Presentation on electronic participatory budgeting at Midwest Decision Sciences Institute 2009 conference, Miami University, Oxford Ohio, April 18, 2009.
2. Overview
Motivation and Objectives
Background on PB
Gaps in research/practice
Normative framework
1. participatory budgeting/participation in general
2. use of online decision support tools for PB (ePB)
3. design guidelines for ePB
Proposed prototype/experiment
3. What got me thinking...
citizen participation: great goal... or is it?
learn about complicated budget issues
attend public fora
navigate large-group discussions
thousands of person hours to do what city commission
can do in dozens
worth the effort?
4. Objectives
propose justification for participatory budgeting
political science, public administration
propose justification for use of computer-assisted
decision support: electronic PB
information systems, PB practice
propose practice design guidelines for ePB
use these guidelines as basis for prototype, local trial
5.
6. Participatory Budgeting (PB):
Design Principles
citizens and/or delegates discuss and debate public
needs
formal rules link participatory inputs and budgeting
process
open public process and broader range of actors
expand monitoring of budget
neighborhoods receive tangible returns, which
encourages participation
(Baiocchi et al. 2008)
7. Participatory Budgeting: Where?
Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1989
spread elsewhere in Brazil early 1990s
currently hundreds of cities worldwide
some small cities (15K-20K)
four Canadian cities
rare in U.S.
property tax resists redistribution to low-
income areas?
8. PB Lite: Online Educational Tools
American Public Media’s “Budget Hero”
U.S. federal budget
deficit reduction
comparison with presidential candidates
discussion forum on Gather.com
Copenhagen Consensus Center
priorities for global problems
(hunger, disease, terrorism, air pollution)
Both educate; neither official
9.
10. Gap: Normative Framework for
Citizen Participation
Democracy/participation good... right?
New Public Administration
“exclusionary technocracy”
descriptive theory (Stewart 2007) proposes game
theory/competition approach
competition model ignores cooperative public admin.
goals
need guidelines for establishing civic partnership to
check political games
11. Gap: PB Practice in USA
Birthplace of modern democracy... PB
should be breaking out all over
No large-scale implementations
Hard to find examples in small-town
USA
12. Gap: PB-Information Systems
Connection
PB literature rarely mentions information systems
websites often appear in PB communities
no evident systematic use of online tools to support PB
PB tends to focus on face-to-face interaction
Note: Computers/Internet not necessary
Athens! Agora!
Philadelphia 1776
Computers/Internet certainly useful!
online organizing
DSU
13.
14. Citizen Participation:
Justification in Political Language
Legitimacy
all have capacity and right to participate
Property rights
“It’s our money!”
Trust
working together means less distance, less
alienation
15. Citizen Participation:
Justification in Business Language
Stakeholder buy-in
Democracy = project management
Participants take ownership of budget
Competition in marketplace of ideas
More ideas/perspectives to choose from
Better systems
Participatory design discovers user needs better
(Mumford, 1983)
Increased public resources
PB more tax revenue, less delinquency (Cabannes, 2004)
16. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Justification
Participation is expensive – opportunity
cost!
Three ways to overcome opportunity cost:
1. increase citizens’ wealth (hard)
2. increase citizens’ motivation to
participate (hard)
3. decreasing cost of participation (online
DSS!)
17. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Justification
Broader representation
PB focuses on increasing low-income
representation
ePB lowers opp. cost
Social auditing
online records = many eyes
Transparency
More citizens see what’s happening and what
happened
18. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Justification
“Deliberation within” (Goodin, 2003)
PB usually in public meetings
ePB allows asynchronous, more thought time
can check informational and social pressures of group
deliberation (Sunstein, 2005)
Education
frequently cited as pre-req and positive outcome of PB
online information augments public meetings, supports
ongoing learning
19. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Design Principles
Good gov’t budget Web design
(Tanaka, 2007)
up-to-date info
clear graphics
multiple formats (prose, charts, graphs...)
relevant links
easy navigation and search
20. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Design Principles
Data accessibility
offer budget data in formats users can easily access and
manipulate
HTML, Excel – never just PDF
Good example: Stimulus.Virginia.Gov
Excel format—download, sort!
First 48 hours: nearly 1,000 proposals
Feb. 10 – Mar 6: over 9,000 proposals
21. Electronic Participatory Budgeting:
Design Principles
Background materials
complete, balanced, neutral (Lukensmeyer & Brigham,
2005)
Deliberation space
online forum or wiki captures citizen discussion
Social auditing
integrate site with municipal record-keeping
22.
23. Prototype 1: “More or Less”
Allows citizens to define “more” and “less”
percentages
averages based on historical budget data
assume inflation
Asks citizens whether they want to spend “more,” “same,”
or “less” on various budget items
Displays current spending and savings/expense of user
choices
Can include links to explanatory materials
Can include discussion, summary of other citizen inputs
24. Prototype 2: “Chopping Block”
Assesses citizen priorities
“Would you consider cuts...?”
“definitely” – “never”
pick number of programs to cut, see savings...
...or set amount to cut from budget, see programs cut by
chosen priority
Also aggregate all submitted responses
Can include links to explanatory materials
Can include discussion, summary of other citizen
inputs
25. Future design/research work
Capture suggestions for new programs
Deploy and test online with real citizens
Host face-to-face meetings for comparable exercises
26. Research Questions
Do citizens and public officials find ePB tools useful?
Do ePB tools draw participants representative of the
population?
Is there a minimum population for communities that
can derive benefits from ePB?
Can ePB serve as a decision support tool for elected
officials?
28. References
American Public Media. Budget Hero: Frequently asked questions. City of Gresham. Minutes. City Involvement Committee Meeting.
2008. Retrieved 2008.12.10 from December 3, 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from
http://budgethero.publicradio.org/widget/faq/
Baierle, S. Whittling down the potential of participatory http://greshamoregon.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifi
budgeting? The Governance Link, July 2008, issue 4, 1–4. er=id&ItemID=14500
Retrieved 2008.12.03 from City of Madison. Finance Office website, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.10
http://www.ongcidade.org/site/php/noticias from
/noticias.php?area=artigos&completa&id_noticia=1021
Baiocchi, G., and Lerner, J. Could participatory budgeting work in http://cityofmadisonsd.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={
the United States? The Good Society, 2007, 16(1), 8–13. 858CB03D-474D-4217-8116-8B9B05FCC119}
Belanger, F., & Hiller, J.S. A framework for e-government: Privacy City of Madison. Annual city budget books, provided by Lingle, J.,
implications. Business Process Management Finance Office, December 2, 2008.
Journal, 2006, 12(1), 48–60.
City of Madison. Monthly web statistics for cityofmadisonsd.com.
Box, R. Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the
21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998. Retrieved Provided by Eimers, J., Finance Office, January 16, 2009.
February 11, 2009, from Clement, C. City questioned about Schaefer zoning request.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5jSeZI0qRWAC Madison Daily Leader, November 18, 2008. Retrieved February
Box, R. Private lives and anti-administration. Administrative Theory 10, 2009, from
and Praxis, 2001, 23(4), 541–558.
http://www.madisondailyleader.com/site/news.cfm?dept_id=1
Bräutigam, D. The people's budget? Politics, participation and pro-
poor policy. Development Policy Review, November 81987&PAG=461&rfi=6&newsid=20201142
2004, 22(6), 653–668. Condon, S. The first wiki president? Obama adviser votes “Yea.” C-
Cabannes, Y. Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to Net News, October 30, 2008. Retrieved 2008.11.09 from
participatory democracy. Environment & Urbanization, April http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10079575-38.html
2004, 16(1), 27–46.
Campbell, D.J., and Gingrich, K. F. The interactive effects of task Fernández-Maldonado, A.M. Virtual cities as a tool for
complexity and participation on task performance: A field democratization in developing countries. Knowledge,
experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Technology, & Policy, 2005, 18(1), 43–61.
Processes, October, 1986, 38, 162–180. Cited in Kren, 1992.
Chadwick, A., and May, C. Interaction between states and citizens Fox, M. Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting at a crossroads.
in the age of the internet: ‘e-Government’ in the United North American Congress on Latin America. April 14, 2008.
States, Britain, and the European Union.” Governance: An Retrieved 2008.12.03 from http://nacla.org/node/4566
International Journal of Policy, Administration and
Institutions, April 2003, 16, 271–300.
29. References
Frederickson, H. G. The repositioning of American public Norris, D.F. E-government at the American grassroots: Future
administration. PS: Political Science and trajectory. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International
Politics,1999, 32(4), 701–711. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from Conference on System Sciences, 2005. Retrieved 2008.09.19
https://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/1999Repositioning- from http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/documents/HICSSpaper.pdf
Frederickson.pdf. Osmani, S. R. Expanding voice and accountability through the
Goodin, R.E. Democratic deliberation within. In Fishkin, J.S., and budgetary process. Journal of Human
Laslett, P. (eds). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Development, 2002, 3(2), pp. 231–250.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. Pearce, J. Toward a post-representational politics? Participation in
Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. the 21st century. World Futures, 2007, 63, 464–478.
Thomas Burger, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 1989. South Dakota Codified Law. Chapter 9-21: Municipal Government
Irvin, R.A., and Stansbury, J. Citizen participation in decision Tax Levies and Appropriations. South Dakota Legislature, 2008.
making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Retrieved 2008.12.08 from http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/
Review, January–February 2004, 64(1), 55–65. DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=9-21
Keating, M. Size, efficiency, and democracy: Stewart, K. Write the rules and win: Understanding citizen
Consolidation, fragmentation, and public choice.quot; In David participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review.
Judge, Gerry Stoker, and Harold Wolman (eds.). Theories of November–December, 2007. 1067–1076.
Urban Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, 117–134. Sunstein, C.R. Group judgments: Statistical means, deliberation, and
Kren, L. Budgetary participation and managerial performance: The prediction markets. New York University Law Review, June
impact of information and environmental volatility. The 2005, 80, 962–1049.
Accounting Review, July 1992, 67(3), 511–526. Tanaka, S. Engaging the public in national budgeting: A non-
Lomborg, B. Help set the “Copenhagen Consensus”! governmental perspective. OECD Journal on
ReasonOnline, May 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.08 from Budgeting, 2007, 7(2), 139–177.
http://reason.com/news/show/126645.html West, D.W. Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector
Lukensmeyer, C.J., and Brigham, S. Taking democracy to scale: Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2005.
Large-scale interventions—for citizens. The Journal of Applied World Bank. Case study 1—Ireland: Participation in macroeconomic
Behavioral Science, March 2005, 41(1), 47–60. policy making and reform. Social Development Notes, March
Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The 2003, No. 77. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from
ETHICS Method. Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTPCENG/1143251-
Manchester, 1983. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from 1116573249068/20509171/sdn77.pdf
http://www.enid.u-net.com/C1book1.htm