Why Citizen Participation Succeeds or Fails: A Comparative Analysis of Participatory Budgeting

When and how do ordinary citizens gain substantial control over important collective decisions affecting their lives? This book provides new answers to that question by systematically accumulating evidence in novel ways. This comparative review of participatory budgeting reveals the factors behind its success and failures in achieving democratic engagement. The book describes the application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis to systematically accumulate evidence to when citizens gain control over important collective decisions in Participatory Budgeting. Analysis shows that popular claims that there are several single necessary conditions for citizens to gain such control over collective decisions have been imprudent. Nevertheless, a political leadership committed to participation is almost always required for sustained citizen control of political decisions over the longer term. There is evidence that these good outcomes only occur where those willing leaders can rely on strong support and competence from administrative staff, or alternatively where participatory leaders have strong fiscal independence. Perhaps controversially, the evidence for the importance of civil society conditions, which have played a strong role in theories of successful citizen participation, is mixed. The relevance afforded civil society in explanation depends on the level of uncertainty that researchers are willing to accept in their theories and reveals issues of conceptualisation of civil society roles in participatory programmes. Where politicians and bureaucratic staff are committed to supporting programmes, mobilised civil society organisations may serve to overcome fiscal constraints. If democratic innovations warrant their title they must deliver democratic improvements. Comparing global examples of both positive change and notable failure, the book provides persuasive evidence and guidance for future public involvement in policymaking.