Participatory budgeting

The participatory budget, also called participatory budgeting or investment budget, is a technology developed in the 1980s, direct kind of ( local ) public participation. The management of a city, a county or other administrative unit endeavors to take to greater budgetary transparency and allows citizens a say at least over parts of the unrestricted budget and decide. About the use of the resources available to citizens exchange it in a deliberative process itself constantly, the managing accompanied mainly moderated and advice.

The first participatory budgeting ( Orçamento participativo ) was in Porto Alegre (Brazil ) conducted in 1989. There are now nearly 200 such communities in Brazil, throughout Latin America over 1000th The transparency of the municipal budgets also proves to be effective against corruption. The idea was then "exported" in many parts of the world, including in the framework of the Local Agenda 21, there were initiatives in this direction.

  • 2.1 The procedure of Porto Alegre 2.1.1 The procedure is determined by the citizens
  • 2.1.2 The cycle of the investment budget
  • 2.1.3 experience
  • 2.2.1 Porto Alegre participatory budgeting in Europe and organized interests
  • 2.2.2 Community Fund at district and city level and public-private negotiating table
  • 2.2.3 Citizen Participation and consultation on public finances
  • 3.1 Argentina
  • 3.2 Brazil
  • 3.3 Germany
  • 3.4 France

Basics

Objectives

With the participation of several domestic objectives should be achieved:

  • Allow direct democracy with delegates who are those who send responsible,
  • Greater popular participation in municipal decision-making processes ( Participatory democracy, civic participation)
  • Disempowerment potentially corrupt politicians,
  • Reduce waste of resources,
  • Make it enforceable policies for poorer, less well represented citizens,
  • Shift decisions to the level of those affected.

Definition

Is it enough if a method is called participatory budgeting? Or is it just a citizen budget if as discussed in Porto Alegre on investment and priorities are named? A consideration of the practice shows that under the name " participatory budget " to find quite different methods ( written surveys, distribution of household brochures, holding of information meetings, provision of neighborhood funds, etc.) that have little in common. To ensure a minimal comparability, five criteria were from the research project " European participatory budgeting " for local participatory budgets drawn up, which are addressed in the scientific literature and also used by more and more local authorities as a basis. Thus, a participatory budgeting is defined as follows:

" In participatory budgeting citizens take part without a political mandate in the creation and / or implementation of public finances Five other criteria need to be added in Europe at that definition in order to distinguish the citizens of other household participation process. :

1 In the center of the process are financial aspects, specifically the discussion about limited resources. 2 The participation takes place at the level of the whole city or a district with its own political and administrative skills instead ( the neighborhood level alone is not sufficient ). 3 There is a scale in the duration process ( an event, or a referendum on financial issues are not a citizen budget). 4 The consultation / decision of the citizens based on a process of discussion ( deliberation ) in the framework of special meetings / forums (the opening of existing processes of representative democracy compared to "normal " citizens is not participatory budgeting ) 5 The organizers must give an account of the results of the discussion. "

Based on these criteria is based, can be spoken by over 55 participatory budgeting in Europe and ten in Germany in 2005.

Spread the idea

The award-winning on the UN Habitat II Conference Model ( "Capital of democracy " ) encounters throughout Brazil (over 70 municipalities as Belo Horizonte, Belem or Recife ), especially in Europe ( Saint- Denis (Seine- Saint- Denis ), Barcelona), North America (Toronto), and even in New Zealand in Christchurch with great interest.

In Germany in the framework of the network communities of the future, in 1998, the cities of Monheim am Rhein and Blumberg a citizen- oriented budget allocation processes, tried before the Council decision, with positive results. From November 2000 to May 2004 led the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Ministry of the Interior of North Rhine -Westphalia through a joint project at the moment. Erlangen, Hamm, Castrop -Rauxel, Vlotho, Emsdetten, Hilden, Monheim now working with elements of the process as it has been tested in Porto Alegre. In Germany in particular discuss the Greens and the Left the participation of domestic and other forms of direct democracy in their local political papers. In Pforzheim in 2004 a bipartisan list with the subject of participatory budgeting in local elections was successful. The list of civic budget ( LBBH ) received a mandate at 4.3 %. In the Berlin district of Lichtenberg (260 thousand EW. ) Launched in 2005 the first participatory budget in a major German city. Also, the cities of Hamburg and Freiburg im Breisgau conducted participatory budgeting. In Potsdam, the participatory budget is advised since 2006 with citizens and partially formulated. Originally only the part of the administrative budget, but in the meantime, at the request of the citizens of the part " capital budget ".

Method

The method of Porto Alegre

Using the example of Porto Alegre explains how a participating household can work.

The method is determined by the citizens

The starting point was the decision to involve citizens wherever they live in the district. Citizens should remain the actors in the process, therefore, a political and administrative autonomy from the process was backed up. The method is developed continuously by citizens with the support of management since 1989.

The cycle of the investment budget

(OP = Orçamento Participativo )

The cycle of the surgical procedure begins in March each year, takes ten months and will be repeated every year. The first level of the process are 21 base assemblies:

  • In the 16 districts of the city of Porto Alegre citizens ' meetings are convened, to which several hundred citizens appear average. Since 1993, the number of participants in the official meetings always 10-20 thousand. The meetings begin first with an annual report of the selected OP councilors and the mayor or his representative. At these meetings, the city council their previous work before, a representative of the Finance Department informed about the financial possibilities of the municipality, introduces the program of the city government and sets out the rules of the City Council open. These rules relate, for example building standards or responsibilities and are coordinated with the operating committees.
  • Since 1994, five thematic forums also offered, in which at city- level issues and transportation, health and social services, economic development and local tax policy, education, culture and leisure, as well as local organization and urban development are discussed. In the thematic forums numerous specialists work with, in this case the well-educated middle classes are represented in particular.

The district and thematic assemblies send delegates in their delegate meetings, which form the second level of the process. These delegates are mostly representatives of people's organizations such as residents' associations, women's organizations, environmental groups, small and medium enterprises, farmers, street vendors, teachers, sports clubs, disability organizations, trade unions, but also some individuals.

Delegates advise in March to May of the applications from the general public and harmonize them with the budgeting of the city administration. You decide on the prioritization of projects. The public meetings of delegates days then without the city government for over two months a week, usually dinner. Official meeting with the city council will then find place in June / July.

The third level of the procedure, the surgical Council represents the / n? of the Assembly of Delegates / s? is selected. He coordinates the work of the delegates in the districts and thematic forums on municipal level, working closely with the Finance Department and the City Planning Department together (July / August). The high organizational coordination and communication overhead to support 20-30 employees trained in facilitation of the Civil Office, they must, for example, organize rooms, experts procure.

In September, the so established shall budget the OP Advisory Board is handed over to the mayor. His authority then coordinates the matching of the issues in dispute. In October, the City Council 's draft budget shall be transferred, which shall act in November. Because of the high public only minor changes in the so- materialize -down investment budget proposal made ​​by the City Council.

Subsequently, the measures such as water or waste water supply, asphalting of roads, lighting can be performed.

Finally, the citizens control in subsequent years if the measures adopted have also been implemented, including by slimming construction work in their own neighborhoods, for example.

Experiences

The first two years it was very difficult to carry out the exercise in democracy. There was virtually no free budget for investments, but after the first projects adopted could be carried out, the number of participants increased sharply. The process is long, but now leads to visible results. Meanwhile, a decision on tens of millions.

The initial rejection of many existing council members has now placed predominantly, though they lament their disempowerment. The investment budget has long come out in Brazil from the "exotic" corner. At the regional elections in late 1998, then in the land ruling bourgeois opposition Party ( PMDB ) has in turn made ​​its own version of the OP campaign. The parliamentary election was won by the PT, which has also spread to the state level, the process of the OP.

Thanks to the OP, a growing interest of citizens are listed at the long-term development of their communities, some 30 000 residents participate each year. By accountability, transparency and the new responsibility of citizens, municipal identity of citizens has been strengthened. Even the corruption has decreased markedly. So far not involved in politics in the city citizen groups could be obtained by the method of the OP to "Participate". The initially expressed fear that the citizens have little knowledge of management and budget preparation could be achieved through close cooperation of the non-governmental organization (NGO) and the Cidade combing. In the first 10 years, more than 2,000 citizens were qualified in terms of budget law, budget preparation and facilitation methods.

An experience of the Brazilian example of Porto Alegre is that the autonomy of works from the administrative procedures and the success is also necessary.

A positive effect of this model lies in the equitable distribution of urban resources and finances. It all parts of the city have been awarded funds, but poorer preferred what was acceptable to residents of richer quarter because of the transparency of the process. One effect was the increase in households with sewage connection from 46% (1989 ) to 84% (1999). Other programs of the city government promoted the construction of schools and homes, for example by supporting housing cooperatives.

The existing structure of the OP Councils and the Advisory Board has also been used in other urban planning contexts, attempted to settle a new supermarket in the Zona Norte, for example, as Carrefour. Here everything is not accepted on the grounds of "creating jobs". It kind of social conditions were formulated, which were then accepted by Carrefour, among others, the construction of a kindergarten, selection policies for employees, sales of local products.

Procedures in Europe

Taking into account the definition of six ideal types of participatory budgeting can be constructed by Sintomer / Herzberg / Skirts for Europe:

  • Porto Alegre in Europe,
  • Participatory budgeting organized interests,
  • Community Fund at district and city level,
  • Public-private negotiating table,
  • Citizens' participation,
  • Consultation with public finances.

The real samples can closely related to each type more or less. In the following, the methods are described in pairs. The presentation of the text is taken from Porto Alegre to Europe, which can be found in full in the downloads homepage www.buergerhaushalt - europa.de.

Porto Alegre participatory budgeting in Europe and organized interests

The participatory budget of Porto Alegre has some method in Europe directly affected, such as the Spanish city of Cordoba ( 320,000 inhabitants). There participatory budgeting was introduced in 2001, which is very similar to the Brazilian model. This prompted us to call those derived from this example, the ideal type " Porto Alegre in Europe". What are the similarities and differences in comparison to the model of organized interests? While participation is aimed at individual citizens in the first ideal type, are the main actors in the second clubs, associations and other organized groups. The objects of participation are different: In the model, " Porto Alegre in Europe," it 's all about investments and projects in the civil budget of organized interests, the discussion of political norms and concepts is important, so include stipulations on the thematic focus of the residential, educational, environmental and transport policy, etc. Another difference is in dealing with the proposals. The model " Porto Alegre in Europe " does indeed formally legally continue the municipal council, the final decision on the budget, but the commitment to implement the proposals of the participatory budget is very high, so that one can speak of a de facto decision-making authority of the citizens. As with the Brazilian model, there is a distribution key in this process for the investment. But it may not apply the criteria of Porto Alegre, but other indicators such as the number of welfare recipients in the district, the participation in the meetings and the participation of citizens, and are used in the implementation of the projects. In the civil budget of organized interests on the other hand is an advisory consultation. To this end, new bodies outside the classical representative democracy be created. Here no prioritization takes place. Distribution are the criteria in this model not too, but eligibility criteria are possible for certain target groups. In both models, there is a relatively good deliberative quality. It is discussed not only in the large plenary, but in manageable forums, committees or delegate committees.

The strength of these models lies in the potential of good deliberative quality. A deeper discussion allowed the development of detailed proposals to solve problems or to clarify important issues. This can go so far, for example, that expertise to equip schools or for better integration of minorities to be developed by the participants. Although effects are observed thoroughly, in practice there is still a challenge in combining the process with a comprehensive, related to the whole management process of modernization. The problem may be in the Porto Alegre model the potential conflict between the participation of individual citizens and organized interest groups. This is for example the case if established associations and initiatives feared disadvantages for their promotion. For the model of organized interests in Europe there are still no direct example. The participatory budget of Albacete (150,000 inhabitants) can be understood as a hybrid of both models: As with the model of organized interests are clubs and other groups, the main participants; However, they create a priority list, which also includes investments are included, as is typical for the model " Porto Alegre in Europe".

Community Fund at district and city level and public-private negotiating table

The model of community funds and the model of public-private negotiation table to play in Europe so far only a marginal role. However, they show an interesting development perspectives for the participatory budget. The basic commonality between the two models is that there is a fund for investment or for projects in the social, environmental or cultural area etc.. Such a fund exists, for example in the British city of Bradford ( 467,000 inhabitants) and the Polish Płock ( 128,000 inhabitants). The special feature of the models is that they are relatively independent of the municipal budget because the money is not under discussion, or just get to the part of the local administration. For this reason, not even the local council has the final say on the acceptance of the proposals, but a committee, committee or Assembly of Delegates, which plays also the establishment of a priority list. Participants in both methods organized groups, such as clubs, associations etc. deliberative quality is assessed as well as several meetings held with a manageable group of participants.

In the public-private negotiating table some of the money will be provided by private companies. In Płock involved next to the city administration and the UN Development Programme, the oil company ORLEN SA to 50 % in a fund of around 300,000 euros. Due to the financial contribution, an influence of the private sponsor is to be expected in the development of the method for this model. In contrast, the rules of the community fund to be decided autonomously by the participants. The economy is excluded, the money comes from a national program or is generated by the carrier itself. As can be inferred " community funds" from the name, the model emphasizes the promotion of socially disadvantaged groups. So in 2004, created in Bradford as part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Program, a fund of more than 875,000 euros for groups of disadvantaged neighborhoods, which, similar to the program " Social City" in Germany, for projects in districts is provided with special development needs. A special feature is that take in the ideal type of community funds the applicant to implement the projects themselves. In the public-private negotiating table, this is also possible, but is not a necessary criterion for the construction of the model.

These two models have advantages and disadvantages. So, the connection to the local policy only weakly or not at all pronounced. After all, the municipal council is maintained at the public-private negotiating table a certain influence because of their part of the money will be applied. The influence of the private investor depends on the amount of its contribution from: Is it an equal funding between the city and companies or accepts one of them a dominant role? The community fund for its part also points to new possibilities for participatory budgeting. Here, for example, national or Europe-wide programs of urban and infrastructure development could be locally connected to a citizens' budget. This process could then be explicitly refer to the advancement of disadvantaged areas and groups of residents. An advantage of both models is that in them civic engagement is very pronounced, as people are themselves involved in the implementation of the projects.

Citizen participation and consultation on public finances

While primarily for examples of the model of community participation in France, the model of consultation on public finances, especially for participatory budgeting in Germany is characteristic. Both models have in common is that they are purely consultative. This means that results of the discussion by the administration and not by the affected citizens themselves are summarized. In contrast to the previously presented models here no vote and no hierarchy of proposals by the participants takes place at the ideal types. It is rather a process of " selective listening", which means that the government or municipal council reacted only the proposals that are in line with their own interests. Civil society has only a weak influence on the design of the process. It should be noted that these models do not pursue social objectives, which is why the criteria for the distribution of investment funds are not to be found here. Another commonality is that clubs play little or no procedural formative role. The participation takes place through public meetings, for their participation via announcements in the media, by letter or by personal contact is called. In Germany, for mobilization ( supplementary) made ​​like a random selection of participants from the population register, the Citizens' Forum for a personally addressed to them by the Mayor received ( skirts 2005). This method is, inter alia, in applied Emsdetten ( 35,000 inhabitants), Hilden ( 56,000 inhabitants), Vlotho ( 21,000 inhabitants) and in the Berlin district of Treptow- Köpenick ( 233,000 inhabitants).

The methods differ in that the model of its citizens especially the districts involving and at this level can also have investments for the object. At the level of the city as a whole this is not more to investing, but to general ( normative ) goals. There is no specific calculation of the costs, so the coupling with processes of strategic planning is possible. By the term " citizens " are mainly two aspects meant: Firstly, it refers to a geographical area, ie on the participation of citizens in the various parts of the city, on the other hand, the term for a close contact between the church leadership or management and citizens are. Based on this model, for example, organized the mayor of Bobigny ( 45,000 inhabitants) twice a year, open meetings in the districts in which he is the residents and answer questions. In the model "Consultation on Public Finances ", in turn, is primarily a Transparentmachung the financial situation of the city. Information to the general budget shall be issued in brochures, on the internet and through press releases. The model exists in two versions. In the one that is most widely used, services of public institutions and responsibilities of the management are presented. It's about the revenue and expenditure of libraries, swimming pools, kindergartens or street cleaning, waste treatment or waste disposal etc. Citizens can then express their ideas in an open plenary or in specific forums. The second variant of the model "Consultation on Public Finances " has balancing a budget deficit goal, such as in the North Rhine -Westphalian Emsdetten, where the citizens of five options for a balanced budget were presented in 2002: reduction of personnel and operating costs, reduce voluntary tasks, withdrawal from the reserve or raising taxes and fees. Using a questionnaire, each participant was able to develop its own proposal from the combination of these possibilities. From the individual opinions the overall recommendation of the Civic Forum was calculated at the end of the event. The deliberative quality of the model is generally low, as is hardly time for a more in-depth discussion is available in most cases. In the model of proximity, however, the quality of the discussion can be better because is sometimes worked in small groups that meet over a longer period of times.

What makes them interesting model " consultation on public finances," is its connection to the process of administrative modernization. How these can, however, be enhanced? It may be possible to extend this discussion to contribute. Thus, the administration could prepare specific questions in which the feedback from the citizens contributes directly to improving public services. Example: "Do you see areas where the street cleaning should be intensified or are there places where your opinion is cleaned too often " One limitation is that the model " consultation on public finances " participation only " appendage " of a comprehensive modernization process is. In addition, the citizen participation usually consisting of only one or two events, but not from a "participation cycle ", a series of coordinated meetings. The model of proximity, in turn, as mentioned, an advantage in relatively good discussion between citizens and the administration and council members. A disadvantage of both models is to see that the liability with regard to the implementation of the proposals is low and the autonomy of civil society is weak.

Example municipalities

Argentina

  • La Plata
  • Rosario

Brazil

  • Porto Alegre

Germany

  • Bergheim
  • Berlin -Lichtenberg, since 2005
  • Bishop Home ( Main tip)
  • Bonn
  • Cottbus
  • Emsdetten
  • Erfurt
  • Food
  • Freiburg im Breisgau
  • Wholesale Umstadt
  • Hamburg
  • Hilden
  • Jena
  • Cologne
  • Leipzig
  • Lüdenscheid, since 2010
  • District of Mansfeld - Suedharz
  • Münster, since 2011
  • Potsdam, since 2006
  • Rheinstetten
  • Solingen
  • Stuttgart, since 2011
  • Trier
  • Waldeck- Frankenberg
  • Wildeshausen
  • Worms

France

  • Bobigny
  • Saint- Denis
Mandate (politics) Saint-Denis Castrop-Rauxel Rosario (Santa Fe) Bergheim, North Rhine-Westphalia Essen
6804
de