Changing patterns of participation in Porto Alegre

Abstract

This article aims at understanding local capabilities for empowerment, dealing with the potential for progressive political movements at the local level. Applying an analytical approach to urban governance that is sensitive to path, context and scale, this article discusses participatory governance in Porto Alegre, the capital city of Rio Grande do Sul, the most southern state of Brazil. Porto Alegre's participatory budget is an international best practice model of urban governance. In recent years it has been referred to as an exemplar of pro‐poor participatory governance and has been adopted by many other cities and international organisations. In this article we give special emphasis to recent transformations which we characterise as a change from a radical democratisation project towards a model of consensual governance. The former conception – linked to the administration of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (1989–2004) – tended to be a project of social transformation where conflicts were dealt with openly and democratically and the local level was treated as a space of experimentation for political up‐scaling projects. Its implementation led to remarkable social progress. The latter conception – implemented by the new mayor after 2005 – has stronger links to mainstream concepts of good governance, focusing on consensual arrangements and private–public partnerships.

Participatory budgeting at a community level in Porto Alegre: a Bourdieusian interpretation

“…In Porto Alegre, the implementation of PB can be understood as the outcome of struggles that took place in the political field, especially during the transition to democracy (Leubolt et al, 2008). During these struggles, associations and civil society movements that had strongly supported participation, even under the dictatorship, played an important role (Baierle, 1998;Biagiotti, 2004;Sintomer et al, 2008, p. 167).…”

“…Together with diverse social movements, the UAMPA, which was created in 1983, had claimed community control over municipal finances as early as 1985 (Avritzer, 2002;Ganuza and Baiocchi, 2012, p. 2). However, the Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT), which was elected at the first democratic municipal elections in 1985, did not concretize the participatory promise on which it had campaigned (Leubolt et al, 2008). In this context, many social movements then rejected the PDT and began to support the PT, which was committed to establishing a participatory government so as to reinforce…”

“…It has encountered worldwide recognition for its success: it became an integral part of the alter-globalization project behind the World Social Forum (Biagiotti, 2004;Menser, 2005;Teivainen, 2002;Wasserman, 2004), has been praised by academics (see e.g. Abers, 2000;Baiocchi, 2002;Cabannes, 2004;Goldfrank, 2006;Leubolt et al, 2008;Navarro, 2004a, b;Santos, 2007;Sintomer et al, , 2012Utzig, 1996Utzig, , 2000Wampler, 2007), and named as a "best practice" (Speer, 2012(Speer, , p. 2379) by international agencies and institutions, many of them belonging to the neoliberal Washington consensus. Finally, it has inspired 1,500 instances of participatory budgeting (PB) over the five continents (Ganuza and Baiocchi, 2012).…”

Ein gutes Leben für alle - ein europäisches Entwicklungsmodell

“…Ein demokratisches Gemeinwesen hat ja nicht nur das Recht, sondern die Aufgabe, eine ressourcenschonende, stärker regionalisierte Produktions-und Lebensweise zu institutionalisieren. Demokratische Budgeterstellungsprozesse können dies unterstützen, indem sie neue Prioritäten öffentlicher Mittelverwendung festlegen und dazu innovative Formen von Beteiligung und Wissen nutzen (Leubolt et al 2009 …”

Deep State, Deep Crisis: Egypt and American Policy

“…19 Such experiments in local governance have had generally positive effects on both civic participation and levels of equality in policy outputs. 20 Of course, for such experiments to even be conceptualized requires institutional reform that is unlikely to be forthcoming from Cairo. Development has been notoriously topdown, elite-focused and subject to capture by elites in the military-industrial complex.…”