Anja Röcke

Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting

This article pursues two main objectives. First, it aims to deliver the first transnational overview and analysis of participatory budgeting, which in the literature on citizen participation or more specifically democratic innovations, occupies a central place. Second, it combines this broad empirical project with a theoretical approach based on the construction of ideal-types in the Weberian tradition. Namely, it presents six models of citizen participation: participatory democracy, proximity democracy, participative modernisation, multi-stakeholder participation, community development and neo-corporatism. Despite these models are initially conceived in close connection with participatory budgeting and the European context, our contention is that they can help to investigate at transnational scale the socio-political and ideological dynamics, contexts and impacts of civic engagement and democracy today.

Demokratisierung der Demokratie

Welche konkreten politischen Konsequenzen haben Burgerhaushalte und andere Verfahren der Burgerbeteiligung? In Porto Alegre gab es wie gesehen beachtliche Auswirkungen: deutliche Verringerung des Klientelismus, Aufkommen einer kooperativen Gegenmacht aus der Zivilgesellschaft heraus, Entstehung einer plebejischen Offentlichkeit und Etablierung einer institutionalisierten vierten Gewalt, die sich auf ein partizipatives Verfahren stutzt. Das von Parteien gepragte politische System wurde dadurch zwar nur geringfugig verandert. Nicht desto trotz handelt es sich in Porto Alegre wie bei den meisten Verfahren der Burgerbeteiligung in Lateinamerika – selbst dort, wo nur ein kleiner Teil dieser Veranderungen beobachtet werden kann – selten um eine rein administrativ- institutionelle Angelegenheit, sondern sie sind Teil einer breiteren emanzipatorischen Bewegung zur Forderung der unteren sozialen Schichten. In diesem Sinne gehoren die Ausbreitung von Burgerhaushalten und der Linksruck der meisten sudamerikanischen Staaten zu demselben Transformationsprozess, infolge dessen die unteren Schichten (haufig handelt es sich um Farbige oder Mestize) nach und nach mehr gesellschaftliche Anerkennung erreichen und den sie bisher diskriminierenden „internen Kolonialismus“ uberwinden [Brisset u.a., 2006]. Die Burgerhaushalte haben diesen politischen Wandel durchaus begunstigt. Sie haben den Versuchen einer burgerorientierten Verwaltungsreformen Glaubwurdigkeit verliehen, der Idee einer anderen Politik ein konkretes Gesicht gegeben, einen Ruckgang der Korruption bewirkt und zu einer Forderung der sozialen Bewegungen der unteren Schichten beigetragen. Umgekehrt hat der Aufschwung der institutionellen Linken entscheidend zur Verbreitung der Idee einer Burgerbeteiligung am Haushalt und dessen vermehrter Umsetzung beigetragen. Abgesehen von ihren sozialen Auswirkungen sind die Burgerhaushalte auf dem lateinamerikanischen Kontinent Teil einer grundlegenden Transformation der politischen Machtkonstellationen und der Beziehungen zwischen politischen Eliten und Burgern. Trotz der grosen Differenzen zwischen den einzelnen Fallbeispielen tragen sie folglich zweifellos zur Demokratisierung der Demokratie bei. Kann eine ahnliche Entwicklung, wenn auch in kleinerem Umfang, ebenso in Europa beobachtet werden?

Bericht über die Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung „Leibmessen. Experimentelle Optimierung von Körper und Alltag“ Tübingen, 21.–22. November 2014

Wearables, Life(b)logging, Cyborgs und Neuroenhancement – dies waren einige der zentralen Forschungsobjekte auf der von Jorg Strubing und Jan-Hendrik Passoth organisierten Tagung „Leibmessen. Experimentelle Optimierung von Korper und Alltag“, die am 21. und 22. November an der Universitat Tubingen stattfand.1 Es handelte sich laut Jorg Strubing um eine „kick-off“-Veranstaltung, die zusammen mit anderen Veranstaltungen zur Konstituierung eines neuen, interdisziplinaren Forschungsfeldes beitragen soll. Was aber haben Diabetespatienten, Gehorlose mit Implantat und Technik-Nerds von der Bewegung „Quantified Self“ gemeinsam? In den Vortragen und Diskussionen ging es vor allem um Rationalisierungsund Quantifizierungstechniken, die hinter der Ausbreitung diverser technischer Geratschaften stehen. Ein weiteres verbindendes Glied, auch schon im Titel der Veranstaltung enthalten, ist die Idee der (Selbst-)Optimierung: „Die Vorstellung des ‚Besser-werdenWollens‘, der Selbstoptimierung scheint fur die, die ihren Korper verandern oder ihn vermessen, disziplinieren und technisieren, handlungsleitend zu sein“, heist es dazu im Ankundigungstext der Tagung. In Ansatzen wurde auch diskutiert, was denn genau Optimierung bedeutet – zum Beispiel nicht immer unbedingt das abstrakt bzw. zahlenmasig Beste, sondern das, was zu einem personlich am besten passt. Eine Scharfung des Optimierungsbegriffs steht aber noch aus, ebenso wie die weitere Erforschung dessen, was die Ausbreitung diverser technischer Gadgets aus soziologischer, psychologischer oder auch historischer Perspektive bedeutet. Die stark zunehmende Verbreitung technischer Gadgets, wie sie derzeit (Januar 2015) auch auf der Messe „Computer Electronic Show“ (CES) in Las Vegas zu besichtigen sind, birgt viele spannende Fragen: Was bedeutet es fur das Individuum wie fur die Gesellschaft,

Citizen Participation and Democratic Innovations

‘Over the past two decades we have heard an historically unprecedented volume of talk about and praise of democracy’ (Pateman, 2012: 7). This ‘new spirit of democracy’ (Blondiaux, 2008) not only is characterised by a new discourse but also by a diffusion of various participatory initiatives (Cain et al., 2003; Font, 2003a; Saward, 2000; Smith, 2009)1 as well as the development of democratic theory, particularly participatory and, even more so, deliberative theories of democracy. This chapter provides an overview of this development, of which PB has been integral part. It will first present different perspectives of the current trends and problems of democratic regimes and then present the actors involved in the diffusion of participatory institutions (particularly PB) as well as the possible goals related to them. The third section presents a classification of participatory institutions and the definition and evaluation criteria of democratic innovations. The final part provides a short overview of participatory and deliberative theories of democracy that have been used to analyse the worldwide diffusion of participatory initiatives, but have also been modified in relation to local innovations like the Porto Alegre process of PB.

Frames and Diffusion

‘Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern [human] conduct. Yet very frequently the “world images” that have been created by “ideas” have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest’ (Weber, 1946: 280). Many scholars in cultural and political sociology refer to this famous quote by Max Weber when arguing for the need to investigate the role of ideas and their relationship to the interests of agents (Swidler, 1986; Lepsius, 2009). This study too is interested in these sorts of ‘world images’ created by ‘ideas’, and their relation to interests. Concretely, the focus lies on specific idea combinations called ‘frames’ that deal with the topic of citizen participation in general, and participatory budgeting in particular. These ideas cannot be understood apart from their intrinsic link to actors’ interests. Actors might support a participatory process because they are committed to the values of participation and democracy, but also because they expect political gains from it (Font, 2003b: 15; Polletta and Kai Ho, 2006: 195).

Participatory Democracy in Schools? The Case of Poitou-Charentes, France

Without the person and strong political will of Segolene Royal, there would be no PB process in Poitou-Charentes, which is a rural and sparsely populated region in Western France.2 The 2004 victory at the regional elections, which brought Royal to power, constituted a ‘window of opportunity’ to implement the idea of participatory democracy in policy practice. The first initiative Royal took in this direction was the introduction of a participatory budgeting process in regional high schools and secondary institutions for specific training called EREA;3 other initiatives of citizen participation followed later.4 As shown in Chapter 4, Royal was among many French Socialist politicians and activists who, at the beginning of the 2000s, travelled to the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. She was the most well known ‘idea broker’ who brought the ideas of a participatory budget and of a participatory democracy to France and elaborated her political profile on these themes. Yet, it was also argued that the results of many PB processes in France have so far been very limited, with one notable exception: the region of Poitou-Charentes. What is it that makes this case so special?

United Kingdom: A National Strategy for Community Empowerment

The recent political situation in the United Kingdom has been characterised by important political, economic and organisational changes at the local and national levels: the creation of the first coalition government since the Second World War (between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats) after 13 years of Labour rule, the worst recession since 60 years after the ‘credit crunch’, and significant changes in local administration. Hence, the context within which PB was introduced and developed as a tool for local community empowerment changed significantly. The main focus of the following presentation lies on the policy context during which PB was introduced and institutionalised, roughly between 2001 and 2010 under Labour Party rule. The most recent developments, and most notably the integration of PB to one of the new government’s project of creating the ‘Big Society’, will be discussed briefly in conclusion.

A Democratic Innovation: Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre

The Porto Alegre model of participatory budgeting is widely acknowledged as a real democratic innovation that reaches ‘Beyond the Liberal Democratic Canon’ and aims at ‘Democratizing Democracy’ (Sousa Santos, 2005). Yet, its creation was not the result of ‘the successful implementation of a new idea that is intended to change the structures or processes of democratic government’ (Newton, 2012: 4). By contrast, the creation of the Porto Alegre structure resulted from a conflict-triggered process shaped by interest and framing conflicts between different actors as well as a logic of ‘trial and error’ in the creation of the new participatory structure. This chapter seeks to provide an overview of the local context within which PB was created, the related frame of participatory democracy and the functioning and results. This is important background information for understanding the debates and conflicts around the adaptation of PB in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, content of Part II and III of this book.

A Process of Top-Down Community Empowerment? The Case of Salford, England (United Kingdom)

The PB process in the area of Claremont/Weaste & Seedley in the city of Salford is a good example of the ‘1.0’-approach, typical of the way the Brazilian process has so far been adapted in the United Kingdom.1 One could say that the story of PB in the UK partly started in Salford (and Manchester) because one important diffusion actor, Community Pride Initiative, started its advocacy work in this area; moreover, Hazel Blears, who initiated the national strategy for PB (CLG, 2008), is from Salford. This case of PB is interesting for two reasons. First, it completes the panorama of PB from the angle of ‘most-different’ cases that is followed in this part of the book because it represents an atypically weak (to typical case) in the United Kingdom. Moreover, it shows the importance of framing conflicts in a mediated diffusion process between the involved policymakers and civil society activists. In Salford, the situation remained blocked for a couple of years because no compromise was possible between two perspectives: one influenced by the Porto Alegre model and thus aiming at structural changes within the established institutional framework for citizen involvement; and one that seeks a greater participation of citizens and communities, but within the existing structures.

Participatory Budgeting as ‘Citizens’ Town’? The Case of Berlin Lichtenberg, Germany

Berlin was the first big city (with 3.46 million inhabitants in 2010) in Germany to implement a PB process. More importantly, Berlin was the first German city in which civil society activists, influenced by the Porto Alegre model and scandalised by a huge corruption case, placed participatory budgeting on the political agenda. As shown in Chapter 5, originally actors and organisations linked to new public management reforms introduced PB in Germany that had a quite technocratic shape. In Berlin, the NPM framework was also important because the process was integrated into the ‘agenda for rearrangement’, a citywide administrative reform programme aimed at increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of public spending.1 Yet, it was combined with the quest for democratisation from civil society (and other) activists. Whereas PB was implemented in two Berlin districts, Lichtenberg and Marzahn, the former received a much higher media attention and coverage, mainly because the district mayor, in office between 2002 and 2011 and member of the Left party,2 tried to make a political showpiece of it. Like Royal in Poitou-Charentes, she implemented a PB process in order to give shape to the adopted policy frame of the district, the citizens’ town, and to strengthen her own political profile.