Research on the use of participatory budgeting (PB) in urban politics has, perhaps not surprisingly, found that PB participants are often coopted by the government. From a realist perspective, however, it is more surprising that cooptation does not always occur and the mechanisms of non‐cooptation are still not well understood. Previous research has often explained successful outcomes in terms of the ideology of incumbents or the strength of social movements demanding participation. In contrast to both these explanations, this article suggests that an important part is played by the political interest of political elite actors in the independence of PB participants from the government. Presenting the case of PB in Rosario, Argentina, the article finds that three conditions made it rational for political actors not to coopt participants. First, a legitimacy crisis created incentives to invest in a new field of state–civil society interaction. Second, state actors involved in the creation of the field came to invest in the meanings and values of the field. Third, the field of PB could produce legitimacy for the government by being perceived as independent. The article reasons that we can expect these mechanisms of non‐cooptation to be at work in much the same way in other places under similar circumstances.

No abstract

The risk of cooptationof being absorbed by powerful elites without gaining new advantagesis an important concern in studies of social movements and social change. Through cooptation, elites undermine movements by stripping them of their credibility as agents of change. This paper aims to explain why, despite its powerful rationale, cooptation does not occur more frequently. Building on political process theory and relational sociology, it demonstrates that cooptation appears rational only on the condition that cooperation is valued lower than political domination. But elite-movement interaction may result in mutually strategic relationships that are conditional on each side's recognition of the other's interest. Two empirical cases illustrate this possibility: the US Civil Rights Movement and Latin American participatory budgeting. In both cases, the actors involved chose a strategy of 'mutually assured autonomy' over cooptation. ARTICLE HISTORY

Bourdieusian contributions to the discourse on deliberative democracy have recently proved issues of 'deliberative inequality' to be more complicated than previously imagined. Some have come to question the desirability or sufficiency of deliberative forms of politics. Others, like James Bohman, have found Bourdieu's theorizing lacking the conception of people's reflexive capacities required to understand social and political change. Critics and defenders of deliberative politics alike place Bourdieu in opposition to deliberation. In contrast, this article argues that Bourdieu provides, through the concepts investment, field and symbolic capital, an alternative vision of deliberative change. This alternative view bases strategies for change on investment in social fields, in which agents work for the expansion of norms that allow them to make legitimate claims. Empirical findings from the literature on participatory budgeting support the argument that the Bourdieusian view is highly relevant to debates about the transformative potential of 'mini-publics' in deliberative systems.

The term ‘meta-deliberation’ refers to processes of addressing problems with the way that conversations about shared concerns – our ordinary deliberations – proceed. This article discusses the distinction between meta-deliberation and ordinary deliberation and examines three questions raised by previous arguments about meta-deliberation: (1) what kinds of communication should count as meta-deliberation, (2) does meta-deliberation always lead to reflective understanding and improvements in practices of deliberation, and (3) why would deliberative systems need meta-deliberation? Consistent with the systemic perspective on deliberation, this article suggests an inclusive view of which acts and sites may contribute to processes of meta-deliberation: it argues that meta-deliberation faces the same potential problems as ordinary deliberation, such as unequal power relations and narrow perspectives, and therefore requires careful examination; but when meta-deliberation works, it provides societies with reflective capacity, which helps them locate systemic weaknesses. The article concludes by discussing how further studies can help make meta-deliberation more inclusive in order to serve system-level critical reflection.