Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a democratic innovation that enables citizens to actively participate in public decision-making. PB is defined as “a tool or process where citizens make decisions and contribute to decision-making on how to distribute all or some of the available public resources” (UN-HABITAT, 2004: 20). While PB operationalization can vary significantly, certain criteria help determine whether PB processes align with the core values of citizen participation in allocating public finances. According to Sintomer et al. (2012), these criteria include: (i) the discussion of financial and budgetary processes; (ii) implementation at the city or (decentralized) district level, with an elected body holding administrative and resource-related authority; (iii) processes that are repeated annually; (iv) public deliberation through structured meetings, emphasizing citizen deliberation; and (v) accountability mechanisms to ensure transparency in the outcomes.
Initially implemented in Brazil, PB has since spread globally as a tool to foster innovative public decision-making (Cabannes, 2004; Dias and Allegretti, 2009). PB dissemination in Latin America occurred between the mid-1990s and early 2000s (Wampler, 2008), followed by its expansion to other regions during the 2000s, largely driven by public agencies and international organizations (Falanga & Lüchmann, 2020). While PB has been adopted worldwide, its divergent trajectories in Southern Europe offer a compelling lens to investigate the drivers that facilitate or impede its dissemination. This research focuses on two contrasting cases: Portugal and Turkey, peripheral European countries representing extreme outcomes in PB implementation. Portugal stands out with one of the highest rates of local PB adoption globally, holding a world record in the ratio of PB initiatives to local governments (Falanga & Lüchmann, 2020). Conversely, Turkey has experienced limited adoption, characterized by sporadic and isolated initiatives.
Grounded in policy diffusion and participatory governance theoretical frameworks, this study investigates the internal, horizontal, and vertical drivers influencing PB adoption in these two countries. Internal drivers, such as political leadership and civic engagement; horizontal drivers, including transnational networks and knowledge sharing; and vertical drivers, such as international policy trends and funding incentives, are critically examined to understand their relative impacts.
This research utilizes qualitative analysis through a process-tracing technique. It incorporates data from secondary sources, such as municipal records, international reports, and policy documents, and primary data from interviews and surveys conducted with policymakers, civil society actors, and experts. The main outcomes of this research will stem from a transnational comparison of findings across each case. This study makes a significant contribution to the existing literature by addressing gaps in understanding the contextual drivers of PB dissemination processes (Sintomer et al., 2012; Goldfrank, 2007). By examining these specific cases, it also offers broader implications for improving democratic governance and participatory practices in Southern Europe.
