Research Article


DOI :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472   IUP :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472    Full Text (PDF)

Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach

Müge Yetkin Ataer

This study examines participatory budgeting practices by also covering benefits and critiques in the theoretical framework after providing definitions and general features. Subsequently, different applications from all over the world as well as the stage in which Turkey currently stands in terms of participatory budgeting have been put forward, with the context of direct-representative democracy being underlined alongside the problem of scope. Two different issues have been highlighted in line with the aim of this study. The first issue is related to the possibility that the process may evolve into political participation rather than individual participation in local administrations that are already chosen through representative democracy practices. The second issue is the risk of further harming those with the lowest incomes and marginalized/disadvantaged groups as a result of the efforts aimed at ensuring individual participation using the benefits of technological advancements. Particular policy recommendations have also been offered in the discussion on these issues.

JEL Classification : A12 , H53 , H61 , H72
DOI :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472   IUP :10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472    Full Text (PDF)

Katılımcı Bütçeleme: Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım

Müge Yetkin Ataer

Bu çalışmada katılımcı bütçeleme, tanımı ve genel özellikleri verildikten sonra teorik çerçevede faydaları ve eleştirileri de içerecek şekilde incelenmiştir. Ardından dünyadan farklı uygulamalar ve Türkiye’nin katılımcı bütçeleme bakımından geldiği nokta ortaya koyularak ölçek sorunu ile temsili ve doğrudan demokrasi bağlamlarının altı çizilmiştir. Çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda, sonuç bölümünde iki konu öne çıkarılmıştır. Bu konulardan ilki zaten temsili demokrasi ile belirlenen yerel yönetimlerde, ölçek ve zaman sorunları nedeniyle bireysel katılımdan politik katılıma dönüşüm ihtimali ile ilgilidir. İkinci olarak doğrudan katılım, teknolojinin imkânlarından faydalanarak sağlansa bile gerçekten dezavantajlı durumda olan, dışlanmış ve çok düşük gelirli toplumsal grupların bu süreçlerden daha da zarar görmeleri riski gündeme getirilmektedir. Tartışma ile birlikte belirli politika önerileri de geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır.

JEL Classification : A12 , H53 , H61 , H72

EXTENDED ABSTRACT


This study examines participatory budgeting practices by covering the benefits and critiques in the theoretical framework. General definitions and characteristics are also provided. Subsequently, different applications from all over the world have been investigated in the context of direct–representative democracy. The restrictions of scope and time were underlined, with the stage in which Turkey currently stands in terms of participatory budgeting being provided. This paper highlights two different issues as its motivation. The first issue is related to the possibility that the process may evolve into political participation rather than individual participation in local administrations that have already been chosen using representative democracy practices because of scope and time restrictions. The second issue involves the risk of further harming groups such as those with the lowest income, who are marginalized, or who are disadvantaged through the efforts aimed at ensuring individual participation using the benefits of technological advancements. Particular policy recommendations are offered when discussing these issues.

The first issue of discussion involves this paper questioning whether attaching importance to citizen participation is necessary or realistic, because incumbents are already aware that they have been chosen by representative democratic processes. They feel the support of their voters and may be reluctant to create further participatory mechanisms. If they do not fulfill their commitments to their programs, they receive no sanctions other than the possible change in the next elections. Despite reluctant incumbents, citizens in modern times are supposed to take roles in the processes of planning, executing, monitoring, and auditing. A distinction needs to be made at this point between political participation and individual participation. Strong individual participation should occur more than political participation in order to properly direct democratic practices. This is mostly possible in regard to small-scale local administrations due to time and scale/scope restrictions. Some problems appear when the scope of the population increases. As a result of physical and time constraints, another representative democracy mechanism usually gets set up in the representative democracy. Neighborhoods have to choose a representative, and non-governmental organizations send their spokesperson to the meetings. In this way, after a particular stage, the project and program-based negotiations are at risk of transforming into political debates. Because the incumbents and local administrators are generally members of a political party, once opposition against a project or program the administration supports occurs, those opposition groups may start to be labeled as representatives of the opposition parties. For this reason, individual participation should be strengthened to avoid these types of vicious circles, and the disadvantaged and less-represented social groups should become involved and prioritized in order to gain some concrete results. Undoubtedly, the representatives of non-governmental organizations, foundations, associations, and social movements cannot be excluded from the processes; however, the strongest position should always be appointed to individual participants to ensure that the decisions that are made are transparently dedicated to the projects and programs in order to promote social justice and the economic welfare of the society.

The second issue discussed in the paper is the side effect of using technology. Examples are found of online participation where suggestions are collected and project options are provided to the citizens. In such cases, those with no Internet connection, senior citizens, and much less represented disadvantaged social groups get excluded from the election and decision-making processes. Online practices may be seen as a necessity, especially in large cities, but their caveats may invisibly affect inequality in income distribution and in the distribution of public resources.

As seen in Latin America and other developing countries, participatory budgeting practices are important in terms of bringing social justice to the front line, giving importance to the less represented disadvantaged social groups, and increasing the living standards of the lowest income groups. However, a gradual approach occurs in these applications. The least represented and lowest income groups should be involved more directly in the decision-making processes in order to determine their actual needs and to increase their living standards. 


PDF View

References

  • Allegretti, G. ve Koçdemir M. (2021). Katılımcı bütçeleme uygulamaları: Türkiye ve Portekiz deneyimlerinin karşılaştırılması. Journal of Turkish Court of Accounts, 32(123), 107-139. google scholar
  • Baiocchi, G. & Ganuza E. (2014). Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics & Society, 42(1), 29-50. google scholar
  • Bassoli, M. (2012). Participatory budgeting in Italy: An analysis of (almost democratic) participatory governance arrangements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(6), 11831203. google scholar
  • Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46. google scholar
  • Çobanoğullari, G. ve Yereli, A. B. (2017). Katılımcı demokrasi ve bütçeleme. Sosyoekonomi, 25(1), 109-125. google scholar
  • Dayar, H. ve Uluten M. E. (2019). Katılımcı bütçe uygulamasının etkinliği: Uşak İl Özel İdaresi örneği. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(4), 299-320. google scholar
  • Doğan, E. (2019). Toplumsal katılımı belirleyen faktörler: Türkiye’de katılımcı bütçenin uygulanabilirliğine dair bir sorgulama. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 159-184. google scholar
  • Doğan, G. ve Gerger, G. Ç. (2018). Manisa Büyükşehir Belediyesi merkez ilçeler meclis üyelerinin katılımcı bütçe uygulamasına yönelik görüş ve tutumlarına dair bir araştırma. International Journal of Public Finance, 3(2), 205-231. google scholar
  • Erdoğan, O. (2019). Yerel yönetimlerde katılımcı mekanizmalar ve Trabzon Büyükşehir Belediyesi örneği. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Akademik İzdüşüm Dergisi, 4(2), 295-310. google scholar
  • Ergen, Z. (2012). Yönetimden yönetişime: Katılımcı bütçeleme modeli. Maliye Dergisi, 163(17), 316-334. google scholar
  • Fu, K-J. (2021). Translating participatory budgeting into an administrative system: the case of Taipei City. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2021.1998947 google scholar
  • Güneş, İ. (2020). Porto Alegre, Paris ve Seul katılımcı bütçe modelleri. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(2), 537-554. google scholar
  • International Budget Partnership (IBP), 2019 Country Results - Turkey, Online: https://www. internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/country-results/2019/turkey (Date Accessed: 27.01.2022) google scholar
  • Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, My Budget Application, https://butcesenin.istanbul/katilimci-butce-nedir, Online, Date Accessed: 23.01.2022 google scholar
  • Kayalıdere, G. ve Çakır, S. (2018). Katılımcı bütçeleme ve kent konseylerinde katılımcı bütçe algısı: Manisa Yunusemre Belediyesi Kent Konseyi örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 941-960. google scholar
  • Kireeva, A., Voronin, I., Nazarova, N. & Mokhova, O. (2021). Participatory budgeting in Russia: Problems and perspectives of national legal regulation. EpSBS Volume 116, ICEST, 2553-2561. google scholar
  • Koç, N. (2017). Katılımcı bütçe anlayışının Türkiye açısından değerlendirilmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10.(1), 443-470. google scholar
  • Marquetti, A., da Silva, C.E.S. & Campbell, A. (2012). Participatory economic democracy in action: Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989-2004. Review of Radical Political Economics, 44(1), 62-81. google scholar
  • Miller, S. A., Hildreth, R. W. & Stewart L. M. (2019). The modes of participation: A revised frame for identifying and analyzing participatory budgeting practices. Administration & Society, 51(8), 1254-1281. google scholar
  • Olejniczak, J. & Bednarska-Olejniczak, D. (2021). Participatory budgets of Polish major cities during Covid-19. European Research Studies Journal, Special Issue 24(3), 983-996. google scholar
  • Öksüz, M. ve Yılmaz, N. (2020). Uşak İl Özel İdaresi katılımcı bütçe uygulamasının mali yerelleşme açısından incelenmesi. Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 133147. google scholar
  • Participatory Budgeting World Atlas, Statistics, https://www.pbatlas.net/world.html Online, (Date Accessed: 27.01.2022). google scholar
  • Pinnington, E., Lerner, J. & Schugurensky, D. (2009). Participatory budgeting in North America: the case of Guelph, Canada. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(3), 454-483. google scholar
  • Sakınç, S. ve Aybarç Bursalıoğlu, S. (2014), Bütçelemede demokratik bir değişim: Katılımcı bütçeleme. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges, 4(1), 1-10. google scholar
  • Schneider, A. & Goldfrank, B. (2002). Budgets and ballots in Brazil: participatory budgeting from the city to the state. IDS Working Paper NO:149. google scholar
  • Souza, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159-184. google scholar
  • Szczepariska, A., Zagroba, M. & Pietrzyk, K. (2021). Participatory budgeting as a method for improving public spaces in major polish cities. Social Indicators Research, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02831-3. google scholar
  • Taytak, M. (2019). Katılımcı bütçe anlayışının üniversite bütçeleri açısından uygulanabilirliği: Uşak Üniversitesi üzerine bir araştırma. Maliye Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 115-128. google scholar
  • Thompson, N. K. (2012). Participatory budgeting-the Australian way. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 8(2), 1-15. google scholar
  • Wampler, B. (2007). A guide to participatory budgeting.. In Shah, A. (Ed.), Participatory budgeting (21-54) World Bank Publications. google scholar
  • Wampler, B. (2012). Participatory budgeting: Core principles and key impacts. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1-13. google scholar
  • Yalçın, A.Z. (2015). Yerel yönetimlerde katılımcı bütçeleme. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 22(2), 311-329. google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Yetkin Ataer, M. (2022). Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach. Istanbul Journal of Economics, 72(1), 361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


AMA

Yetkin Ataer M. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach. Istanbul Journal of Economics. 2022;72(1):361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


ABNT

Yetkin Ataer, M. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach. Istanbul Journal of Economics, [Publisher Location], v. 72, n. 1, p. 361-384, 2022.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Yetkin Ataer, Müge,. 2022. “Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach.” Istanbul Journal of Economics 72, no. 1: 361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


Chicago: Humanities Style

Yetkin Ataer, Müge,. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach.” Istanbul Journal of Economics 72, no. 1 (Jul. 2022): 361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


Harvard: Australian Style

Yetkin Ataer, M 2022, 'Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach', Istanbul Journal of Economics, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 361-384, viewed 4 Jul. 2022, https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Yetkin Ataer, M. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach’, Istanbul Journal of Economics, 72(1), pp. 361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472 (4 Jul. 2022).


MLA

Yetkin Ataer, Müge,. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach.” Istanbul Journal of Economics, vol. 72, no. 1, 2022, pp. 361-384. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


Vancouver

Yetkin Ataer M. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach. Istanbul Journal of Economics [Internet]. 4 Jul. 2022 [cited 4 Jul. 2022];72(1):361-384. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472 doi: 10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472


ISNAD

Yetkin Ataer, Müge. Participatory Budgeting: A Critical Approach”. Istanbul Journal of Economics 72/1 (Jul. 2022): 361-384. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2022-1121472



TIMELINE


Submitted14.04.2022
Accepted07.06.2022
Published Online21.06.2022

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.