electronic participatory budgeting

29
Electronic Participatory Budgeting Supporting Community Deliberation and Decision-making with Online Tools Cory Allen Heidelberger Dakota State University MWDSI—April 18, 2009

Upload: cory-allen-heidelberger

Post on 15-May-2015

1.590 views

Category:

News & Politics


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Presentation on electronic participatory budgeting at Midwest Decision Sciences Institute 2009 conference, Miami University, Oxford Ohio, April 18, 2009.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory BudgetingSupporting Community Deliberationand Decision-making with Online Tools

Cory Allen HeidelbergerDakota State UniversityMWDSI—April 18, 2009

Page 2: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

OverviewMotivation and ObjectivesBackground on PB Gaps in research/practiceNormative framework

1. participatory budgeting/participation in general

2. use of online decision support tools for PB (ePB)

3. design guidelines for ePBProposed prototype/experiment

Page 3: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

What got me thinking...citizen participation: great goal... or is it?learn about complicated budget issuesattend public foranavigate large-group discussionsthousands of person hours to do what city

commission can do in dozensworth the effort?

Page 4: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Objectivespropose justification for participatory

budgeting political science, public administration

propose justification for use of computer-assisted decision support: electronic PBinformation systems, PB practice

propose practice design guidelines for ePBuse these guidelines as basis for prototype,

local trial

Page 5: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Participatory Budgeting: Principles and Practice

Page 6: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Participatory Budgeting (PB): Design Principlescitizens and/or delegates discuss and debate

public needsformal rules link participatory inputs and

budgeting processopen public process and broader range of

actors expand monitoring of budgetneighborhoods receive tangible returns,

which encourages participation

(Baiocchi et al. 2008)

Page 7: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Participatory Budgeting: Where?Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1989spread elsewhere in Brazil early 1990scurrently hundreds of cities worldwide

some small cities (15K-20K)four Canadian citiesrare in U.S.

property tax resists redistribution to low-income areas?

Page 8: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

PB Lite: Online Educational ToolsAmerican Public Media’s “Budget Hero”

U.S. federal budgetdeficit reductioncomparison with presidential candidatesdiscussion forum on Gather.com

Copenhagen Consensus Centerpriorities for global problems (hunger, disease,

terrorism, air pollution)Both educate; neither official

Page 9: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Gaps in Current Theory and Practice

Page 10: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Gap: Normative Framework for Citizen ParticipationDemocracy/participation good... right?

New Public Administration“exclusionary technocracy”

descriptive theory (Stewart 2007) proposes game theory/competition approach

competition model ignores cooperative public admin. goals

need guidelines for establishing civic partnership to check political games

Page 11: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Gap: PB Practice in USABirthplace of modern democracy... PB should be breaking out all over

No large-scale implementationsHard to find examples in small-town USA

Page 12: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Gap: PB-Information Systems ConnectionPB literature rarely mentions information systems

websites often appear in PB communitiesno evident systematic use of online tools to support

PBPB tends to focus on face-to-face interactionNote: Computers/Internet not necessary

Athens! Agora!Philadelphia 1776

Computers/Internet certainly useful!online organizingDSU

Page 13: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Justifications and Guidelines for Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Page 14: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Citizen Participation: Justification in Political LanguageLegitimacy

all have capacity and right to participate

Property rights“It’s our money!”

Trustworking together means less

distance, less alienation

Page 15: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Citizen Participation: Justification in Business LanguageStakeholder buy-in

Democracy = project managementParticipants take ownership of budget

Competition in marketplace of ideasMore ideas/perspectives to choose from

Better systemsParticipatory design discovers user needs better

(Mumford, 1983)Increased public resources

PB more tax revenue, less delinquency (Cabannes, 2004)

Page 16: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting: JustificationParticipation is expensive – opportunity

cost!Three ways to overcome opportunity

cost:1. increase citizens’ wealth (hard)2. increase citizens’ motivation to

participate (hard)3. decreasing cost of participation

(online DSS!)

Page 17: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting: JustificationBroader representation

PB focuses on increasing low-income representation

ePB lowers opp. costSocial auditing

online records = many eyesTransparency

More citizens see what’s happening and what happened

Page 18: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting: Justification“Deliberation within” (Goodin, 2003)

PB usually in public meetingsePB allows asynchronous, more thought timecan check informational and social pressures of

group deliberation (Sunstein, 2005)Education

frequently cited as pre-req and positive outcome of PB

online information augments public meetings, supports ongoing learning

Page 19: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting:Design PrinciplesGood gov’t budget Web design

(Tanaka, 2007)up-to-date infoclear graphicsmultiple formats (prose, charts, graphs...)

relevant linkseasy navigation and search

Page 20: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting:Design PrinciplesData accessibility

offer budget data in formats users can easily access and manipulate

HTML, Excel – never just PDFGood example: Stimulus.Virginia.Gov

Excel format—download, sort! First 48 hours: nearly 1,000 proposals Feb. 10 – Mar 6: over 9,000 proposals

Page 21: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting:Design PrinciplesBackground materials

complete, balanced, neutral (Lukensmeyer & Brigham, 2005)

Deliberation spaceonline forum or wiki captures citizen

discussionSocial auditing

integrate site with municipal record-keeping

Page 22: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

ePB: Research Directions

Page 23: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Prototype 1: “More or Less”Allows citizens to define “more” and “less”

percentagesaverages based on historical budget dataassume inflation

Asks citizens whether they want to spend “more,” “same,” or “less” on various budget items

Displays current spending and savings/expense of user choices

Can include links to explanatory materialsCan include discussion, summary of other citizen

inputs

Page 24: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Prototype 2: “Chopping Block”Assesses citizen priorities

“Would you consider cuts...?”“definitely” – “never”pick number of programs to cut, see savings......or set amount to cut from budget, see

programs cut by chosen priorityAlso aggregate all submitted responses

Can include links to explanatory materialsCan include discussion, summary of other

citizen inputs

Page 25: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Future design/research workCapture suggestions for new programsDeploy and test online with real citizensHost face-to-face meetings for comparable

exercises

Page 26: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Research QuestionsDo citizens and public officials find ePB tools

useful?Do ePB tools draw participants

representative of the population?Is there a minimum population for

communities that can derive benefits from ePB?

Can ePB serve as a decision support tool for elected officials?

Page 27: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Electronic Participatory Budgeting

Questions, Comments,and Suggestions welcome!

Page 28: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

American Public Media. Budget Hero: Frequently asked questions. 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.10 from http://budgethero.publicradio.org/widget/faq/

Baierle, S. Whittling down the potential of participatory budgeting? The Governance Link, July 2008, issue 4, 1–4. Retrieved 2008.12.03 from http://www.ongcidade.org/site/php/noticias /noticias.php?area=artigos&completa&id_noticia=1021

Baiocchi, G., and Lerner, J. Could participatory budgeting work in the United States? The Good Society, 2007, 16(1), 8–13.

Belanger, F., & Hiller, J.S. A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 2006, 12(1), 48–60.

Box, R. Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?id=5jSeZI0qRWAC

Box, R. Private lives and anti-administration. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 2001, 23(4), 541–558.

Bräutigam, D. The people's budget? Politics, participation and pro-poor policy. Development Policy Review, November 2004, 22(6), 653–668.

Cabannes, Y. Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment & Urbanization, April 2004, 16(1), 27–46.

Campbell, D.J., and Gingrich, K. F. The interactive effects of task complexity and participation on task performance: A field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, October, 1986, 38, 162–180. Cited in Kren, 1992.

Chadwick, A., and May, C. Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: ‘e-Government’ in the United States, Britain, and the European Union.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, April 2003, 16, 271–300.

References City of Gresham. Minutes. City Involvement Committee

Meeting. December 3, 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from http://greshamoregon.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=14500

City of Madison. Finance Office website, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.10 from http://cityofmadisonsd.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={858CB03D-474D-4217-8116-8B9B05FCC119}

City of Madison. Annual city budget books, provided by Lingle, J., Finance Office, December 2, 2008.

City of Madison. Monthly web statistics for cityofmadisonsd.com. Provided by Eimers, J., Finance Office, January 16, 2009.

Clement, C. City questioned about Schaefer zoning request. Madison Daily Leader, November 18, 2008. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.madisondailyleader.com/site/news.cfm?dept_id=181987&PAG=461&rfi=6&newsid=20201142

Condon, S. The first wiki president? Obama adviser votes “Yea.” C-Net News, October 30, 2008. Retrieved 2008.11.09 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10079575-38.html

Fernández-Maldonado, A.M. Virtual cities as a tool for democratization in developing countries. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 2005, 18(1), 43–61.

Fox, M. Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting at a crossroads. North American Congress on Latin America. April 14, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.03 from http://nacla.org/node/4566

Page 29: Electronic Participatory Budgeting

References Frederickson, H. G. The repositioning of American public

administration. PS: Political Science and Politics,1999, 32(4), 701–711. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from https://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/1999Repositioning-Frederickson.pdf.  

Goodin, R.E. Democratic deliberation within. In Fishkin, J.S., and Laslett, P. (eds). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003.

Habermas, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Thomas Burger, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 1989.

Irvin, R.A., and Stansbury, J. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, January–February 2004, 64(1), 55–65.

Keating, M. Size, efficiency, and democracy: Consolidation, fragmentation, and public choice." In David Judge, Gerry Stoker, and Harold Wolman (eds.). Theories of Urban Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, 117–134.

Kren, L. Budgetary participation and managerial performance: The impact of information and environmental volatility. The Accounting Review, July 1992, 67(3), 511–526.

Lomborg, B. Help set the “Copenhagen Consensus”! ReasonOnline, May 28, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.08 from http://reason.com/news/show/126645.html

Lukensmeyer, C.J., and Brigham, S. Taking democracy to scale: Large-scale interventions—for citizens. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March 2005, 41(1), 47–60.

Mumford, E. Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Manchester, UK: Manchester Business School: Manchester, 1983. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from http://www.enid.u-net.com/C1book1.htm

Norris, D.F. E-government at the American grassroots: Future trajectory. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2005. Retrieved 2008.09.19 from http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/documents/HICSSpaper.pdf

Osmani, S. R. Expanding voice and accountability through the budgetary process. Journal of Human Development, 2002, 3(2), pp. 231–250.

Pearce, J. Toward a post-representational politics? Participation in the 21st century. World Futures, 2007, 63, 464–478.

South Dakota Codified Law. Chapter 9-21: Municipal Government Tax Levies and Appropriations. South Dakota Legislature, 2008. Retrieved 2008.12.08 from http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/ DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=9-21

Stewart, K. Write the rules and win: Understanding citizen participation game dynamics. Public Administration Review. November–December, 2007. 1067–1076.

Sunstein, C.R. Group judgments: Statistical means, deliberation, and prediction markets. New York University Law Review, June 2005, 80, 962–1049.

Tanaka, S. Engaging the public in national budgeting: A non-governmental perspective. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2007, 7(2), 139–177.

West, D.W. Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2005.

World Bank. Case study 1—Ireland: Participation in macroeconomic policy making and reform. Social Development Notes, March 2003, No. 77. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTPCENG/1143251-1116573249068/20509171/sdn77.pdf