Transformative Deliberations: Participatory Budgeting in the United States

Abstract

This article develops two conceptual models, based on empirical data, for assessing deliberation and decision making within United States adoptions of Participatory Budgeting (PB). The first model is results oriented whereas the second model is process oriented. The two models evince the tension between inclusiveness and efficiency that emerge as U.S. PB tries accommodating the dual goals of improved short-term service delivery and democratic deepening. Each model satisfies one of these deliberate goals better. Results oriented deliberation is more effective at producing viable projects whereas process oriented is better at ensuring that all participants’ voices are heard. Variation suggests that decision-making in PBNYC exceeds citizens’ ability to make collective decisions with rational discourse. Rather, the structural conditions of district constitution, bureaucratic constraints, and facilitator skill impacted decision-making.

A realist epistemic utopia? Epistemic practices in a climate camp

“…Eric Olin Wright (2010) has developed the notion of “real utopias.” By describing our case study as a real epistemic utopia, our aim was to emphasize the emancipatory potential of the epistemic practices in social movements, such as in this climate camp. Instead of having to choose between either radical democracy or efficiency (as Gilman's, 2012 study suggests, and as critics of deliberation hold in general (e.g., Shapiro, 1999)), our case study shows that under certain conditions, they can be jointly achieved. By showing that successful epistemic mechanisms of horizontalization and inclusion can be practically successful, this “real utopia” shows that inclusiveness and efficiency need not always be in tension.…”

“…We have identified epistemic mechanisms such as an experimental attitude, the avoiding of specialization and the redistributions of knowledge, and epistemic humility, which, together, were able to avoid hierarchization and exclusion. With regard to the alleged tension between inclusion and efficiency (Gilman, 2012), our analysis has identified a broad notion of efficiency that proves particularly promising from the point of view of the epistemic potential of participatory democratic practice. This “broad” form of efficiency was based on learning processes, automatic task sharing, stable forms of cooperation, and benefits of innovation.…”

“…One noteworthy feature of these epistemic practices is that in most of the cases they worked without facilitators, relying solely on self‐organization and mutual support. This stands in contrast to many forms of deliberation, for example, lottocratic assemblies (e.g., Fishkin, 2018) or participatory budgeting committees (Gilman, 2012), in which the role of facilitators is decisive (see also Lee, 2015 on the facilitation industry). Our case is different in this respect, a fact on which we reflect more in Section 4.…”

“…

Participatory democratic practices are often seen as caught between two ideals: inclusiveness and efficiency. On the one hand, they are meant to provide "democratic deepening" by using inclusive processes and giving everyone a voice; on the other hand, they are expected to deliver good results (Gilman, 2012). But can one have both at once?

…”

A Framework for Approval-based Budgeting Methods

“…Participatory budgeting [4], initiated by the Brazil workers' party [27], is gaining increased attention, and is currently applied on many continents, including North America [17] and Europe (e.g., Paris is organizing one of the largest citywide participatory budgeting processes 1 ). The general premise of participatory budgeting is to let residents of a municipality influence the way by which their common funds are being distributed, through a deliberative grassroots process.…”