Prospects and Demand Factors of Participatory Budgeting in Russia
https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-2-34-61
Abstract
During the past three decades, citizen involvement in the management of local budgets, also known as participatory budgeting (PB), has been getting popular across the world. However, there are no systematic studies devoted to the demand factors of this mechanism. Using the Heckman procedure (censored regression) and regional Russian data on projects implemented on the principles of PB, we reveal the significant factors for its further development. In particular, the probability of using PB turned out to be most sensitive to the development of the region’s economy, the PB implementation experience and the budget independence of the region. At the same time, the volume of PB projects is sensitive not only to the implementation experience and the budget independence, but also to the share of beneficiaries and the diversity degree of the PB sphere. The Heckman procedure avoids the econometric problems linked to the selection bias and, in addition, it makes it possible to study the influence of the same factor on the probability and volume of PB implementation. Further prospects for PB development in Russia depend on the next issues: ensuring greater social coverage through the involvement of new target population groups, expanding the forms of citizen participation in budget decision-making, extending the principles of PB up to the intermunicipal cooperation, increasing the independence of municipalities in implementing PB projects, and strengthening the role of the federal center in promoting and coordinating this mechanism in the regions.
Keywords
citizen involvement in budget decision-making,
budget planning,
participatory budgeting,
co-financing,
budget process
JEL: C23, H72, H79
About the Authors
K. V. Vekerle
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Konstantin V. Vekerle, Junior Researcher, Fiscal Policy Research Laboratory, Institute of Applied Economic Research
82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571
I. A. Sokolov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA); Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ilia A. Sokolov, Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Head of Fiscal Policy Research Laboratory, Institute of Applied Economic Research; Director of the Institute for Macroeconomic Research
82, Vernadskogo pr., Moscow, 119571
6A, Vorobiyovskoe shosse, Moscow, 119285
References
1. Alesina A., La Ferrara E. Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance. Journal of Economic Literature, 2005, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 762-800. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.569881.
2. Ansell C., Gash A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2008, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-571. DOI:10.1093/jopart/mum032.
3. Aragonès E., Sánchez-Pagés S. A Theory of Participatory Democracy Based on the Real Case of Porto Alegre. European Economic Review, 2009, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 56-72. DOI:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2008.09.006.
4. Beuermann D., Amelina M. Does Participatory Budgeting Improve Decentralized Public Service Delivery? Experimental Evidence from Rural Russia. Economics of Governance, 2018, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 339-379. DOI:10.1007/s10101-018-0214-3.
5. Carpini D., Cook F. L., Jacobs L. R. Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 2004, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 315-344.
6. Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. N. Y., NJ, Verso, 2003.
7. Dias N. (ed.). 7. Hope for Democracy: 25 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide. 2014. http://www.in-loco.pt/upload_folder/edicoes/1279dd27-d1b1-40c9-ac77-c75f31f82ba2.pdf.
8. Docherty I., Goodlad R., Paddison R. Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 2001, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2225-2250. DOI:10.1080/00420980120087144.
9. Fung A. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2004.
10. Fung A. Minipublics: Deliberative Designs and Their Consequences. In: Rosenberg S. W. (ed.). Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Can the People Govern? L., Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, pp. 159-183. DOI:10.1057/9780230591080_8.
11. Goncalve S. The Effects of Participatory Budgeting on Municipal Expenditures and Infant Mortality in Brazil. World Development, 2014, vol. 53, pp. 94-110. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.009.
12. Heckman J. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. 12. Econometrica, 1979, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 153-161.
13. Jaramillo M., Wright G. Participatory Democracy and Effective Policy: Is There a Link? Evidence from Rural Peru. World Development, 2015, vol. 66, pp. 280-292. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.011.
14. Kasden L., Cattell A., Convey P. A People’s Budget: A Research and Evaluation Report on Participatory Budgeting in New York City. N. Y., NY, Urban Justice Center, 2013.
15. McNulty S. 15. Voice and Vote: Decentralization and Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 2011.
16. Nabatchi T. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 2010, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 376-399. DOI:10.1177/0275074009356467.
17. Ostrom E. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 137-158. DOI:10.1257/jep.14.3.137.
18. Papke L. E., Wooldridge J. M. Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(k) Plan Participation Rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1996, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 619-632. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1255(199611)11:6<619::AID-JAE418>3.0.CO;2-1.
19. Saguin K. Why the Poor Do Not Benefit from Community-Driven Development: Lessons from Participatory Budgeting. World Development, 2018, vol. 112(C), pp. 220-232. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.009.
20. Sintomer Y., Röcke A., Herzberg C. Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Democracy and Public Governance. L., Routledge, 2016. DOI:10.4324/9781315599472.
21. Sintomer Y., Herzberg C., Röcke A. Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2008, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 164-178. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x.
22. Smith G. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
23. Wampler B. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.
24. Warren M. E., Pearse H. (eds.). Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
25. Weatherford S. M., McDonnel L. M. Deliberation with a Purpose: Reconnecting Communities and Schools. In: Rosenberg S. W. (ed.). Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Can the People Govern? L., Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, pp. 184-215. DOI:10.1057/9780230591080_9.
Review
For citations:
Vekerle K.V., Sokolov I.A. Prospects and Demand Factors of Participatory Budgeting in Russia. Economic Policy. 2022;17(2):34-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-2-34-61
Views:
103
Email this article 