Participatory Budgeting Purpose of the module To provide relevant - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Participatory Budgeting

Purpose of the module

• To provide relevant knowledge

– Participatory budgeting

• To train skills

– Elaboration of plan for implementation of participatory budgeting

Expectations

• Understanding background of participatory

budgeting

• Being aware of pros´ and cons´ of

participatory budgeting

• Orientation in the present relevant Ukrainian

and international experience

• Readiness to propose relevant tools for

implementation of participatory budgeting

Foundations of PartB

Porto Alegre and the others

• Formal structuring (legislation)
• Administrative structuring
• Time cycle definition
• Dynamic incentive to direct participation
• Dynamic establishment of PB council
• Financial resources
• Technical analysis of approved ventures
• Establishment of monitoring instances

Principles of PartB (Smith 2009) I

• Inclusiveness

– Equal possibility for access

• Popular control

– Full awareness and openess

• Considered judgement

– Maturity of decision makers (citizens)

Principles of PartB (Smith 2009) II

• Transparency

– Contribution of general awareness of public affairs

• Efficiency

– Quantity vs. quality (how and what to assess?)

• Transferability

– Only transferable public tasks or public tasks which might be replaced/substituted

Diversity of PartB models

Krenjova and Raudla 2013: 23

European models

Krejnova and Raudla 2013

Lisbon case

Source of Lisbon study: based on research done together with E. Vešicová for her Master thesis

Lisbon experience

European experience I

• Conflicting results

– Not only between the countries but also within the countries and even within the cities

• Strong dependency on

– social „atmosphere“ in the city – political will – bureacratic readiness – availability of leadership

European experience II

• Selectivity

– Participation – Projects

• Innovative measure with questionable impact

– Engagement and inclusiveness vs. opportunism – Extremists as highly disciplined groups

Sensitive issue

VOX POPULI, VOX DEI!

Crucial point

• To be aware of possible risks/threats
• To be ready to prevent them
• To be ready to react if they occur

Risk and threat matrix

• Occurance probability (1 very low – 5 very likely)
• Importance (1 insignificant – 5 very important)
• Total score: everything what is over 10 should be

accompanied by explanation how to prevent/avoid the risk/threat (prevention) and what to do if the risk/threat occurs (intervention)

Risk / Threat Occurance probability Importance Total score Low participation 3 4 12 Insufficient number of applications 2 5 10 ...

Insufficient number of applications

• Prevention:

– Local government has a sufficient dissemination plan – Local government is familiar with the community leaders, and a plan how to train them – Local government disposes with a project-store

• Intervention:

– Postponement of deadline for submission of applications – Activation of applications from a project-store

Case study 1 (Bratislava)

Source of case study: based on research done together with E. Vešicová for her Master thesis

Case study 1 (Bratislava)

• Introduction of pilot project: 2011
• 5 areas:

– Green city – Culture – Transport in the city – Seniors – Youth

• City of Bratislava + NGO Utopia

Case study 1 (Bratislava)

• 01/02: public assembling (information on

approved projects)

• 03: reporting on PartB from previous year
• 03-06: regular meetings of participating

communities

• 04: public forums of participating communities
• 05-06: consultations with the city and public

debate

Case study 1 (Bratislava)

• 09-11: regular meetings of participating

communities

• 09: eVoting
• 10: end of eVoting and decision or resource
• 11: public presentation of approved projects and

implementation of previous projects

• 12: negotiation of local council and final approval
• f participatory budget

Case study 1 (Bratislava)

• 2012: 30,000 EUR (0,014%)
• 2013: 46,000 EUR (0,020%)
• 2014: 46,000 EUR (0,019%)
• Future: ???

– Low interest at the side of the city – Relatively low participation (annually ca 260 active citizens)

Case study 2 (Ružomberok)

Source of case study: based on research done together with E. Vešicová for her Master thesis

Case study 2 (Ružomberok)

• Consultations among the citizens and public

debate

• Consultations with the city representatives
• Approvals/disapprovals of presented ideas by

specialized committees

• Elaboration of projects
• Approvals/disapprovals of the projects by the

local council

• eVoting

Case study 2 (Ružomberok)

• High level of engagement and volunteering
• Not only citizens but also local entrepreneurs

(provision of free material)

• Multi-source approach: public resources +

private resources (in-kind/financial/donations)

Case study 2 (Ružomberok)

• 2012: information
• 2013: 5,000 EUR (0,03%)
• 2014: 15,000 EUR (0,08%)
• Future: continuation

– Support from the city and its representatives – Higher participation than in Bratislava: 340 – 460 citizens

Discussion

• What are the main pros´ to introduce the

PartB?

• What are the main risks/threats which are

linked to introduction of the PartB in your city?

• Would you introduce the PartB also in small

cities and villages?