World Atlas of Participatory Budgets 2019

Since the early concept of the Atlas design, it became quite evident that its operationalization would only be feasible through the creation of a network of focal points of authors in different countries, which was only possible thanks to the previous work done in the book “Hope for Democracy” and that was later amplified under a collaborative paradigm between the respective authors through personal contacts and institutions in order to identify academics, researchers and activists qualified to collect data in other countries where there was no interaction established before.
Also, researching online through specialized bibliography and websites focused on Citizen Participation and Participatory Budgeting issues allowed us to strengthen the authors network, especially in countries that usually do not share information with the international scenario. Being that said, it was possible to detect 76 authors in 71 countries, and in some others where it was not possible to find any, like it was mentioned before, an online research was conducted to accomplish this task.
Thus, in order to gather information about the Participatory Budgeting experiences taking place around the world, the Atlas team created a questionnaire that was used as a common tool to simplify and homogenize the collected data from local and regional interlocutors. All the authors filled up the same instrument. This questionnaire is composed by a series of standard questions written in four different languages (English, French, Spanish and Portuguese). For each question, a short description or an exemple was presented in order to facilitate its completion.
The creation of the questionnaire with common indicators for all countries has an additional advantage, that was not anticipated initially. Some authors had to collect data that they did not have originally so they can incorporate these indicators into their information systems.
Therefore, it can be considered that an extra benefit emanates from this project, which is the creation of a common information system about Participatory Budgeting on a large scale. Furthermore, Participatory Budgeting processes are well known for their large methodological flexibility, which makes it difficult to define a single and consensual concept that applies to all the initiatives. Hence, for the purposes of this research and for an adequate filling of the questionnaire, it was necessary to establish a common understanding on what a Participatory Budgeting is. Thereby, the gathered data will provide a more concrete and effective approach of the complex reality of these experiences around the world.

Being that said, it was proposed that the Participatory Budgeting experiences hold the following characteristics:

1. It must be a process that involves a specific portion or the entire amount of an institution’s budget, so that can be freely and independent decided for all the citizens participating in the initiative. This feature comprises two more items:

• The type of the institution.

Despite, the fact that an overwhelming number of initiatives are promoted by the local government, it’s important to take into consideration those experiences organized by other levels of government such as regional, state and national. Also, processes developed by private, lucrative and associative organizations should be included.

• The participants.

There are different models. The most common is the universal access, which is open to individuals of a certain territory or institution. However, those processes aimed at more specific audiences will also be taken into account, such as initiatives addressed to a particular social sector like young people, women, immigrants, etc. or at a much more precise target as officials of an entity or company, partners of an association, among other options. Also, representative groups or lager communities (lottery system).

2. The initiative must be organized in two successive cycles, focusing on the decision-making phase, in which the participants are able to make proposals and also the execution one regarding the period of time where the projects are implemented.

3. It should be a continuous practice, meaning that the implementation of the project has to be periodic, taking place during a certain period of time.

4. In nine of the countries portrayed in the Atlas, it was not possible to count on the collaboration of local authors available for data collection in a timely manner, namely in Angola, Chile, Costa Rica, Estonia, Lithuania, France, Guatemala, Panama and Paraguay. In these cases, the team conducted numerous online investigations in order to: first, find authors with scientific papers or public information systems on the subject; second, contact with these authors and request their collaboration; third, if it was impossible to ensure such contact or obtain a timely response, the Atlas team completed the questionnaire, quoting the respective authors. In all the cases mentioned, we aimed to ensure that the information used was reliable and up to date.

The mapping of Participatory Budgeting on a global scale is always an exercise of enormous difficulty and complexity. The product presented here is by nature incomplete. We assume this limitation without any reservations. This publication should be understood as a process under construction and as a result of a collective effort of people who, with their conceptual orientations, institutional, political and cultural background, as well as their time limitations, have made the best possible contribution to the result presented here.

The number of Participatory Budgeting processes in the world is not accurate. It is always an approximation to reality and a contribution to the construction of knowledge on the matter, in its different latitudes.

The phenomenon of PBs is much richer and more diverse than what can be imagined and portrayed in a publication like this. We are convinced that in some contexts there is an abusive use of the term Participatory Budgeting. Whenever there were doubts about the data presented by some authors, the Atlas coordination team asked for clarification and more concrete evidence about the correct use of the term PB. This was a very rich dialogue, which allowed us to understand the political, institutional and social circumstances in which these processes are taking place in different parts of the world.

We admit that PB numbers in some countries, no more than three, are overestimated or outdated. This does not, in our opinion, compromise the final outcome, to the extent that i) there are other countries with PBs not represented in the Atlas; ii) we understand this work as part of an evolving process.

Moreover, in order to enrich this project about the current phenome of Participatory Budgeting, data from international indexes published by different organizations was collected, namely: “Democracy Index 2018”, “Corruption Perception Index 2018”, “Human Development Index 2018” and “World Happiness Index 2019”.

The aim of this was to compare the outcomes of the global indexes with the territorial distribution of Participatory Budgeting experiences, to better understand the context in which these processes developed in the World. It is not pretend to establish any kind of connection regarding the PB and the results of these indexes, mainly because it’s not the intention of the creators.

Below, details of the motioned indexes will be displayed. It is important to point out that the Atlas team are not the authors of the following information and they are only being used for comparative reasons on the purpose of this publication.