Suchergebnisse

Participatory budgeting (PB) is increasingly being used by local governments. The first American PB process was in Chicago in 2009 and built upon processes developed in Brazil. The adoption of PB programs in the United States has been closely tied to deliberative democracy and public engagement scholarship. As a result, PB research has benefited from detailed evaluations conducted as the first PB programs were implemented. This review essay also identifies research findings and topics for additional research. Public administration scholars and practitioners can especially contribute to this emerging literature by examining budget outcomes and the perspectives of public sector employees.

Participatory budgeting has been adopted and adapted by governments around the world. Existing literature points to a variety of desired outcomes from these efforts, but does not clearly distinguish the impacts on individuals, groups, and society. This study uses the case of the Philippines to explore the differences in impacts of participatory budgeting within and across the three levels. Reforms in the Philippines were similar to efforts in other countries, but there were adaptations, including a national mandate for the decentralization of participatory budgeting to local governments and the required representation of civil society organizations in local resource allocation processes. Some gains in individual education and efficacy, representation of marginalized groups and social justice, and government accountability were seen in the Philippines, but they seem to be idiosyncratic to the local context. Civil society and democratic legitimacy advances, though, were weaker, at least partly due to challenges in involving third-party intermediaries in the process, and continued issues with elitism and corruption. Like other participatory budgeting cases, the outcomes have not been uniform, and transitions in national leadership hinder institutionalization.

While the amount of contracting out seems to be leveling off, the number of larger, long‐term contracts seems to be increasing. Such contracts are generally not well described in local budgets. Recent efforts in some cities to shift to more outcome‐oriented performance budgeting should push toward more clarity in reporting on major contracts in the budget. This article examines how a handful of major cities handle contracts in their budgets—in some cities contracts are omitted from the budget or all merged into one budget line—and makes some suggestions for improvements.