The cherry-picking in participatory budgeting: an approach to its determining factors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21501/23394536.3278Keywords:
Participatory democracy, Citizen Proposals, Participatory budgeting, Implementation of public policies, literature review.Abstract
With the crisis in the current political systems, specially the representative democracy, the interest in academic literature, have concentrated in new instruments of citizen participation, like participatory budgeting. Although; this democratic instrument has been studied systematically by numerous authors. It is few known about the impact of participatory budgeting in the public policy cycle. In other words, it is still unknown what are the factors that determine the trajectories of citizen proposals in the implementation phase by local governments. To overcome this theoretical gap, the present article addresses the study of some contextual variables (electoral time, urban violence, number of proposals, and deliberative quality) and others related to the proposals (content, economic cost, and political cost) considered, that are determined in the implementation, modification or rejection of citizen proposals. All of the above, using mainly the literature on participatory budgeting and broadly, on citizen participation and participatory democracy.Downloads
References
Abers, R. N. (2003). Reflections on What Makes Empowered Participatory Governance Happen. En A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (pp. 200–207). Londres: Verso.
Arriagada, I., & Godoy, L. (1999). Seguridad ciudadana y violencia en América Latina: diagnóstico y políticas en los años noventa. Santiago de Chile: Cepal.
Baiocchi, G. (Ed.). (2003). Radicals in Power: The Workers’ Party and Experiments in Urban Democracy in Brazil. London, New York: Zed Books.
Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2014). Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society, 42(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329213512978
Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. (2011). Bootstrapping Democracy: Transforming Local Governance and Civil Society in Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bishop, P., & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00255
Boulding, C., & Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.002
Buvinic, M., Morrison, A. R., & Shifter, M. (1999). Violence in the Americas: a framework for action. En A. R. Morrison & M. L. Biehl (Eds.), Too Close to Home: Domestic Violence in the Americas. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
Carney, D. (1998). Implementing the sustainable rural livelihood approach. En D. Carney (Ed.), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? (pp. 3–26). London: Department for International Development.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS.
Cooper, E., & Smith, G. (2012). Organizing Deliberation: The Perspectives of Professional Participation Practitioners in Britain and Germany. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1). Recuperado de Article 3. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss1/art3/
de Haan, W. (2008). Violence as an Essentially Contested Concept. En S. Body-Gendrot & P. Spierenburg (Eds.), Violence in Europe (pp. 27–40). New York: Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09705-3_3
Della Porta, D. (2013). Can Democracy Be Saved?: Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.
Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fölscher, A. (2007). Participatory Budgeting in Asia. En A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting (pp. 157–190). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
Font, J., & Smith, G. (2013). The policy effects of participation: Cherry-picking among local policy proposals? Paper presentado en ECPR General Conference, Session Local Political Participation: What Difference Does it Make?, Bordeaux.
Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcón, P. (2015). From Participatory Policy Proposals to Local Policies: Explaining Diverse Trajectories. Paper presentado en el IV Congreso Internacional en Gobierno, Administración y Políticas Públicas, Madrid.
Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcón, P. (2016). Cherry-picking participation: explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. Paper presentado en la Conferencia Political Studies Association, Brighton.
Fung, A. (2004). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Londres: Verso.
Ganuza, E., & Sintomer, Y. (2011). Democracia participativa y modernización de los servicios públicos: investigación sobre las experiencias de presupuesto participativo en Europa. París: La Découverte.
Genro, T. (1995). Reforma do estado e Democratização do Poder Local. En R. V. Boas & V. Telles (Eds.), Poder Local, Participação Popular, Construção da Cidadania. São Paulo: Fórum Nacional de Participação Popular nas Administrações Municipais.
Gilman, H. R. (2012). Transformative Deliberations: Participatory Budgeting in the United States. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2). Recuperado de Article 11. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art11
Goldfrank, B. (2007). Lessons from Latin America’s Experience with Participatory Budgeting. En A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting (pp. 91–126). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hernández‐Medina, E. (2010). Social Inclusion through Participation: the Case of the Participatory Budget in São Paulo. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 512–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00966.x
Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Towards participation as transformation: critical themes and challenges. En S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development (pp. 3–24). London: Zed Books.
Krantz, R. S. (2003). Cycles of Reform in Porto Alegre and Madison. En A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (pp. 225–236). Londres: Verso.
Mazeaud, A., Sa Vilas Boas, M.-H., & Berthomé, G.-E.-K. (2012). Penser les effets de la participation sur l’action publique à partir de ses impensés. Participations, 1(2), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.3917/parti.002.0005
McIlwaine, C., & Moser, C. (2003). Encounters with Violence in Latin America: Urban Poor Perceptions from Colombia and Guatemala. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Montambeault, F. (2012). Learning to Be “Better Democrats”? The Role of Informal Practices in Brazilian Participatory Budgeting Experiences. En K. E. Sharpe, E. Hershberg, & M. A. Cameron (Eds.), New Institutions for Participatory Democracy in Latin America: Voice and Consequence (pp. 99–122). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moser, C. (1998). The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development, 26(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10015-8
Moser, C., & Norton, A. (2001). To Claim Our Rights: Livelihood Security, Human Rights and Sustainable Development. London: ODI.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Navarro, C. J. (1999). El sesgo participativo: innovación democrática en municipios del Sur de Europa (1960-1995). Córdoba: Editorial CSIC–CSIC Press.
Navarro, Z. (2010). Porto Alegre: From Municipal Innovations to the Culturally Embedded Micro-Politics of (Un)Emancipated Citizens: The Case of Rubbish Recyclers. En J. Pearce (Ed.), Participation and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century City (pp. 76–99). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Norris, P. (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nylen, W. R. (2003). Participatory Democracy Versus Elitist Democracy: Lessons From Brazil. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Olken, B. A. (2010). Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(02), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000079
Pearce, J. (2007). Violence, Power and Participation: Building Citizenship in Contexts of Chronic Violence. Working Paper 274. Brighton: IDS.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shah, A. (2007). Overwiev. En A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting (pp. 1–20). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x
Smith, G. (2001). Taking Deliberation Seriously: Institutional Design and Green Politics. Environmental Politics, 10(3), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000562
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609848
Smith, G., Richards, R. C., & Gastil, J. (2015). The Potential of Participedia as a Crowdsourcing Tool for Comparative Analysis of Democratic Innovations. Policy & Internet, 7(2), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.93
Souza, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780101300112
Spada, P. (septiembre, 2010). The Effects of Participatory Democracy: Evidence from Brazilian Participatory Budgeting. Paper presentado en la American Political Science Association, Washington D.C.
Spada, P. (2012). Political competition in deliberative and participatory institutions (Tesis doctoral inédita). Yale University, Agregar la ciudad de la presentación.
Stanko, E. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the meaning of violence. En E. A. Stanko (Ed.), The Meanings of Violence (pp. 1–13). London: Routledge.
Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving Social Well-Being Through New Democratic Institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 47(10), 1442–1469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013512601
Urán, O. (2010). Medellín: Participatory Creativity in a Conflictive City. En J. Pearce (Ed.), Participation and Democracy in the Twenty-First Century City (pp. 127–153). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wampler, B. (2009). Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. College Park: Penn State University Press.
Warren, M. E. (2009). Citizen Participation and Democratic Deficits: Considerations from the Perspective of Democratic Theory. En J. DeBardeleben & J. H. Pammett (Eds.), Activating the Citizen: Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada (pp. 17–40). New York: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240902_2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
ETHICS OF PUBLICATION AND GOOD PRACTICES
Responsibilities of the Director / Editor:
The Director / Editor, following the code of conduct, is the person in charge of selecting the articles that will be part of the volumes of the Journal. Therefore, and for the selection of the articles, the academic level and the thematic relevance will be observed, in consequence, it is to clarify that the discrimination by gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnic origin or religious or political manifestations, will not be reason or selection criteria.
The Director / Editor, may discuss the decisions regarding the selection of articles taken by other bodies of the publication, always under the quality criteria.
In relation to the authors, the Director / Editor must maintain the confidentiality of the decisions that are made.
Finally, the Director / Editor will not process articles that result in conflicts of interest as a result of any possible relationship with them.
Responsibilities of the evaluators:
Evaluators must maintain confidentiality about the articles they receive.
For ethical, academic and scientific principles, objectivity, reasonableness and neutrality are important when formulating observations.
In this order, they can support the Director / Editor and the author with their suggestions, always in favor of maintaining the academic quality of the articles they have evaluated.
They must abstain from using for their benefit or from a third party the material to arbitrate, as well as being part of evaluation processes from which a conflict of interest may arise.
It is expected that the evaluators will comply with the assigned times for their arbitration and communicate to the Director / Editor about their possibility to review in a timely and appropriate manner the articles sent to be evaluated.
Responsibilities of the authors:
Comply with the rules of publication and the code of ethics that Summa Iuris accepts, which is why the articles must be original and unpublished and must not be in the process of being evaluated in another Journal.
Researchers must seek the contribution and development of the Legal Sciences and Human Rights, consequently, in their articles they commit to present truthful and reliable data, references and complete sources, in order that other researchers can corroborate, discuss or support what that in them is exposed.
The respective recognition of its authorship must be given to the people who participated in the construction and writing of the article. In addition, respect the integrity of the communities that participate in the research and guarantee the presentation of the formats that account for the voluntary and dignified participation of these.
In this order of ideas, information on funding sources in the research should be transparent.
Finally, researchers must inform about errors or inaccuracies that have been published in their own research.
Procedure to resolve conflicts:
Who make any claim, must identify the concurrence of a behavior that contravenes the ethical principles of the Journal, which is why they must provide the respective evidence that demonstrates and support the claim.
Claims
If once the article is published: 1. The publisher discovers plagiarism, adulteration, or falsification of data of the content and the author or errors of background that threaten the quality or scientificity, may request its removal or correction. 2. If a third party detects the error, it is the author's obligation to retract immediately and proceed to the public removal or correction. 3. During the editing process, the authors must report to the Director / Editor any error or inaccuracy that they identify in the material sent; If the article is published with such faults, they must request the Revista the correction or immediate retraction.
Consequently, the opinions contained in the articles are attributable exclusively to the authors; therefore, Luis Amigó Catholic University is not responsible for what they may generate.
All claims will be received in writing by email to summaiuris@amigo.edu.co
The maximum response time will be three (3) business days from the receipt of the non-compliance.
Copyright and access to the publication
Moral rights. The authors are recognized as authors of the work and the integrity of the work is protected. Authors may have additional rights to their articles, as established in their agreement with the Journal. In addition, they are morally and legally responsible for the content of their texts, as well as respect for the copyrights of the works consulted and those cited therein; therefore, do not compromise in any way the thinking of the committees, the editorial team, the evaluators, or the Luis Amigó Catholic University.
License
The Magazine and the individual texts that are disclosed herein are protected by copyright laws and the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative 4.0 International License. © 2018 Luis Amigó Catholic University. Permits that go beyond what is covered by this license can be found at http://www.funlam.edu.co/modules/fondoeditorial/
Publication and disclosure
Summa Iuris is of semiannual character. It publishes two numbers per year, corresponding to the periods January-June and July-December.
The complete Journal and the individual texts are published in PDF and HTML formats in the Open Journal Systems in the following link: http://www.funlam.edu.co/Revista s / index.php / summaiuris / index.
The Journal and each article have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which facilitates its location on the Internet, this tool guarantees the preservation of access to the content of the Magazine in case it stops publishing.
The Journal uses the advance publication, with the purpose of responding to the needs of validity of the content and the requirements of the authors and the medium. This resource is used once the satisfactory concepts of peer evaluators have been obtained; the provisional publication contains the latest version sent by the authors, without the style correction, translation and layout being made yet.
Summa Iuris Magazine uses, among other media, social and academic networks to disseminate its content. https://www.facebook.com/summaiuris/
Receiving contributions
Articles must be submitted through the Open Journal System (OJS), administration software and publication of the Journal that allows the tracking of documents in their different stages. They can also be sent to the e-mail of the Magazine (summaiuris@amigo.edu.co).
Online submissions require a username and password, which can be requested at:
http://www.funlam.edu.co/Revista s / index.php / summaiuris / user / register
No printed articles or partial versions of the text will be received, since they must be adjusted to any of the types of articles described in the guide for authors of the Journal.
The address of the Journal will respond within a maximum of three (3) days about the receipt of the document, but this does not imply or require its publication.
Queries for the referral can be sent to the e-mail of the Journal (summaiuris@amigo.edu.co).
Commitment of the authors and assignment of rights
Once the Director / Editor verifies the fulfillment of the minimum requirements, he will ask the authors to: 1) declare that the work is original, unpublished, is not being evaluated simultaneously in another Journal, besides committing not to remove the article after peer evaluation, if this determines the viability of the publication, either in the current state or with modifications; 2) declare the inexistence of conflicts of interest and manifest the transfer of economic rights in favor of the Luis Amigó Catholic University. 3) authorize the processing of your personal data.
Publication of author data.
Once the article is sent, it is understood that the author authorizes the publication of the personal data related in the author's note.
Authorization for data processing
The Luis Amigó Catholic University, responsible for data processing and complying with Law 1581 of 2012 and Decree 1377 of 2013, states that the personal data of the members of the committees, evaluators and authors are included in the bases of institutional data and are for the exclusive use of the University. According to the privacy policy, which can be consulted on our website www.ucatolicaluisamigo.edu.co, the data is not shared or provided to third parties without the prior authorization of the owner. In addition, the Institution has the appropriate technological means to ensure that they are stored safely and reliably.
In accordance with the above, it is mandatory during the editing process of Summa Iuris, to authorize the Luis Amigó Catholic University for the processing of personal data, for the purposes of the Institution.
Privacy statement. All the data of authors, committees, evaluators and other collaborators of Summa Iuris introduced in the OJS platform and / or in the articles, will be used exclusively for the inclusion of the Journal in Indexing and Summary Systems and the purposes declared by it and they will not be available for any other purpose or another person.
Edition closing
The reception of the articles is permanent, but they are established as closing dates for their selection: the last day of the month of February for the number corresponding to the period of July-December; and the last day of August for the number published in January-June.
After these deadlines, it begins with the correction of style, layout, review of samples and others, typical of the process of public disposition of the material. Given the number of articles received, the review and evaluation process is carried out according to the order of arrival; the time fixed between the receipt of the research articles and their publication is four (4) months.
Guarantee of the Ethics Committee
In order to demonstrate that the necessary permits are available from the natural and legal persons involved in the investigation, the Journal should be sent the endorsement of the Ethics Committee and the informed consent and consent of the investigation.
