCi­­Co­ncil­opilo­­hisini­i­­ive.Inp­r­ic­l­r,­heM­­orw­sver­en­h­si­s­ic ­bo­­ in­egr­­ingnewp­r­icip­­or­pr­c­ices in­oever­d­­govern­nceof­heci­­(semin­rsession).

PB decision-making body

A decision ­o invi­e ­he e-Govern­nceAc­dem­(eGA)­obe­nex­ern­lexper­org­nis­­ionm­n­ging ­he whole process w­s b­sed on ­he11 See ­he de­­iled descrip­ion of ­he c­se h­­p://ep­r­icip­­ion.e­/2012/10/eng­ging-ci­izen-­o-­he-gener­l-pl­nning-of-­he-ci­­-cen­re/ 12

Theprojec­w­sin­ncedb­­heOpenEs­oni­Fo­nd­-­ion.

35

previo­s experience from ­he semin­r. The eGAh­s ­lso demons­r­­ed i­s poli­ic­l ne­­r­li­­wi­h previo­s p­r­icip­­ion projec­s, ­n­l­sis ­ndn­mero­sdemocr­c­­nde-govern­ncework.Th­s,i­w­s­s­r­­egicdecisionb­­heCi­­Governmen­­oeng­ge­heeGA­s­hele­derof­heprocess,­imed­­incre­singcredibili­­­nd legi­im­c­of ­heprocess­mongdifferen­poli­ic­lp­r­ies­swell­sci­izens.Ane­­r­l­nd independen­ ins­i­­­ionw­sse­­p ­om­n­ge­hePBprocess.

In gener­l, ­he eGAw­s given ­ f­irl­ l­rgesp­ce­ooper­­einfromchoosingwh­­­os­­r­from­ndhow­obeginse­­ing­pr­lesof­heprocess.TheeGA’s s­r­­eg­ w­s ­o combine ­c­demic rese­rchme­hods(­n­l­singexis­ingrese­rch,collec­ingc­ses­­dies)­nd freedisc­ssion (deliber­­ion)me­hods.Ex­ern­l exper­s beg­n b­ presen­ing ­n overviewof ­he in­ern­­ion­lc­sesofPB­­ ­heirs­mee­ing(here­f­er l­belledWGSessionI).A­ ­hefollowingmee­ings,­hem­in­rg­men­s­nds­gges­ionswere­lre­d­­­kenin­o­cco­n­whenprep­ringdisc­ssiondoc­men­s­obepresen­ed­­f­­­remee­ings.

As w­s s­­­ed in ­he me­hodolog­ sec­ion,­he PB decision-m­king bod­ w­s composed ofci­­ ofici­ls ­nd poli­ici­ns.One ke­ ­spec­ ­o beemph­sized is ­ necessi­­ ­o involve ofici­ls from­heLeg­lDep­r­men­.In­hec­seofT­r­­,­heCi­­Secre­­r­­nd­lso­heHe­dof­heLeg­lDep­r­men­wereinvolved.Theseofici­lse­rnes­l­con­rib­­ed­ogro­pdisc­ssions­nddoc­men­s ­obeprep­redfors­bseq­en­WGmee­ings,p­­­ing­rg­men­s­nddisc­ssionpoin­s in­o ­he exis­ing leg­l fr­mework­ndpoin­ingo­­limi­s­ndres­ric­ions.

As rese­rch indic­­es, involving ci­izens in­he el­bor­­ion of ­he PB design is ­n iss­e ­o beconsidered. In T­r­­, ­he ex­ern­l exper­ ­nd ­heCi­­Governmen­ disc­ssed ­ possibili­­ ­o eng­gerepresen­­­ives of civic org­niz­­ions ­s well ­s­hewiderp­blicin­heprocessofdesigning­hePBmodel (cons­l­ingdifferen­ scen­riosvi­elec­ronic­ools) (WG Session I). However, i­ w­s decided­h­­, since ­heirs­ ­imewhenPBw­spl­nned­ndimplemen­ed ­s ­ pilo­ projec­, i­ migh­ be e­sierforci­izens­ocon­rib­­e­o­he­lre­d­designed­es­model. I­ w­s ­ss­med ­h­­ more ­sef­l feedb­ckwo­ldbe received if peoplewereoffered­w­­ ­opr­c­ice­heprocessb­­hemselvesirs­­ndonl­­hen­sked­ogive­heir­ho­gh­s­ndcommen­soni­.Inf­c­,i­bec­mecri­ic­l­opl­n­ndimplemen­eficien­feedb­ckcollec­ingpr­c­icesd­ring­hepilo­projec­inorder ­o­dj­s­ ­hemodel ifneedbe­ndm­kei­be­­er correspond ­o ­he needs ­nd expec­­­ions ofci­izens.D­ring­nd­f­er ­hepilo­be­weenA­g­s­2013­ndDecember2013,ex­ern­lexper­sfrom­heeGA­r­­oge­­sm­chfeedb­ck­ndco-prod­c­ion

from ci­izens ­s possible so ­h­­ ­he process co­ldberedesigned­ndimprovedin­pcoming­e­rs(WGSessionI).

I­ is ­lso wor­h no­ing ­h­­, since ­he PBdecision-m­king bod­ in T­r­­ w­s formed ofrepresen­­­ives of ­ll poli­ic­l fr­c­ions elec­ed ­o­he Ci­­ Co­ncil ­nd of ­he members of ­he Ci­­Governmen­, ­he m­in ­rg­men­ w­s foc­sed on­he ­bili­­ ­o combine direc­ democr­c­ (ci­izenspresen­ing ide­s ­nd choosing ­he bes­ ones) ­ndindirec­orrepresen­­­ivedemocr­c­(poli­ici­ns­nd­dminis­r­­ive le­dersworkingon ­hemodel) (WGSessionI).Aso­­linedb­Nov­­ndLe­bol­(2005),PB is ­n ongoing soci­l experimen­ of linking ­heelemen­sofdirec­­ndindirec­democr­c­.

As ­he reviewed rese­rch indic­­es, even in­he con­ex­ of ­ f­vo­r­ble poli­ic­l c­l­­re, ­here­re­lw­­scos­sinvolvedinse­­ing­pp­r­icip­­or­pr­c­ices. In T­r­­, one of ­he mos­ serio­s ­opicsdisc­ssedin­heWG­­­hes­­geofini­i­­ingPBw­scos­of­hewholeprocess(no­­he­mo­n­ofmone­­obeeven­­­ll­­lloc­­edb­­heci­izensb­­cos­of­heprocessi­self).Thel­rges­­n­icip­­edcos­w­s­h­­ofp­blicrel­­ions(PR).I­w­s­greed­h­­eficien­comm­nic­­ions­r­­egies­ndq­i­ecos­l­­c­ivi­ies(e.g., ­he ­se of p­blici­­ screens) were needed ­o­r­l­mobilizeci­izens.Ano­hercri­ic­lq­es­ionw­sp­­men­­ndmo­iv­­ionof­heofici­lswhoh­d­odoex­r­work (WGSession I).Theex­ern­lexper­presen­ed ­pproxim­­e c­lc­l­­ions of ­ll cos­s(incl­ding­ddi­ion­lp­­men­s,PRm­­eri­lss­ch­sl­ers, e­c.).Thesewere­pproxim­­el­6200EURwh­­w­sless­h­npoli­ici­nsh­d­n­icip­­ed­­irs­(WGSessionIII).

Thegre­­es­iss­eofconcernw­sno­­hePBprocessorm­kingi­workb­­r­­her­he­mo­n­ofmone­ ­obegiven ­oci­izens ­odecide­pon.Thisdisc­ssionw­s ini­i­­edb­ ­hepoli­ici­ns involvedfrom ­hever­beginningof ­heprep­r­­ionprocess(WGSessionI).Adecision­h­­mone­sho­ldcomefrom­heinfr­s­r­c­­reb­dge­­ndbespen­onp­blicsp­ces ­nd speciic objec­s (b­ildings, p­rks, e­c.)w­s f­s­ ­nd ­lmos­ consens­­l. However, ­ morelivel­disc­ssionocc­rredon­he­opicof­speciics­mofmone­­obe­lloc­­ed:sho­ldi­be­s­mbolics­m, ­­ le­s­ in ­he pilo­ projec­? This w­s no­disc­ssedino­herrese­rchb­­­heT­r­­experiencecle­rl­ ill­s­r­­edwh­­ ­he cri­ics of “­he s­mbolics­mofmone­”­ppro­chh­ve­rg­ed: ­h­­ ins­chcirc­ms­­nces­hewholeprocessrem­inss­mbolic­swell.Thosewho­rg­edfor­moresigniic­n­­mo­n­ofmone­, whichwo­ld legi­imise ­he process ­ndincre­sep­r­icip­n­s’mo­iv­­ion,werecri­icisedforwilling­o­­kerisks.Asmen­ioned­bove,­hein­nci­l­­­onom­ of LGs is ­no­her f­c­or. The previo­s

36

sec­ionsexpl­inedhow90%of­heb­dge­Es­oni­nLGsm­de essen­i­ll­ ­n­void­ble decisionswhere­hesp­ce ­om­noe­vre isver­ limi­ed.As­ res­l­of­hedisc­ssions,i­w­s­greed­h­­T­r­­residen­swo­lddecideon­bo­­1%of­heinves­men­sb­dge­(140000EUR).

Participation As ­he ­heore­ic­l fr­mework indic­­ed,

p­r­icip­­ionis­nimpor­­n­v­ri­ble­odecide­pon.Differen­l­ from rese­rch ­h­­ deb­­es ­he iss­e of­nder-represen­ed gro­ps, ­his did no­ become ­signiic­n­ f­c­or in ­he PB prep­r­­ion process inT­r­­. Ex­mples of v­rio­s c­ses in C­n­d­ h­vebeen lis­ed: in G­elph, people in neighbo­rhoods,whoh­veno­beenorg­nizedin­ogr­ssroo­sgro­ps,c­nno­ p­r­icip­­e; in Toron­o, ­hose who do no­live in p­blic ho­sing c­nno­ p­r­icip­­e; ­nd ­­Ridgeview,non-s­­den­sc­nno­p­r­icip­­e(B­iocchi­nd Lerner 2007).As B­iocchi ­nd Lerner (2007)­rg­e,­heseexcl­sion­r­pr­c­icesm­­p­r­doxic­ll­h­ve incl­ded m­rgin­lized gro­ps b­ preven­ingmore privileged ci­izens from ­­king ch­rge of ­heprocess.Al­ho­gh,wheni­comes­o­heexis­enceofmobilizedsoci­lgro­pssince­hesi­­­­ioninEs­oni­is more simil­r ­o ­he Uni­ed S­­­es ­nd C­n­d­­h­nBr­zil, i­ w­s decided ­h­­ ­n oppor­­ni­­ ­op­r­icip­­e wo­ld no­ be limi­ed ­o form­l soci­lorg­niz­­ionsorcomm­ni­­­ssoci­­ionsb­­wo­ld­lsobedirec­ed ­o individ­­lci­izens.Since i­w­s­greed in ­heirs­ session ­h­­T­r­­ isgoing ­o se­­p ­ pilo­ projec­ on PB, i­ w­s decided ­h­­ ­heini­i­­ive wo­ld be direc­ed ­o ­ll ci­izens ­hro­gh­he self-selec­ion me­hod. Govern­nce pr­c­ices inT­r­­h­vebeenf­irl­incl­siveof­llgro­ps­ndonec­nno­m­pgro­ps­h­­wo­ldh­vebeenp­r­ic­l­rl­m­rgin­lized.F­r­hermore,relec­ing­heno­ion­h­­­he ends sh­pe ­heme­ns (Demedi­k e­ ­l. 2011),­hisp­r­ic­l­rPBini­i­­iveco­ldbel­belled­s­heprojec­“le­rningb­doing”where­hen­mberofin­lp­r­icip­n­s (­hosem­king ­ propos­l or vo­ing) isno­­simpor­­n­­sexperiencei­self(WGSessionI).

One of ­he mos­ cri­ic­l q­es­ions r­isedd­ring­hedisc­ssionsconcernedci­izenmo­iv­­ion(WGSessionsI­ndII).Where­sinL­­inAmeric­,poor people p­r­icip­­e in PB p­r­l­ ­o ix ­rgen­problems (Lerner 2011) s­ch ­s ­np­ved s­ree­s oropensewers,inEs­oni­­heseb­sicneeds­re­lre­d­me­­ndoneh­s­oeng­gepeopleb­­singdifferen­me­hods.InT­r­­,ones­r­­egicdecisionw­s­oinves­in comm­nic­­ion m­n­gemen­ bo­h in­nci­ll­­nd in ­erms of h­m­n reso­rces. TheDep­r­men­ofP­blicAdminis­r­­ion, ­he en­i­­ responsible for­he whole process, w­s promised ex­r­ f­nds foreffec­ive comm­nic­­ion­c­ivi­ies (WGSession I).

Also, ­ de­­iled comm­nic­­ion pl­nw­s prep­redin coll­bor­­ion wi­h ­he PR Dep­r­men­ ­nd ­heex­ern­lexper­­ndpresen­ed­­WGSessionIII.

The disc­ssion of which mech­nisms co­ldbe­sedfor ­heprocessw­scer­­inl­ inl­encedb­previo­s p­r­icip­­or­ pr­c­ices inT­r­­ (described­bove).B­sedon ­heseexperiences, i­w­sdecided­h­­ differen­ p­r­icip­­ion mech­nisms ofline ­ndonline wo­ld be combined, ­l­ho­gh gre­­er foc­swo­ldbepl­cedononlineme­nsbec­­se­heci­izensofT­r­­h­veproven­heirpreferencefor­singonline­oolsforp­r­icip­­ion(WGSessionII). Whilei­w­sgener­ll­ ­greed ­h­­ ­here sho­ld be ­ speci­l PBwebp­ge for s­bmi­­ing ide­s ­nd ­h­­ ­he­ sho­ldbe p­blished ­long wi­h exper­ opinions on ­hem,­hemos­ cri­ic­l q­es­ion r­ised in ­he disc­ssionsw­s ­he cri­eri­ for selec­ing ­he ide­s.An eq­­ll­impor­­n­q­es­ioniswhe­her­heresho­ldbef­ce-­o-f­cemee­ings­ndhow­he­sho­ldbeorg­nized.As s­­­ed­bove, ­herew­snopl­n ­opre-selec­orsegmen­ p­r­icip­n­s in ­he T­r­­ projec­; ins­e­d,in­ldecision-m­kingwo­ldbeopen­o­llci­izens.Th­s, no dis­ric­ or neighbo­rhood level mee­ingswereorg­nized(WGSessionII).S­ill, ­heresho­ldbe­sh­redenvironmen­forre­ding­ndcommen­ingon exper­ opinions ­nd ­ join­ even­ forpresen­ingin­l ide­s (el­bor­­ionsof prelimin­r­ ide­sb­sedonexper­opinions)before ­heci­izensco­ld selec­­hewinningone.Considering­he­echnolog­-drivenc­l­­re­ndprevio­spr­c­ices,i­w­s­greed­h­­­heeven­ for presen­ing ­he ide­s sho­ld be held in ­sm­ll­­di­ori­mwi­honl­­hePBworkgro­p,someexper­s­ndpresen­ersof­heide­sp­r­icip­­ing­nd­h­­­heeven­wo­ld­henbebro­dc­s­online­owider­­diences(WGSessionsII–III).

DeliberationAs ­he previo­s sec­ion o­­lined, ­here is ­

pl­n­ose­­p­sh­redenvironmen­forre­ding­ndcommen­ing on ­he ide­s ­nd exper­ ev­l­­­ions.This is wh­­ ­he deliber­­ion v­ri­ble ­heore­ic­ll­­ddresses:howdecisions­rebeingm­de.Reg­rding­he in­l decision-m­king ­nd ­­king ­echnic­l­v­il­bili­­, e-re­diness ­nd long experience of e-vo­ing13inEs­oni­in­o­cco­n­,ones­gges­ionm­ded­ring ­he PB prep­r­­ion process concerned ­he­seof­ne-vo­ings­s­emforin­ldecision-m­king(WGSessionI).Thiside­provoked­wide­rr­­of­opicsrel­­ed­o­hepoli­ic­lsi­­­­ion,s­­r­ingwi­hproced­r­lq­es­ionson­hepossibili­­ofconnec­ing13

Es­oni­w­s ­heirs­co­n­r­ in ­heworldwheres­­­e-wide In­erne­-b­sed elec­ions ­ook pl­ce: ­he loc­l elec-­ionsof2005­nd­heRiigikog­elec­ionsof2007.E-elec-­ionh­sbeenpossible in­llelec­ions­f­er ­h­­wi­h ­hen­mbers of e-vo­ers consis­en­l­ rising from elec­ion ­oelec­ion.

37

­hePBprocess(vo­ingonide­s)wi­hvo­inginloc­lelec­ions inOc­ober 2013 ­o ­ sensi­ive disc­ssionof poli­ic­l vic­imiz­­ion. N­mel­, ­he opposi­ion­cc­sed ­he m­jori­­ p­r­­ of “convenien­l­”beginning ­he process of PB on ­n elec­ion ­e­r­ndm­king­heprocess­p­r­of­heirc­mp­ign.A­­he s­me ­ime, represen­­­ivesof ­ll fr­c­ionswereinvi­ed­o­hePBworkgro­p­nd­heex­ern­lexper­­dvised­h­­­hisf­c­becomm­nic­­ed­o­heci­izens­swell.I­h­s­obeno­ed­h­­­f­er­heirs­mee­ing­he­cc­s­­ionsofoneoro­herp­r­­proi­ingfromPBbeforeelec­ions­ndo­hersimil­r­rg­men­swere­lmos­non-presen­(WGSessionI). As­res­l­,d­ring­hesecondsession,i­w­sdecided­h­­­heproced­reof vo­ing for PB ide­s ­nd vo­ing ­­ ­he elec­ionswo­ldno­beconnec­edd­e­o­heres­ric­ionsin­heL­w of Elec­ing Loc­l Co­ncils ­h­­ prohibi­s ­n­kindofp­r­llelvo­ingproced­res.Asep­r­­evo­ingproced­re14 w­s designed for PB vo­ing, ­ppl­ingbo­h­r­di­ion­l­ndonlineme­hods.The­r­di­ion­lme­hodisp­per-b­sedvo­ing­­speci­lvo­ingpolls(P­blicH­llin­heCi­­H­ll);­nddevelopmen­h­s­lre­d­ s­­r­ed on cre­­ing new f­nc­ion­li­ies ­oVOLIS(Inform­­ionS­s­emforCo­ncils)foronlinevo­ing.

The ph­se ­h­­ precedes ­he PB vo­ingproced­re in T­r­­ is ­he exper­ise s­­ge when­ll s­gges­ions ­re ev­l­­­ed b­ ­he exper­s whoprod­cede­­ileds­­­emen­s.Theexper­s­reofici­lsof­heCi­­Governmen­who­reresponsiblefor­hecorresponding­re­sof­hepropos­ls(dep­r­men­sofci­­pl­nning,­rchi­ec­­re,e­c.).Onecri­ic­l­spec­hereismo­iv­­ionof­heexper­s/ofici­ls­odoex­r­work.This is of­­mos­ impor­­nce form­kingPB­r­l­work, since i­mos­l­dependson ­hepoli­ic­lc­l­­re ­nd willingness of ­he governing eli­e ­ocon­rib­­e ­o ­he process. As no­ed b­ Herzberg(2011), giving ci­izens re­l feedb­ck on re­soneds­­­emen­s­o­heirpropos­lsishighl­signiic­n­:if­hiss­­geisc­rriedo­­s­ccessf­ll­,i­cre­­es­re­lbre­kfrom­heno­ionof“selec­ivelis­ening”.

14The­imingforPBvo­ing­lsodifferedfromloc­lgovernmen­elec­ions.I­w­sse­forNovember2013.

EmpowermentTheno­ionof“selec­ivelis­ening”issome­hing

­he ci­­ ofici­ls ­swell ­s ­he poli­ic­l eli­ewere­iming ­o ­void. Alre­d­ d­ring ­he in­rod­c­or­semin­r in 2012 on ­he ­opic of PB, ­here w­s ­common­nders­­nding(­h­­h­df­llb­ckingof­heM­­or)­h­­i­sho­ldbeoblig­­or­­oimplemen­­hedecisionm­deb­­heci­izens.Therew­s­nds­illis­r­­hers­rongpoli­ic­lwill­mong­hegoverningeli­ein T­r­­ ­o empower ci­izens b­ deleg­­ing ­he def­c­odecision-m­kingpower.

Managing and monitoringSince ­he formed work gro­p oper­­ed

eficien­l­­hro­gho­­­heprep­r­­ionprocessofPB,­decisionw­sm­de­h­­­hem­inbod­­om­n­ge­hewholeprocesswillbe­hes­meworkgro­p.Since2013 elec­ions will coincide wi­h ­he process ­ndsincemembershipisvol­n­­r­,­heremigh­besomech­ngesin­hepeopleinvolved(WGSessionIII).

3.3. Tart­ PB m­d­lAs ­he res­l­ of n­mero­s disc­ssions,

­rg­men­s­ndexch­ngesofide­s,­hePBdesigninT­r­­ consis­ed of ­he following s­­ges. Firs­, fromA­g­s­ 21 ­o Sep­ember 10, presen­­­ion of ide­s­­kes pl­ce (bo­h ofline ­nd online). Ever­one iseligible­opresen­­heiride­s­h­­h­ve­oq­­lif­­sinves­men­s­nd­hecos­ofwhichsho­ldno­exceed140000EUR.Af­er­hes­­geofcollec­ingci­izens’inp­­, exper­s will ­n­l­se ­heir respec­ive ­opics,consolid­­esimil­ride­s,ev­l­­­e­ndcommen­on­heires­im­­edcos­­ndcon­en­­n­ilOc­ober2013.Theeven­forpresen­ing­heide­sispl­nnedformid-November 2013.All ide­swill be ­v­il­ble on ­heci­­webp­ge­nd­heeven­willbebro­dc­s­online.Fin­ll­,­­­heendofNovember,­llide­s­h­­­rein­ccord­nce wi­h ­he predic­ed b­dge­ ­nd receiveposi­ive exper­ ev­l­­­ionswill bevo­edonb­ ­heci­izens­singbo­h­r­di­ion­l­ndelec­ronicme­ns.Ever­T­r­­ residen­ of ­­ le­s­ 16 ­e­rs of ­ge iseligible­ovo­e.InDecember2013­heCi­­Co­ncilisobliged­o­pprove­hedecisionm­deb­­heci­izens­ndincorpor­­ei­in­o­heci­­b­dge­.

Fig. 1.PBdesignin­heCi­­ofT­r­­

38

Comp­ring ­he T­r­­ PB model/design wi­h­heexis­ingin­ern­­ion­lfr­meworksofdifferen­PBmodels(seeSin­omere­­l.2010)pres­m­bl­req­iresmorede­­iled rese­rch ­h­n ­hescopeof ­hisp­perc­n offer. I­ c­n be ­rg­ed, however, ­h­­ in ­ermsofci­izenempowermen­,T­r­­­hePBdesign(evenwi­hin­helimi­ed1%of­heinves­men­sb­dge­)iscloser­o­hePor­oAlegremodel,whereci­izens­reeng­gedin­heco-prod­c­ionof­heb­dge­,­h­n­o­he “selec­ive lis­ening” experiences worldwide.According ­o exper­s, ­he process h­s gone ver­smoo­hl­ so f­r. The projec­ of PB w­s vo­ed onon27J­ne2013­­ ­heCi­­Co­ncilmee­ing,wi­h­he pl­n ­o s­­r­ i­s implemen­­­ion on 21A­g­s­.Hopef­ll­, loc­l T­r­­ poli­ici­ns ­nders­­nd ­h­­­hereisnow­­b­ck­nd­hein­ldecisionm­deb­­heci­izensisbindingfor­hem.A­­heendof­hed­­,p­r­icip­­or­ ins­i­­­ions h­ve ­o complemen­ ­helogicofrepresen­­­ivedemocr­c­­ndi­isex­c­l­­­­heloc­llevel­h­­­heci­izen“le­rnshow­ogovernhimself” (P­­em­n 1970, 31; W­mpler 2012). AsD­vidPlo­kep­­i­:“Theopposi­eofrepresen­­­ionis no­ p­r­icip­­ion” (Plo­ke, 1997, 19, inW­mpler2012,7).

4. C­ncl­si­nP­r­icip­­or­ B­dge­ing, ­ glob­l pr­c­ice of

loc­l democr­c­, provides ordin­r­ ci­izens wi­h­heoppor­­ni­­­odecidep­blicspending.SincePBpr­c­icesv­r­­llover­heworld,differen­s­­dieson­he res­l­sof ­heir implemen­­­ion­redescribed in­heli­er­­­re.Thisp­perfoc­seson­heprocess­h­­precedes implemen­­­ion, n­mel­, ­he prep­r­­ions­­ge of PB. The rese­rch looks ­­ ­he ch­llenges,choices ­nd decisive f­c­ors of ­he PB prep­r­­ionprocess.The­heore­ic­lfr­meworko­­lines­hem­inv­ri­blesof­heprocessdesign­swell­s­hech­llenges­nd choices of selec­ing ­hemwhile prep­ring PB.F­r­hermore,con­ex­­­lf­c­ors ­h­­­re­ss­med­oinl­ence­hechoiceof­p­r­ic­l­rdesign/model­nd­c­­sdecisivef­c­ors­represen­ed.

The empiric­l p­r­ is b­sed on ­he c­se of­heCi­­ofT­r­­ ­h­­decided ­opilo­ ­PBprojec­in ­he ­­­­mn of 2013. The rese­rch reve­led ­h­­one of ­he mos­ cri­ic­l ch­llenges ­nd choices of­he PB prep­r­­ion process is overcoming poli­ic­lconfron­­­ions ­s well ­s in­nci­l ­­­onom­cons­r­in­s.Onedecisivef­c­orincomb­­ingpoli­ic­lconfron­­­ions is ­ogive ­he le­ding role ­one­­r­l­ndindependen­ins­i­­­ions­ndexper­sindesigning­heprocess.F­r­hermore,­poli­ic­lwill­opilo­­heprocess c­n ­id ­o p­ve ­hew­­ be­ond ­he limi­sofin­nci­l­­­onom­.Th­s,nei­herlimi­edin­nci­l­­­onom­nor­he­pcomingloc­lelec­ionsended­pimpeding­heincep­ionof­hePBprojec­.However,

ev­l­­­ing whe­her ­nd how ­he pilo­ projec­ w­s­sedb­differen­poli­ic­lp­r­ies­ndwh­­­hem­­­­leffec­of­he­woprocessesw­si­isonl­possible­f­erPB is implemen­ed. The ini­i­­ors of PB ­lso f­ceimpor­­n­ch­llengesincomposing­hePBdecision-m­kingbod­­ndinovercoming­heiss­esrel­­ed­oex­r­­­sksform­n­ofici­lsin­heCi­­Governmen­whileimplemen­ingPB.Ins­ch­con­ex­,­hepoli­ic­lc­l­­re ­ppe­rs ­o be ­he decisive f­c­or in solvingproblems s­ccessf­ll­. Now­d­­s, ­he ­rr­­ of ­heme­hods ­v­il­ble ­o ci­izens for mobiliz­­ion ­ndp­r­icip­­ionissigniic­n­l­widerd­e­o­hem­ssiveimplemen­­­ion of ICT in ­ll ields of life. T­r­­,h­ving­posi­ivecon­ex­­­lf­c­orin­heformof­hecivicc­l­­re­nde-re­dinessdecided­oin­egr­­eICTin­o ­hePBprocess. In ­ermsofcon­ex­­­l f­c­ors,­s ­lre­d­men­ioned ­bove, ­he loc­l poli­ic­l ­ndcivicc­l­­res­reex­remel­impor­­n­­ndneed­obe­­ken in­o ­cco­n­when prep­ring for PB.Amongo­her v­ri­bles of ­he design process ­he­ mos­l­inl­ence ­he levelofempowermen­­nd­hedegreeof deliber­­ion. The l­­­er w­s ­lso de­ermined b­loc­l e-re­diness, ­h­­ is, ­he ­se of ICT in vo­ing­nd in presen­ing ide­s. Fin­ll­, ­he p­r­icip­­ioncomponen­w­sp­r­i­ll­deinedb­­hehomogenei­­of­hespeciicci­­.

I­iss­ill­obediscoveredwh­­res­l­s­hepilo­PBprojec­in­heCi­­ofT­r­­willbring.Thehopeis­h­­i­willenh­nce­di­log­ebe­ween­heci­izens­nd­hegovernmen­,­h­­i­willbringnewknowledgeonhow­oimproveloc­lp­r­icip­­or­pr­c­icesin­hef­­­re­nd­h­­i­willhelple­rnwh­­democr­c­is­ndhowi­worksfor­hebo­hp­r­ies,for­hosewho­reeng­ging­ndfor­hosewho­reeng­ged.

R­f­r­nc­s1. B­iocchi,G., Lerner, J. (2007). Co­ld P­r­icip­­or­

B­dge­ingWorkin­heUni­edS­­­es? The Good Soci-

ety, Vol.16,No.1,8–13.2. C­b­nnes,Y.(2004).“P­r­icip­­or­b­dge­ing:­sig-

niic­n­con­rib­­ion­op­r­icip­­or­democr­c­.”Env

ironment&Urbanization, Vol.16,No.1,27–46.3. Demedi­k,P.,Solli,R.,Adolfsson (2012)P. People

Pl­n­heirP­rk:Voice­ndChoice­hro­ghP­r­icip­-­or­B­dge­ing,The International Journal of Interdis-

ciplinary Social Sciences,Vol.6,Iss­e5,185–198.4. DeN­rdis,L. (2011). “Democr­­izing ­heM­nicip­l

B­dge­inL­­inAmeric­:ci­izenP­r­icip­­ioninBr­-zil­ndMexico”InInternational Review of Social Sci-

ences and Humanities,Vol.2,No.1,91–102.5. Ebdon,C.,Fr­nklin,A.L.(2006).“Ci­izenP­r­icip­-

­ioninB­dge­ingTheor­.”Public Administration Re-

view, Vol 66,No3,437–447.6. Fl­vbjerg (2006). “Five Mis­nders­­ndings Abo­­

C­se-S­­d­Rese­rch.”Qualitative Inquiry,Vol. 12,No2,219–245.

7. Fölscher,A.(2007).”P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­inginCen-

39

­r­l ­nd E­s­ern E­rope”. Participatory Budgeting.

Anw­r Sh­h (ed.). W­shing­on: The World B­nk,127-155. Accessible ­­: <h­­p://si­ereso­rces.world-

b­nk.org/PSGLP/Reso­rces/P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­ing.pdf02.09.2013>.

8. F­ng,A.(2006).“V­rie­iesofP­r­icip­­ioninCom-

plex Govern­nce.” Public Administration Review,

Speci­lIss­e,66-75.9. Goldfr­nk, Benj­min. 2007. “Lessons from L­­in

Americ­n Experience in P­r­icip­­or­ B­dge­ing.”Anw­rSh­h(ed.).Participatory Budgeting.W­shing-

­on,DC:WorldB­nk,91-121.10. H­ller,C.,F­­lkner,G.(2012).P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­-

ingin Denver,Color­do,National Civic Review, Vol.101, Iss­e 3, 23-25, P­blished online inWile­On-

line Libr­r­ (wile­onlinelibr­r­.com),Av­il­ble on-

line ­­: <h­­p://onlinelibr­r­.wile­.com/doi/10.1002/ncr.v101.3/iss­e­oc02.09.2013>.

11. Herzberg,C.(2011).Democratic innovation or sym-

bolic participation? A case study of participatory

budgeting in Germany. P­perwri­­en for 6­hECPRGener­lConference,P­nel25–Democr­­icInnov­-­ionsinE­rope–Acomp­r­­iveperspec­ive.25­h–27­hA­g.2011,Re­kj­vik,Icel­nd.

12. Höch­l, J.,P­r­cek,P.,S­chs,M. (2011). “E-p­r­ic-ip­­ionre­dinessofA­s­ri­nm­nicip­li­ies.”Trans-

forming Government: People, Process and Policy,

Vol.5Iss­e1,32–44.13. Johnson, G. (2002). “D­­­ Collec­ion: S­rve­s ­nd

Foc­sGro­ps.”Research Methods for Public Admin-

istrators. Wes­por­, Connec­ic­­, London: Q­or­mBooks,87-104.

14. Kim,S.,Lee,J.(2012).“E-P­r­icip­­ion,Tr­nsp­ren-

c­,­ndTr­s­inLoc­lGovernmen­.”Public Adminis-

tration Review,Vol.72,Iss­e6,819–828.15. Krenjov­,J.,R­­dl­,R.(2013).“P­r­icip­­or­B­dg-

e­ing­­­heLoc­lLevel:Ch­llenges­ndOppor­­ni-­ies forNewDemocr­cies”. InHalduskultuur – Ad-

ministrative Culture.Vol.14,No.1,22-50.16. Krenjov­, J. (2012).Participatory Budgeting at the

Local Level: Models, Context, Application.M­s­er’s­hesis.Defended­­T­llinnUniversi­­ofTechnolog­.

17. L­Fr­nce,T.C.,B­log­n,E.A.(2012).“P­blicP­r-­icip­­ionin­heLoc­lB­dge­ingProcess:Deini­ions,Impedimen­s, ­ndRem­iningQ­es­ions.”American

Journal of Economics,2(1),1-7.18. Lerner,J.(2011).“P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­ing.B­ilding

Comm­ni­­Agreemen­Aro­ndTo­ghB­dge­Deci-sions.”InNational Civic Review,Wile­Periodic­ls,30-35.

19. Mishler,W.,Rose,R. (2001).What are the Origins

of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural

Theories in Post-Communist Societies.CPSiss­e.20. Nov­,A.,Le­bol­,B.(2005).“P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­-

ing inPor­oAlegre:Soci­l Innov­­ion ­nd ­heDi­-lec­ic­lRe­l­ionshipofS­­­e­ndCivilSocie­­.”Ur-

ban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 11, 2023-2036.Av­il­ble­­: h­­p://www.chinesedemocr­­iz­­ion.com/b­dge­/P­rBdginPor­oAlegre.pdf 02.09.2013.

21. P­­em­n, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic

Theory.Gre­­Bri­­in:C­mbridgeUniversi­­Press.22. Pe­­­i,V.,A­ers,D.,R­mon­i­e,A. (2011).“Polii­i-

line ­reng”. Ees­i Inim­reng­ ­r­­nne. Inim­reng­B­l­i r­j­d:m­­­­s­ek­ks­­s­­kümme.T­llinn:ASPrin­onTrükikod­,144-162.

23. Reins­l­,K.(2008).Theimplemen­­­ionofIn­erne­Democr­c­inEs­oni­nLoc­lGovernments (Doc­or­lDisser­­­ion.Universi­­ofT­r­­,Es­oni­).

24. Semin­r session.Wri­­en record. Loc­l governmen­ofici­ls­ndmembersofloc­lco­ncil.09.12.2011.

25. Sin­omer,Y.,Herzberg,C.,Allegre­­i,G.,Röcke,A.(2010b). Learning from the South: Participatory Bud-

geting Worldwide – an Invitation to Global Coopera-

tion. Bonn:InWEn­gGmbH–C­p­ci­­B­ildingIn-

­ern­­ion­l,Germ­n­.No.25Englishversion in ­heDi­logGlob­lseriesp­blishedb­­heServiceAgenc­Projec­m­n­gemen­:Chris­i­nWilhelm,1-83.

26. Sin­omer,Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke,A. (2005) “P­r-­icip­­or­B­dge­inginE­rope:Po­en­i­ls­ndCh­l-lenges.”International Journal of Urban and Regional

Studies,Vol.32,No.1,164-78.27. T­lpin(2007)Who Governs in Participatory Democ-

racy Institutions? A comparative study of the decision-

making processes in Three European cases of partici-

patory budgeting.P­perprep­redfor­heCINEFOGOConference “Ci­izen P­r­icip­­ion inDecision-M­k-

ing”,Febr­­r­14-15.28. Cons­i­­­ion of ­he Rep­blic of Es­oni­, 1992 (RT

1992,26,349).

29. Thompson,N.K.(2012).“P­r­icip­­or­b­dge­ing–­heA­s­r­li­nw­­.”Journal of Public Deliberation,

Vol.8,Iss­e,Ar­icle5.30. Ti­m­,M., Rämmer,A. (2006). “Es­oni­: ch­nging

v­l­ep­­­ernsin­dividedsocie­­”.InKlingem­nn,H.,F­chs,D.,Zielonk­,J.(eds)Democracy and Po-

litical Culture in Eastern Europe, 277-30831. W­mpler, B. (2012). “P­r­icip­­ion, Represen­­­ion,

­ndSoci­lJ­s­ice:UsingP­r­icip­­or­Govern­nce­oTr­nsformRepresen­­­iveDemocr­c­.”Polity, Nor­h-

e­s­ernPoli­ic­lScienceAssoci­­ion,1-17.32. W­mpler, Bri­n (2007). “A G­ide ­o P­r­icip­­o-

r­B­dge­ing.”Participatory Budgeting.Anw­rSh­h(ed.).W­shing­on:TheWorldB­nk,1-55.

33. Work Gro­p session I. Wri­­en record. Loc­lgovernmen­ ofici­ls ­nd members of loc­l co­n-

cil.4.04.2013.34. Work Gro­p session II.Wri­­en record. Loc­l gov-

ernmen­ ofici­ls ­nd members of loc­l co­ncil.2.05.2013.

35. WorkGro­p session III.Wri­­en record.Loc­l gov-

ernmen­ ofici­ls ­nd members of loc­l co­ncil.06.06.2013.

36. Zh­ng­ndLi­o (2012).“P­r­icip­­or­B­dge­ing inLoc­lGovernmen­ Evidence fromNew Jerse­M­-

nicip­li­ies”Public Performance & Management Re-

view, Vol.35,No.2,281–302.

40

Krenjov­,J.,Reins­l­,K.

Хорошее управление начинается с процессуальных изменений: исследование разработки дизайна совместного бюджетирования в городе Тарту (Эстония)

Резюме

Совместное бюджетирование (СБ), глобальнаяпрактика местной демократии, предоставляет прос-тым гражданам возможность принятия решений обиспользовании публичных денежных средств. В товремя, когда многие ученые фокусируют свое вни-мание на описании многих вариантов СБ во всеммире, авторы настоящей статьи в качестве объек-та исследования избрали предшествующий внед-рению СБ процесс – этап подготовки дизайна СБ.Данное исследование выявляет трудности, опциии решающие факторы, с которыми сталкиваютсяполитики и государственные служащие в ходе раз-работки модели СБ. В теоретической части данногоанализа рассматриваются основные переменныепроцессуального дизайна СБ, а также описываютсявозможные трудности и опции, возникающие привыборе той или иной модели СБ. Контекстуальныефакторы, в свою очередь, потенциально оказываютвлияниенавыбортогоилииногодизайнаивыступаютвролирешающихаспектов.

Практическаячастьисследованияосновываетсяна кейсе города Тарту (Эстония), который принялрешение внедрить СБ в рамках пилотного проектаосенью2013года.Исследованиепоказало,чтооднойизосновныхтрудностейприразработкепроцессаСБявляется преодоление политической конфронтации,а также финансовых ограничений. Одним из мето-дов борьбы с данными проблемами является пре-доставлениелидирующейроливпроцессеформиро-вания СБ нейтральной и независимой организацииилиэкспертов.Темнеменее,судитьобиспользованиипилотногопроектаполитическимипартиями,станерт

возможнымтолькопослеегореализации.Кромеэтого,инициаторыСБсталкиваютсяструдностямивструктуреотвечающей за процесс СБ организации, а также срешением проблем, связанных с дополнительнойработой государственных служащих. В данном кон-тексте благоприятная политическая культура можетпослужитьфактором,способнымразрешитьподобныепроблемы. К тому же, на сегодняшний день спектрметодов по привлечению населения к участию впубличныхпроцессахпринятиярешенийзначительнорасширился благодаря внедрению информационно-коммуникационныхтехнологийвовсесферыжизни.ВТартуимеетсяблагоприятныйконтекстиэ-готовность,чтоповлиялонарешениемуниципалитетаиспользоватьтехнологии в процессеСБ.Данные контекстуальныефакторы (политическая и гражданская культура)представляютсяоченьважнымиидолжныприниматьсявовниманиеприразработкепроцессаСБ.Помимоэ-готовности, гомогенность сыграла важную роль привыбореметодовучастия.

Результаты пилотного проекта в Тарту пос-лужат темой будущих исследований. Надеемся, чтоданныйпроект укрепит диалогмежду гражданамиигосударством,предоставитновыезнанияотом,какимобразом улучшать на практике участие населения впринятиирешенийнаместномуровне,атакжепоможетучиться демократии и понимать обеими сторонами(теми,ктововлекает,итеми,когововлекают)механизмееработы.

Ключевые слова:совместноебюджетирование,местнаядемократия,участиевпринятиирешений.

The­r­icleh­sbeenreviewed.ReceivedinSep­ember2013,­ccep­edinOc­ober2013.