The scholarship of participatory budgeting

So wrote Rebecca Abers in the first book-length scholarly account of PB in Porto Alegre to be published in the English language: Inventing Local Democracy (2000). This summary is striking and inspiring because few people would recognize such a description as normal in their experience of municipal governance. It offers, perhaps, a real example of what might otherwise be seen as radical and sometimes utopian theories (Fung and Wright, 2003). More than 20 years on, a distinct yet diverse body of work has emerged analysing the various effects of PB in Porto Alegre, the diffusion of this innovation across the world, and lately, the different outcomes in different cases of its implementation. But given that attempts to do politics differently are not uncommon (Smith, 2005), why did this phenomenon that began in this city capture the imagination of so many? What is it, and what is unique about it? And why are broader comparative analyses so rare?

Chapter 1 showed that there are low-bar definitions of PB that are inclusive of any and all participation in public budgeting, where someone or some group decide to call what is being done ‘participatory budgeting’. PB has had its dalliances with fashion in public policy in different contexts, and the labelling of processes can be an issue of some contention for onlookers and participants alike. Calling a process PB says little about levels of citizen control. PB is a renowned democratic innovation because in its ideal type it promises a tangible increase in democratic legitimacy, and subsequently, a more equitable redistribution of goods. Ideal PB enables increased popular control over elements of budgets by institutionalizing citizens’ participation in making spending decisions.