Much of the current U.S. academic literature on participatory budgeting is preoccupied with direct citizen involvement in budget formulation, reflecting a particular normative theory of democracy. In this essay we suggest that U.S. academics can learn from a contemporary international community of practice concerned with "civil-society budget work"-a quasi-grassroots, quasi-pluralist movement with member organizations throughout the developing world-as well as from the budget exhibits mounted by the New York Bureau of Municipal Research at the turn of the last century. The budget-work movement employs third-party intermediation and advocacy, through all phases of the budget cycle. U.S. academics and budget-work practitioners can learn from each other, and this represents an unexploited opportunity for all concerned. We propose a program of locally based action research and trans-local evaluative synthesis.

Fear is a natural, strong and primitive human emotion. It is a universal biochemical response and includes a high individual emotional response. It also alerts us to the presence of danger or threat of harm, whether physical or psychological. In this respect, very briefly, “fear” is power. Fear is a concept that can be produced today and unfortunately it is unlimited. The source of producible and unlimited fear is, in a way, the state. In other words, fear in this context can be called an institutionalized fear. This institutionalized fear has been formed - or is accepted as a model created in this study - has existed in the historical process and is still valid and applied today. The aim of this study is to examine and explain the individual-state relationship in terms of the concept of "fear" in political theory. By using the concept of "fear" in the study, the main problem addressed in the study is to explain how the greatest possible economic welfare with the best possible social protection is interpreted by the state apparatus in the historical process.