Participatory Budgeting and Civic Tech: The Revival of Citizen Engagement

Gilman, Hollie Russon

doi:10.1353/book46078

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies on participatory budgeting provide insight into how best to organize and engage the public ( Sintomer et al. , 2008 ; Castillo, 2015 ; Gilman, 2016 ; Struić and Bratić, 2018 ; Russell and Jovanovic, 2020 ). These highlight that creating conditions for effective deliberation requires investments of time and in capacity-building, including training and incentivizing participants, dedicating staff to manage the process and creating an environment for an empowered, diverse and vibrant civil society ( Calisto Friant, 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Dale,

Peacocke,

Movik

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework’s four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Dale,

Peacocke,

Movik

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extant literature on the outcomes of participatory governance has been primarily dedicated to government responsiveness (Heller, 2012; Gilman, 2016), public service quality (Goldfrank, 2011), governability (Yan and Xin, 2017; Kübler et al., 2020), and empowerment of civil society (Fung and Wright, 2001; Gustafson and Hertting, 2017). However, as we will show in the next three subsections, the effect of citizen participation on trust is mixed and may be confounded by other factors.…”

Section: Citizen Participation Perceived Performance Satisfaction And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The mixed effects of e‐participation on the dynamic of trust in government: Evidence from Cameroon

Xin

Esembe²,

Chen

2022

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regular participation of citizens in governance and policy processes has been considered critical to the functioning of the democratic model of governance. While recent studies have documented the emergence and evolution of participatory governance in Western countries, little is known about the influence of citizens’ participation on e‐governance in African countries. Leveraging an original survey conducted in Cameroon on citizens’ participation in and satisfaction with a Facebook‐based e‐participation initiative, this study explores how participation in the governance process through the Internet has affected African citizens’ trust in their local and national governments. The results first suggest a weak positive association between citizens’ e‐participation and their trust in governments. However, further decomposition of the positive association between satisfaction, performance, and trust shows that their relationships are critically enhanced by citizens’ participation in e‐governance, suggesting that the trust‐enchancing impact of e‐participation is likely to be dominated by indirect effects. The results also indicate that the moderating mechanism is likely to differ between citizens’ trust in the local and national governments, which sheds light on the understanding of the effects of e‐participation for both academics and practitioners. [Correction added on 14 February 2023, after first online publication: The section “Summary at a glance” should not have been included. It has been removed.] Points for practitioners Novel participatory governance initiatives such as e‐Participation could enhance trust in the government, but such an effect is likely to be precipitated indirectly. e‐Participation positively affects people’s trust in their government primarily by reinforcing the trust‐enhancing effect of satisfaction with the participatory program and perceived performance of the government. The effect of e‐Participation on trust in government is also positively moderated by citizens' satisfaction with the participatory program and perceived performance of the government.

show abstract

“…Council members submit the winning PB projects for inclusion in the city budget. The PB project evaluation, implementation, and monitoring is ensured during this phase by delegates and other community participants (Gilman, 2016;Kasdan et al, 2015).…”

Section: Participatory Budgeting In New York Citymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is considered a democratic innovation that may present an opportunity for governments to work toward good governance principles such as transparency, responsiveness, accountability, inclusiveness and equity. PB represents an example of an alternative way of bottom-up accountability and participatory governance (Afonso, 2018;Gilman, 2016) through which "citizens contribute directly to structure the political system" (Baiocchi & Ganutza, 2017, p. 45). The aim of this inclusive process was to develop more policies geared toward under-represented groups, using representative participation in budgeting decisions to redistribute resources to where they were needed most (Wampler, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Successful is Participatory Budgeting in Promoting Social Equity? Evidence from New York City

Kuenneke¹,

Scutelnicu²

2021

Public Administration Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how successful the NYC’s participatory budgeting (PB) has been in promoting social equity in its city council districts. Drawing on secondary data coming from NYC council data and American Community Survey, this study specifically examines how successful PB has been in engaging under-represented groups in its decision-making process, and in allocating funds equitably. Findings suggest that districts with a higher percentage of Asian-American and mixed race residents have a higher percentage of PB voters. The study finds that African–Americans, residents of Hispanic origin and women were not significant predictors of PB voters. Additionally, results indicate that districts with a higher percentage of people living below the poverty level and more Asian-American residents allocate more funds to PB projects. Other under-represented groups such as foreign born population and youth between 14 and 18 years of age did not have a statistically significant relationship with neither PB voters nor funding.

show abstract

Participatory Budgeting and Civic Tech: The Revival of Citizen Engagement

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

The mixed effects of e‐participation on the dynamic of trust in government: Evidence from Cameroon

How Successful is Participatory Budgeting in Promoting Social Equity? Evidence from New York City

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About