31 August 2007
Should citizens have a direct say in the way councils spend their money? George Jones and John Stewart explore the pros and cons of participatory budgeting – an idea whose time might have come
Participatory budgeting could soon arrive in a community near you – but will it enhance or hinder local democracy? Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears is decidedly upbeat. 'Giving people direct and transparent choice about how funds are allocated in their local area not only makes sure their priorities are being met, it's a way of making them more able to say “this is my street, my estate and I'm proud of it”,' she said when she announced ten pilot participatory budgeting projects at July's Local Government Association conference.
Her aspiration to realise this potential for citizenship is welcome, but there are difficulties. As every treasurer knows, budgeting is complex. Choices are not made between two alternatives, but about the balance between many options.
Any form of participatory budgeting will also have to fit in with and strengthen, not weaken, the current system of representative democracy. The stress Blears put on the Councillors Commission in her LGA speech shows that not only is she aware of this but that she attaches importance to the councillor as elected representative. The commission was set up in February to explore ways to increase councillors' skills and make them more representative of their communities. It is due to report in November.
Blears said: 'Councillors must not feel their democratic mandate is bypassed, and instead recognise that it will strengthen their relationship with their local community.' But that recognition will not happen automatically. It requires clear thinking about the relationship between representative and participatory democracy.
Participatory democracy is not the same as direct democracy, where citizens take decisions through forms such as referendums and open meetings. In participatory democracy, citizens take part in the process of government, but not necessarily as decision-makers. Rather their views inform decision-makers, who have to translate priorities into practice. On most issues, citizens will have differing views, especially on budgetary priorities. The role of elected representatives is to seek reconciliation of these views; if not, then to balance them in political judgement.
Participatory democracy is unlikely to contribute much to government if it takes the form of a traditional public meeting. These characteristically divide into platform and audience, with over-long speeches and an audience that might not be representative of citizens generally.
Nor can opinion polls be regarded as participation in action. They provide information only about respondents' immediate response to issues they might not have thought about or had much information on.
The government believes that new forms of public involvement are needed, where citizens can debate issues that they are both informed about and have had time to reflect on. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has spoken about developing citizens' juries. The green paper, The governance of Britain, proposes 'duties to consult on major decisions through mechanisms such as citizens' juries'. And Blears, in a speech on May 29 to the New Local Government Network, said: 'Councils should be encouraged to engage communities in citizens' juries, citizens' panels and other forms of deliberative decision-making, especially on contentious issues.'
Citizens' juries typically comprise a group of people, usually no more than 25, chosen at random, but with quotas to ensure they are representative of the population. The juries are not composed of 'the usual suspects' – the majority have never taken part in a public activity. Juries consider issues posed by an authority. They meet for up to three days and are guided by a facilitator. The authority is not committed to accepting the jury's views, but to considering them seriously and responding to them, usually in a meeting with the jury.
The quality of jury reports and of the process have impressed those commissioning them, showing the unrealised potential of citizens.
Budgets can stimulate other deliberative approaches. The London Borough of Harrow used a form of participatory budgeting with its 2005 Open Budget initiative. This involved 300 people, but the aim was still to find out citizens' informed and considered views.
Any such systems need to be designed both to realise the potential of citizen involvement and to strengthen the elected representative. The pilot projects launched by Blears should assist but, as she recognises, there is already considerable experience in local authorities of different forms of participatory budgeting, far more than exists in central government. The pilot projects should add to this.
The result should not be statutory prescription – we fear Whitehall will devise a Participatory Budgeting Act, backed up by regulations and many pages of guidance.
What is really needed is answers to the main questions, which can vary. These include: is participatory budgeting going to be at community level, at authority level, or at both? If the former, will it be based on communities of place, or of interest, background and concern? What relationship will there be between developments at community level and at authority level? What issues will be appropriate at community level and at authority level? How will the resources to be allocated to the community level be determined? What participatory mechanisms should be used?
Blears referred to the well-known example of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil. This city of one and a half million people originally had a budgetary process centred on the mayor, with the council playing little or no part. In the late 1980s, a newly elected mayor launched participatory budgeting for capital investment decisions.
The approach combines participation and representation, with an alternative representative system developed for the budgetary process, perhaps because of the weakness of the city council. The city is divided into 16 regions, which hold meetings to determine public priorities for investment. There are five themed meetings, covering issues such as transport and education. Plenary meetings for each region and theme are held twice a year to choose delegates and determine priorities according to agreed city-wide criteria. These meetings are preceded by neighbourhood meetings.
The delegates meet at least weekly in their forums to prepare proposals and to monitor progress on the outcomes from previous years' budgets, keeping in touch at meetings with the people they represent. The delegates for each region and theme select two representatives for the budget council, which, working with the budgetary team from the mayor's office, draws up the investment budget. This is built up from the priorities put forward, taking account of city-wide proposals from the mayor's office. The results become part of the mayor's budget.
The representative system is therefore based on indirect election. But this alternative system would not have been required had there been a strong system of representation based on the council. In the UK, there would be no need for such an additional representative system. Rather the need is to strengthen the relationship between the existing representative system and any participatory processes.
There are two possible ways of sustaining representative roles at the community level. One is for the council to fund parish councils or their equivalent in urban areas to take on this mantle, backed up by the development of participation. The other is for councillors to meet in area committees to hear citizens' views.
But many budgetary issues cannot be resolved at community level, and the authority's overall budget will make the main resource allocation. Participatory processes should influence the decisions made, but there is a need for deliberative processes for citizens focusing on the council's budget, and for interaction between the executive and those processes, responding to and explaining their decisions. The full council can play a more important role than has been allowed in many authorities, using the experience of all councillors.
In these ways it is possible to meet Blears' concern for both public participation and the representative role. If effective, there will be much for central government to learn for its own budgetary processes.
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the London School of Economics and John Stewart is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham
PFaug2007
