Participatory Budgeting Unit. Briefing Paper on Europe .

Page 1


Learning from Europe
"Participatory Budgets from a European Comparative Approach.”
A comparative analysis, from research undertaken by the Centre Marc Bloch.
This paper contains interim findings of the study, compiled May 2005.

Scope of Study: Researchers from at least 5 European countries tracked and
recording information from approximately 20 cities that have identified themselves as
doing some form of Participatory Budgeting.
Each case study included a national analysis, structured information on the Local
Authority, including population, democratic systems, historical background,
demographic data and types and levels of economic activity. Interviews and
observations of events were conducted during 2004 and early 2005. Country reports
were compiled by July 2005, though the results have been produced in German only at
this time. However information is planned to become available in English or other
languages.

The main comparative tool has been the comparative tables, that aim to create a digest
of the research. These are available on request for more in depth information, used
alongside a key to the comparison tables. The table on page 3 is an extract from them.

Four early criteria for models of PB:
• The financial and/or budgetary dimension must be discussed. PB is based on the
problem of limited resources
• Not only neighbourhood-level: the city (or district) level, with some (direct or
delegated) power over administration, must be part of the consideration in the
participatory process
• It has to be a repeated process (one meeting, or one referendum, is not a PB)
• Some deliberation must take place

Six Models of Participatory Budgeting in Europe, and some possible examples
1. The Porto Alegre model adapted for Europe:
Examples: Cordoba, Seville;
2. Association-based participatory budgeting:
Examples: Albacete; Puente Genil.
3. Consultation on public finances
Examples: Hilden, Esslingen, Rheinstetten, Berlin Lichtenberg, Salford?
4. The public/private negotiation table:
Examples: Pock (Poland)
5. Proximity (deliberative) participation:
Examples: Bobigny, Mons. Saint-Denis, Palmela and Venice, Harrow?
6. Neighbourhood funds and city level dimension:
Examples: Pont de Claix, Morsang, Paris XX, Saint-Denis, Palmela, Venice,
Bradford, Salford

Other possible models of Participatory Budgeting?
7. Stakeholder PB in autonomous public institutions (e.g. NHS/LSP money)
Examples: Social housing office in Bobigny and Poitiers
8. PB at a regional Level
Example: Poitou-Charente: Based on secondary schools

Participatory Budgeting Unit. Briefing Paper on Europe .

Page 2


Participatory Procedures which are not PB,
But could be used for it or are helpful to better understand it
• Neighbourhood funds without participatory connection to city-level (e.g.
Utrecht, Sunderland?)
• Responsiveness of public management: Feedback, quality management,
“proximity” administration, information through internet, right to information (e.g.
Hämeenlinna, and a lot of UK councils)
• Neighbourhood councils and assemblies: consultative council at district level;
communication between inhabitants and local government, no city-level link.
• Citizens’ Juries
• Referendum on financial questions (E.g. Milton Keynes and Bristol in 1990’s?)
• Consultative Commissions- (e.g. NHS service reform. Power enquiry?)
• Petitioning
• Local Agenda 21
• Community Development and capacity building
• Participatory Strategic Planning (city-wide) / community development
planning (neighbourhood-level)- (Local design frameworks, Planning for real etc)

Some very general points, born out by my own observations.
PB ideas often begin within authorities with an autonomous mayor. It can form his route
to communicating with citizens, and be a check to the power of councillors. It can
therefore be used as a populist tool, to demonstrate the mayor’s commitment to
‘listening’. Examples may be Bobingy, and some of the Italian and Spanish models.

PB can also begin as a way of demonstrating a desire to modernise local authority
services, or in response to charges the local authority has become remote or over-
bureaucratic. Examples include some of the German cases and Salford.

PB experiences have often begun in areas with marginal or unstable local authorities,
as a tool to claim greater local connectivity, generally with left or broad left parties.
Examples might be the Italian models, and some from Spain.
Often they get halted soon after they start through a change in political leadership.

Some socialist politicians in Europe are a bit suspicious of PB, as a form of ‘shadow
democracy’ that undermines socialist models. They don’t have strong Unionised or
NGO forums, which may be their traditional power bases.

There maybe a connection on a political level in European models with Porto Alegre
and Brazil. The mayor may have been on an exchange in Brazil, or there may be other
links with socialist networks. Examples would be strong in Spain, Portugal and Italy. A
possible strand also involves faith networks as a transmitter of PB ideas. There are
some links between Brazil and Europe through this method. Some of the northern
European models may have this link (E.g. to some degree Community Pride, and some
of the German and Dutch experiences.)

Most experiences are still too new to show up direct impacts, if any, on democratic
voting, anti-poverty initiatives, and gender based budgeting or the modernisation of local
government.