Citizen participation in government budgeting processes is a topic that has received attention for many decades. Despite prescriptive exhortations to cities, research in this area has signifi cant limitations. We identify four elements that are believed to infl uence the participation process. Th e variables within each element have received attention in the empirical literature, but no systematic eff ort has been made to uncover interaction eff ects and extend theory to make it more robust. We consider the weaknesses of our knowledge, suggest an impact model of citizen participation in budgeting, and identify hypotheses that may be tested in future research. Technology, Communication, CollaborationCarol Ebdon is the Finance Director for

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 137.

This study explores the use and effects of citizen participation in city budgeting. Interviews were conducted with budget directors in 28 midwestern cities. Participation was found to affect budget decisions, but the public hearing remains the primary formal opportunity for input in most cities. Technology is increasingly being used to expand the budget information available to the public. Budget complexity and citizen disinterest were cited as the major barriers to participation. However, a number of cities have successfully used participation mechanisms in the budget development process that can serve as models for other cities.

Citizen participation in the local budget process is not prevalent, despite encouragement from scholars and professional organizations. This case study of two Kansas cities that have used a variety of input mechanisms in the budget process analyzes the effectiveness of citizen budget participation. Limited effectiveness was found, which may largely be due to the timing of the input, unstated or unclear goals, implementation difficulties, and political and environmental constraints. Citizen input appears to have had little effect on budget decisions, and neither city has institutionalized participation in the process. However, the input mechanisms serve other purposes, such as education and support for specific proposals. Describing the benefits as well as the difficulty of involving citizens in a meaningful way is beneficial to other governments as they wrestle with the issue of defining the citizens' role in the budget process.

What participation mechanisms connect citizens and city officials? Do they produce valued outcomes? Surveys of elected officials suggest that microlevel mechanisms such as direct citizen contact are more valuable in meeting participation goals than are mechanisms focusing on macrolevel concerns. However, there is a disconnect between perceptions about value and the use of mechanisms. State-level participation requirements and a city manager have little effect on the value of a mechanism. These findings raise some questions: why are microlevel participation mechanisms favored, why do some mechanisms have value even though respondents have little experience with them, and why is there a misalignment between participatory goals and the mechanisms used?As Jonathan Kahn suggests, budget is government in miniatureFa budget outlines a government's scope of responsibilities, defines its relationship with citizens, and reveals how the government plans to extract resources from private citizens to fund what services and to achieve what goals.