FAQ's

Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a mechanism of public bodies which allows citizens to directly make decisions on a public budget.  There is much debate around a clear and concise definition of PB which emcompases all that PB offers without being too prescriptive.  The debate isn't resolved yet, however here are some options:

Our definition is:

Wikipedia has defined PB ilike this:

Participatory budgeting has been most frequently identified as developing in the Brazilian City of Porto Alegre in the early 1980's. Porto Alegre has received much international praise for the way it has used PB to improve its administration of the city, and it has been the centre of much research into citizen engagement around public spending. PB was also developed in other Latin American cities at around the same time, and has spread to many other cities. As it has moved from city to city PB has always been adapted to the local situation, and so there is no one pure model of PB. Many other parts of the world have also been recognised as innovators in citizen participation. Developing, from different starting positions, similar experiences and principles of PB as those used in Porto Alegre. For example in India local people have been trained to read and question public budgets, and this has enabled citizens to have greater influence over public spending. In the 1980's New Zealand developed models of city administration that some have describe as forms of participatory budgeting.

From its early development in Brazil PB has been adopted worldwide. Across the globe, from Fiji to Canada, and from Finland to South Africa there have been many local government programmes that have acknowledged the influence of Porto Alegre in the way they are now engaging with citizens. Estimates vary but there are probably well over 500 different experiences worldwide, operating on every continent. Most frequently reported are those in Latin America such as Porto Alegre, but PB is being promoted by international bodies such as the World Bank, the UK Department for International Development and the Asian Development Bank in countries as diverse as Turkey, Spain, Pakistan, Poland, the United States and now also in the UK.

Each model of PB is different and will have different effects but there are three main ways that PB is regarded as offering benefits.

• It can improve the democratic process, widening participation and re-invigorating the role of local authorities, local councillors and civil society, and increasing trust in public institutions.
• It can improve the effectiveness of public spending by improving the way money is invested, how service provision is monitored, and by increasing the knowledge available to the local authority and public bodies when undertaking service planning.
• Finally it strengthens the community and voluntary sector by investing in services essential to poorer communities, so enabling their development, by increasing the number of people taking part in local democratic processes, and it builds social capital by creating forums for local groups to meet, negotiate and take decisions together.

PB is not a universal panacea to the problems of local democracy and poor public services. It is not a replacement for traditional representative democracy or other forms of local partnership, community development and participation.  It should always operate with and alongside other processes. But PB is unique in its focus on public budgets, community development and on direct democracy. Creating authority wide processes, and also establishing regular and repeating engagement around an annual cycle of participation. PB reconnects citizens with their local authorities through its core focus on the three inter-related issues of transparent local taxation, broad democratic engagement and effective public expenditure.

While there were earlier partial experiments, the PB formally came into existence in 1989 in a few Brazilian cities, in particular Porto Alegre. Outside Brazil, from 1990 onwards, in Montevideo, Uruguay, the population was invited to provide direction to the use of the resources of the Municipality in its five-year plan.

PBs primarily exist at the city, or more precisely, at the municipal level. Given the rapid expansion of the process, it is difficult to monitor all the experiences. Brazil continues to be the primary country where PBs occur (approximately 80 per cent of the total). The countries of the Andean region (Peru, Ecuador and more recently Bolivia and Colombia) are the second largest source of experiences. Never- theless, PB experiences do exist, to different degrees and with varying levels of formalisation, in other countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Mexico). Some European cities have initiated Participatory Budgeting processes (above all Spain, Italy, Germany and France) and a number of cities in Africa (for example in Cameroon) and Asia (for example in Sri Lanka) are on the verge of initiating their own processes. There are other cities and other countries which utilise other participatory mechanisms of assigning municipal resources which, even if they do not carry the name Participatory Budgeting, have similar characteristics (in Kenya, for example).

Not exclusively! Nevertheless, the great majority of Participatory Budgets have been and still are implemented at the municipal level, where the use of municipal funds is debated. At the sub-national level (province, region, department, state, etc.), the currently suspended experience of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, which grew out of what was happening in Porto Alegre, deserves a mention. Also notable are the supra-municipal initiatives in Colombia, at the provincial level (the grouping of los Nevados municipalities in El Tolima) or the departmental level (for example in Risaralda, since 2002). Peru has also been implementing processes at the provincial level, for example, in the provinces of Chucampas, Celendín or Moropon Chulucanas. To date, only one country, Peru, has a National Participatory Budgeting Law applicable to all municipalities and provinces of the country.  On the other hand, some Participatory Budgets are initiated in or limited to a certain part of the municipality (district, zone, delegation), particularly in large cities. This was the case in Buenos Aires, and most recently in District 7 (pop. 34,000) of the city of El Alto (pop. 680,000) in Bolivia.

Yes, and they are positive differences. There is no single model, nor would it be desirable to have one, because the experiences are the products of the reality of each region, of its local history, civic culture, and the organization of its civil society, the available resources and also the administrative culture of the governments which administer them. In Brazil, the force of the social movements in the cities and their presence in the Workers’ Party explains why Participatory Budgets tend to be more urban. In the Andean region, the presence of Participatory Budgets in small and medium-sized municipalities has to do with the vitality of social movements and NGOs in those areas. In Europe, Participatory Budgets allow, above all, for the modernisation of public administration linked with citizen participation.

Most scholars and participants of PBs agree that one of their most important benefits is the deepening of the exercise of democracy, through the dialogue of public authorities with their citizenry. Another benefit is that Participatory Budgets make the state accountable to its citizens and contribute to the modernisation of public management. In many Latin American cases, the Participatory Budget is a tool to re-order social priorities and promote social justice. Citizens go from being simple observers to protagonists in public administration, that is to say, full, active, critical and demanding participants. In this region above all, the PB gives citizens better opportunities for access to works and services like basic sanitation, street paving, transportation improvements, and health and educational centres. By participating actively in the Participatory Budgeting process, the citizens define their priorities, and in doing so have the chance to significantly improve their quality of life, in a relatively short timeframe.  In addition, they have the possibility to control and monitor the execution of the budget.  On the other hand, the PB also stimulates processes of administrative modernisation and feeds into the strategic planning process of the municipality.

The Participatory Budget:

• Improves the transparency of public administration and efficiency
• in public expenditures.
• Encourages citizen participation in decision-making and in the
• allocation and oversight the use of public funds.
• Demands increased accountability of public leaders and managers.
• Enables collective prioritisation and co-management of resources.
• Generates increased trust between the government and the population.
• Creates a democratic culture within the community and
• strengthens the social fabric.

All regions, neighbourhoods or sectors which participate in the discussion process benefit. As the resources available are generally inadequate to meet the volume of demands, the neighbourhoods which are well-organized and participate the most have a greater chance of benefiting more than other areas.

The Participatory Budget is a multidimensional process:

1. Budgetary/financial dimension
2. Participatory dimension (these two dimensions are the foundation
3. of the process)
4. Normative and legal-judicial dimension
5. Spatial/territorial dimension
6. Political/governance dimension

There are a number of basic preconditions for the implementation of a Participatory Budget. The first is a clear political will of the Mayor (or leader of the council and councillors) and the other municipal decisionmakers.  Political will is necessary to sustain the entire process. The most visible manifestation of this will be in the implementation phase, when commitments are concretised into tangible investments.

The second is the presence and interest of civil society organizations and better still, of the citizenry in general. This condition is decisive for the sustainability of the exercise.

The third is a clear and shared definition of the rules of the game. These rules refer to the amounts to be discussed, the stages and their respective time periods, the rules for decision-making (and in the case of disagreement, the responsibility and decision-making authority of each actor), the method of distributing responsibility, authority and resources among the different districts and neighbourhoods of the city, and the composition of the Participatory Budget Council. These rules cannot be decided unilaterally. They must be determined with full participation of the population, and subsequently adjusted each year, based on the results and functioning of the process.

The fourth precondition is the will to build the capacity of the population and the municipal officials, on public budgeting in general as well as the Participatory Budget in particular. This entails explaining the amounts, sources of funds and current system of expenditures. It is also important to clarify which areas of public spending are the municipality’s responsibility and which rest beyond the local authority.

A fifth condition is the widespread dissemination of information through all possible means. Dates and venues of meetings, and the rules of the game which have been decided upon, must be shared with the population.

Finally, the sixth precondition is the prioritisation of demands, set by the population and linked to technical criteria that include an analysis of the existing shortfalls in infrastructure and public services. This is important in order to facilitate a fairer distribution of resources.

It is not advisable to implement a PB when the preconditions mentioned in the answer to 'what are the basic conditions necessary to implement participatory budgeting?' are not present. Additionally, it is not advisable if one or both of the parties, either the government or the citizenry, are not open to change and shared management of public resources. It is also better to avoid participatory budgeting if honesty and transparency are lacking in the local administration. To implement a PB in that context would provide legitimacy to, or hide, practices that are contrary to the basic principles of participatory budgeting.

When the local conditions are not ideal at a given moment, this does not mean that the interested people or institutions should abandon the idea of Participatory Budgeting.  More limited initiatives can be undertaken, such as attempting to introduce more transparency into the budgeting process.  The organization of Forums or other activities, with the presence of legitimate representatives of civil society can be a mechanism to press for the opening of a public discussion of the budget and citizen control of it. Many cities are right now undergoing a preparatory stage for Participatory
Budgeting.

The fundamental principles are participatory democracy, as a political model, and good governance.  If indeed these principles are considered universal, each city or country converts them into practical means, reflecting their needs and
the local context.good governance.  If indeed these principles are considered universal, each city or country converts them into practical means, reflecting their needs and the local context.the Participatory Budgeting Law in Peru.

• Participation
• Transparency
• Equality
• Tolerance
• Efficiency and effectiveness
• Equity
• Competitiveness
• Respect for agreements
• Co-management of public resources provides another dimension to these principles.

For more information on the values, principles and standards for participatory budgeting in the UK, click here

The Participatory Budget in general, and particularly in Brazil, represents between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of the executed budget, that is to say the amount that was actually spent, which tends to be less than the planned budget of the previous year. These values represent a variable proportion of the investment budget of the municipality. Nevertheless, few cities put more than 10 per cent of their total budget to debate, and very few, like Mundo Novo or Porto Alegre, discuss, at least technically, 100 per cent of the budget (See Box 8). At the other extreme, in some cities, especially in Europe, the Participatory Budgeting process has less than 1 per cent of the municipal budget at its disposal.

This varies between 100 per cent of the total investment or capital budget and a few per cent. It can be said, then, that some Participatory Budgets are with a capital "P" while some are more correctly designated with a lowercase "p".

No, this depends on each local situation and in particular on the political will of the municipality and the pressure of its citizens. In some cities this percentage is steadily increasing year after year, as the experience is consolidated and participants, both politicians and the people, gain confidence. Nevertheless, the greater the percentage of the budget debated, the greater the experience and interest of the citizens.

The Participatory Budget implies a series of costs for the local government. To implement a Participatory Budget properly, four types of resources are needed: a)municipal staff committed and trained to implement the process, including being willing to work nights and weekends, b) means of transportation to be able to circulate throughout the neighbourhoods and transport the municipal staff, c) ample communication resources in order to share information with the public, d) personnel for the technical, economic and budgetary feasibility studies of the prioritised demands. In addition, to accelerate the process and ensure its quality, it is important to have resources to transport people who live far from the meeting places and to train functionaries as well as citizens, and in particular delegates, in the Participatory Budgeting process. Cities that have not planned for these costs have, in general, faced difficulties and, in some cases, have even suspended the activity.  Therefore, it is important to do a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to implement a Participatory Budget.

The cost/benefit analysis must consider the contributions of the communities and the leveraging of the social capital produced, particularly through their participation in the execution of the projects.  If the process remains only at the level of consultation, the costs to the municipality are greater because the local administration has to repeat the discussions twice: once in the Participatory Budget and again internally in the administration. If the Participatory Budget bodies can make decisions (deliberative power), this can save staff time and costs because the decision-making process is shorter and simpler than the traditional bureaucratic process.

It is difficult to give indications of absolute numbers, given the variations of the costs of personnel, transportation and the production of communication materials in each place. By way of example, the city of Porto Alegre (pop. 1.4 million) sets aside over US$ 250,000 annually for the implementation of its Participatory Budget.  This expense can easily be covered in poor cities through international cooperation.

Unfortunately, at the present time, it can be observed that international resources are often accompanied by technocratic orientations "from above" and requirements which may distort the local process and creative solutions of the citizens and local governments themselves.

The PB Unit is currently undertaking some research and evaluation into the costs of participatory budgeting for local authorities as part of a wider evaluation of PB in the UK.  This information will be available on the website in the 'evaluation' section for organisers and also through the case studies on the website.

It is necessary to differentiate what happens in Brazil from what happens elsewhere.  One of the main characteristics of the majority of Participatory Budgets in Brazilian cities is the universal right to participate in a voluntary, individual, and direct manner, not necessarily through community, union, or other representatives. In these cases it is not necessary to belong to any organization to participate.  Clearly, organizations play an important role, but they do not have formal privileges. 

In fact, it is the mobilised citizenry - organised or not - which decides.  Many times, this kind of participation is also valued in Europe.  In contrast, the remaining Latin American cities and some European ones (for example, Spain) tend to encourage participation through representatives of existing organizations. 

This modality reflects what is called "community or associative representative democracy". In this case, the participation of individuals is mediated by delegates most likely "closer to their concerns and demands" than in conventional representative democracy.  There are also "mixed" systems which rest on neighbourhood organizations, but which at the same time broaden the budgetary discussions to include all residents.  Due to their strong participatory tradition, Cordoba (Spain), Cuenca (Ecuador) and Villa El Salvador (Peru) are illustrative of this modality. 

Finally, in a number of European cities, participants and/or delegates are designated by raffle in order to promote the participation of those citizens who do not normally get involved, in particular from the more marginalised groups.

In the experiences of individual, direct participation, the rates of participation normally range between 1 per cent and 15 per cent of the voting population (in general over 16 years old). Cases with more than 15 per cent participation are exceptional. Generally, participation is greater in cities of smaller size or when the assemblies are ma-participants is highly variable from one year to the next. In addition, there is a high degree of turnover, and it is not the same people participating each year. During the first few years, participation may be low, and as the process is refined, this number tends to increase. Initially in Porto Alegre, which had over 1.2 million inhabitants at the outset of the process, only around 1,000 people participated, a number which is today close to 40,000.  In cities where participation happens through representatives of social organizations, the number of participants is inferior to and sometimes equal to the aforementioned cases. Thus, in Cotacachi, "788 people participated, representing 90 per cent of the organizations in the Canton"…in Ilo, 100 organizations participated….in Puerto Asís, 232 "very representative" people participated. In Cuenca, the 1,100 participants are, on one hand, the elected representatives of the 21parish boards and, on the other, people from the community.  The Participatory Budgets of Children and Youth reach higher numbers of participants because they are carried out at the public school level (and in rare cases private ones). The plenary sessions with free (non-obligatory) participation may take place outside of the school grounds. Nevertheless, educating and mobilising the youth about the PB mainly takes place at school. The result is that thousands or tens of thousands of young people participate and define the destination of part of the municipal budget.

It is definitely a risk. Therefore, one of the most important goals is that the PB process gain legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of citizens, including those that do not participate. This legitimacy is achieved through a strong communication effort from the municipality so that everyone feels invited to participate and so that they have access to the main financial information and the decisions made in the Participatory Budget.

Other appropriate instruments are public opinion polls which can serve to verify thelevel of recognition of the process and its legitimacy among the general public, as well as referendums, which allow for the voting approval of certain particularly
sensitive decisions. Another important goal is that the participation, although quantitatively limited, includes citizens from all social groups and does not leave anyone marginalised from the process. For this reason, special attention should be paid to the inclusion of women, youth, the poor and vulnerable, and groups who face discrimination (ethnic minorities, immigrants, sexual minorities etc.).

The groups which are most discriminated against and marginalised, in particular women, youth, afro and indigenous urban populations (in Latin America), immigrants, the undocumented and displaced, refugees, gays and lesbians, have had a secon-dary place and role in Participatory Budgets. PBs are built in general on physical bases (district, region, neighbourhood) and with sectoral themes (health, transportation, economy of solidarity, recreation, etc.) and not from the perspective of the individual actors or excluded groups. This is one of the limitations of the majority of Participatory Budgets, in their current form.

sues of vulnerable groups from their own perspective: i.e. the thematic assembly on citizenship (Campinas35) or the assembly on social inclusion (Caixas do Sul) where issues related to women and youth are addressed.  Between 1997-2000 Barra Mansa (Children’s PB) and Icapui37 (Happy Day) were pioneers in introducing an actor-based vision from the perspective of children and youth. Currently this process is in various phases of experimentation and consolidation in several Brazilian cities: Pinheiral (Children’s PB), Recife (Children’s PB and Thematic Assembly on Youth Issues), São Paulo38 (Children’s PB), Goiania, Mundo Novo (Youth PB) and Alvorada (Youth PB, in 2004).

In Belem (Brazil), the Congress of the City opened the Participatory Budget to historically excluded segments, in two ways: on the one hand, the process includes municipal congresses of young people, women, afro-Brazilians, indigenous groups, differently-abled people and homosexuals. On the other, delegates from each of these commissions are part of the Congress of the City, representing 8 of the 50 members.

Professional organisations, in particular third sector organisations, act in very different forms from one experience to the other: advocacy, advice, training, research or promotion can be some of their areas of work. In most cases, except for example in Buenos Aires, third sector organisations are totally removed from decision-making power (the Participatory Budget Council).  However, members of these organisations can be elected as delegates or councillors, in their capacity as citizens.

In municipalities where the government has not yet implemented the Participatory Budgeting process, these actors can contribute greatly to the creation, from the civil society perspective, of fora which encourage the discussion of the city budget and can organize a movement to pressure local governments to implement PB.

Participatory Budget Processes are always undertaken with a great amount of voluntary effort, both from civil society and from the various instances of local government.  Volunteerism is expressed in every stage of the PB cycle, as much in the elaboration of the budget as the execution phase. In order to reinforce citizen participation and voluntary action, some cities have included this dimension as a criterion for the prioritisation of works.  Furthermore, the analysis of the experiences indicates that the Participatory Budget channels social capital, stimulates voluntary action and reactivates traditional community voluntary practices, for example, the mingas (or minkas) in the Andean region. In Cuenca, the value contributed by the community in labour, material and equipment doubles the value of the projects financed by the Participatory Budget.

The local government’s role is decisive in each stage, from determining the priorities to the implementation of decisions. The local government facilitates the process, while the councillors legitimise it politically.  Another important function of the local government is the adoption by the administrative apparatus of the decisions made through participatory processes.  The local government is also a protagonist with the responsibility to create mechanisms which ensure a holistic vision of the problems and needs of the city. Therefore, it should present its own projects and place them for discussion in the Participatory Budget. It should be remembered that the government has a legitimacy that comes from winning an election. The Participatory Budgeting process, in this sense, should be a synthesis of two sources of legitimacy: one based on the participation of the citizens and another resulting from commitments made in the Plan of Government.

A first difficulty is related to the lack of capacity of the administrative apparatus to implement the process. In most cases, the administrations have difficulty adapting to the new demands placed on them: a different type of dialogue with citizens, work outside of normal hours, work in the neighbourhoods, etc.

A second important problem relates to the systems of information managed by the community and the low quality of information presented to participants. Other difficulties also occur with some frequency, and not only in Brazil.  These include the accumulation of projects which have been approved but not carried out, insufficient resources to meet the demands, municipal budget deficits, lack of public participation, disputes and tensions among political parties, the clientelistic political system and difficulties with the legislature and the City Council.

Without the introduction of new models of public management (functioning with programmes and objectives, evaluation and accountability of the different municipal departments, transparency, new budgetary accounting methods, capacity for
cross-sectoral action among municipal areas, etc.), the efficiency of the participatory process will be reduced.

Increase of municipal income and investments through the collection of taxes, sound fiscal policy, elimination of corruption and the optimisation (even reduction) of expenses are important aspects of public management reform, as they allow the Participatory Budget process to have a significant impact on the quality of life of the population, in particular those most in need.

Up to now, the participation of the formal private sector in Participatory Budgets has been limited. Nevertheless, in several cities the formal private sector or particular businesses have a voice and sometimes a vote in decision-making spaces regarding the budget. In this vein, the industrial, commercial, and service sectors are part of the Congress of the City in Belem, with three of the 50 representatives. The water and sanitation company (SAAE) has a delegate in the Municipal Participatory Budget Forum in Icapui. Santo Andre, located in the industrial heart of the metropolitan region of São Paulo, invited representatives from the petrochemical and metallurgical sectors to participate in the long-term strategic planning process, called "City of the Future". Today, these actors, organized through a commission, have a voice and vote in the Participatory Budget Committee of the city.

Participatory Budgeting processes are strongly linked to the de-concentration of municipal services and the decentralisation of power within the municipality. In certain cities, the process of intra-municipal decentralisation precedes the Participatory Budget, which is built upon the cities’ physical divisions (regional administrations, districts, zones, etc.). Conversely, in other cities, the Participatory Budget comes before the process of intra-municipal decentralisation.

In the UK, some PB projects are being used to form part of the move from two-tier to unitary status, for example, Wiltshire and Cornwall.  Overall, the empowerment agenda is seen as a mechanism of devolving power from local government to communities and participatory budgeting sits within that policy.

Yes, and they are extremely important for the inclusion of regions and human settlements (villages, parishes, aldeas, veredas) where the poorest populations in the municipal area often reside. In spite of the fact that these settlements represent a low proportion (in percentage terms, although not always in economic terms) of the total population, many municipalities assign a much higher amount of resources to them proportionally.61 In some municipalities, the Participatory Budget has been an instrument of inclusion and development for the rural municipal areas. Some have even limited the Participatory Budget to the rural zone of the municipality, with a similar approach.

In the UK, there are a number of rural projects developing, including national pilots in Wiltshire and Cornwall.  These are both currently in development.  However, Coedpoeth in North Wales has also implemented some very successful PB mechanisms in a very rural area.  Please see our case studies for more information.

The methodologies commonly used in urban areas have to be adjusted to the rural context, in order to take into account the distances involved, the relative isolation of the communities and their demands, which are normally different from those in urban areas. The main differences have to do with the smaller size of the assemblies, the need for transportation of the participants and taking into account a culture of self-help for the execution of the projects. Another option chosen by rural municipalities is that of initiating the Participatory Budget on the basis of a development plan for the rural area, in order to define the overall priorities and only then introduce participatory budgeting.

Yes! It is as much a serious risk for the municipality (who may come to promise too much) as for the citizenry (who may come to expect too much). In addition, Participatory Budgets only determine the designation of a limited part of the small slice of all public resources represented by municipal budgets. For this reason, the initial dialogue between the municipality and the public, to define the reach and the rules of the game, is important.

Yes, in particular when there are citizen-based oversight mechanisms for the execution of the budget and of the respective works. The presence of the commissions of the Participatory Budget Council at the time of inviting bids for given projects greatly reduces the chance for bribery by businesses and/or public officials.  Accountability on the part of the municipality and the publication of accounts avoid a non-transparent use of resources. These and similar measures also avoid, during the phase of designing the "budget matrix", clientelism and the distribution
of favours which some council members are known to practice. In this sense, they can be useful even in the European context.

The Participatory Budget reinforces transparency by sharing budgetary information and requiring accountability to the public on the part of government officials or PB delegates. These mechanisms generate trust and improve the quality of governance in the city.

A study of the Brazilian Popular Participation Forum indicates that during the period 1997-2000, of the 103 cases examined, over 20 per cent were suspended. This situation compels one to consider the conditions for irreversibility of the processes, in other words, mechanisms to ensure that these processes are consolidated and strengthened over time, beyond the political will of one or another mayor and the activism of some citizen movements.

It seems that, through time, the sustainability of Participatory Budgets proceeds alongside the empowerment of the population and its understanding of the importance of the process and the benefits it can bring. Such empowerment requires a clear prioritisation of consciousness-raising and educational efforts directed at the grassroots. These efforts, in the light of the teachings of Paulo Freire, call for an up-scaling of the educational perspective of PB.

Another condition of irreversibility relates to the legalisation of the process, which should be sufficiently open so as not to threaten the flexible and evolutionary nature of the process and to permit its self-regulation. At the same time, this flexible legalisation should insert the Participatory Budget within a normative-legal framework which allows for its institutionalisation, beyond any particular Mayoral administration. This is, most probably, the greatest challenge.

Finally, the Participatory Budget will be sustainable if the various actors can see that it represents an opportunity to serve their values and interests: politicians can enhance their legitimacy; technicians and public officials can improve the efficiency of their work and its social meaning; international organisations can see that the resources they contribute are better used; and citizens can contribute productively to decision-making and local management.

We are well aware of the frustrations of working within the public sector, including the constraints around funding (a number of us used to work in the public sector).  The government is working towards freeing up funding and the Area Based Grant is an example of this, which is unringfenced.  Whilst we recognise there is still some way to go, it’s a really positive step.  A number of projects are now using part of the Area Based Grant for PB.  It’s likely that ‘funny money’ or additional grants will always be subject to certain conditions because the money is there to achieve certain aims.  We are not aware of how far central government will take this policy but we will pass on your comments to them and continue to advocate for more devolvement of power, including finance.

To answer that, we think you need to ask yourself two questions – firstly what’s the purpose of the project, and then secondly, who then do you want to involve to achieve the purpose?  For example, if it’s a young people’s pilot – then you want to involve young people and agencies that work with them.  Or maybe the project is in a certain geographical area (e.g. a neighbourhood management area), so you’d want to involve all the people in the area – would that include young people too or is there a cut off age?  Maybe it’s a project with older people – what’s the lower age limit or maybe it’s linked to pension status?  Once you know who you want to involve you need to think about how you currently engage the different groups you want to involve and if those engagement mechanisms are effective.  If so, use them (no point reinventing the wheel).  If not, then some community research and development may be needed with certain groups to understand how best to encourage their involvement in PB.  It may well be that electronic voting will engage with some key groups, and if so, you should consider if that’s an important mechanism for involvement. 

More people can also be encouraged to participate over time.  Word of mouth is very effective.  If participants in the first event enjoyed themselves and see the benefits of their involvement, they’ll tell their friends, family and neighbours.  If they see the projects they voted for being implemented in their neighbourhoods they’ll be convinced that their vote counts and convince others to vote too.

I think this is probably one of the most common questions we’re asked.  And at times we wish we had a nice little tool that we could give to everyone and say ‘there you go, use that and you’ll have perfect community representation’.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that!  We live in a democratic country where people have free will – you can’t force empowerment upon people – that’s a bit of an oxymoron!  It’s virtually impossible to 100% guarantee complete representation of the community at anything and PB is no exception.  However, like with other engagement mechanisms, there are various activities you can do.  Some communities are easier for representation than others.  ‘Hard to reach’ groups should be targeted through community development to promote PB to them in a way that engages with them.  Asking for representation information (age, address, ethnicity etc) at events (on registration forms or feedback questionnaires for example) can help to monitor participation from event to event, and may help you target under-represented groups for the next event.  Think about arranging transport for certain groups or providing crèche facilities so that those with children can come.  Choose a date and time sensitively.  If you are really concerned you can restrict the amount of funding for certain themes or require a minimum to be spent on certain themes (for example, older people and younger people, or projects for different neighbourhoods in a community) although this isn’t ideal as it moves away from the values of PB

That depends on the budget.  PB is not about using 100% of a budget.  It’s only ever been a small percentage of an investment budget, so it’s not affecting core service provision.  The maximum percentage allocated by PB in Brazil was 18% of the investment budget.  We would never suggest you ask the community if they’d rather fund schools or bin collection, for example!  There are certain statutory duties public agencies need to perform and these budgets can’t be open for discussion.  However, other budgets have more flexibility.  For example, in Salford they devolve a proportion of the highways budget.  So local people can decide which highways schemes they want in their area based on the issues.  They can decide whether to have traffic calming or pedestrian crossings, whether to remove a tree out of the pavement or have more lollipop people.  That doesn’t affect core business – highways are still maintained – and the money is still spent on highways – the difference is, instead of being annoyed by the road works, the residents have asked for the project and know why they want it. 

In Bradford and elsewhere, the approach has been deliberately ‘light touch’. Local people with ideas they wished to deliver themselves could choose to become formally constituted as a group, or merely nominate a local organisation (church, school etc) to act as banker for any monies received. It also needs to be borne in mind that one person’s ‘bureaucracy’ is another person’s ‘robust accountability regarding public funds’: the trick is to strike the appropriate balance between the two.

PB processes need to demonstrate over time that  money will be spent at least as well as through other methods.  This is based on the notion that local people are the experts with regard to their communities. There is to date little hard evidence to either support or challenge this contention with regard to PB in the UK, as the sums of money so far disbursed have been relatively small. The ‘hype’, however, is not to be dismissed merely as hype. PB has already been shown to have demonstrable benefits  in terms of community cohesion, networking between organisations and greater understanding of public finances, to name just three.

Elected members are constantly responding to competing pressures and agendas. They will be balancing party allegiances, electoral opinion and a wide range of statutory regulation and monitoring. It is not surprising they may feel that participatory budgeting might only complicate their work and reduce their role as elected representatives. Showing videos of actual experiences can be helpful, particularly where they show councillors actively supporting a programme. Encourage councillors to accompany you on a study visit. Consider holding special briefings for councillors before your pilot begins. Give them evidence of the possible impact and benefit of the work. Keep them informed and involved throughout the pilot. It is an important principle within PB that elected councillors or statutory accountable bodies retain their democratic powers and you need to factor in an opportunity for them to formally approve decisions taken by community participants to fully legitimise the process.