Citizen Preference and Resource Allocation: The Case for Participatory Budgeting in Seoul

Abstract

This article seeks to measure the extent to which the service priorities of citizens of Seoul, South Korea, are reflected in corresponding resource allocations in the city's budget, despite there being virtually no participation by citizens in the budget creation process. We find a less than perfect congruence between budget allocations and citizen preferences at both the city and district level. Given these results, we discuss the potential for participatory budgeting to address discrepancies in resource allocation by focusing on the unique demographic and cultural makeup of Seoul constituencies.

Citizens and the city: the case for participatory budgeting in the City of Zagreb

“…Scholars and professionals emphasize various benefits brought about by citizen participation, such as enhancement of public accountability, better public services, higher government responsiveness to the needs of the community including various groups of society leading to more satisfactory and more efficient solutions, enhanced public confidence in government, etc. (Esenaliev and Kisunko, 2015;Enshassi and Kullab, 2014;Im et al, 2014;He, 2012;Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). Further, according to Michels and De Graaf (2010) citizen participation contributes to a number of democratic goods.…”

“…Although the involvement of citizens in the budget process comes in various intensities ranging from the only formal and symbolic to tight cooperation between the authorities and various stakeholders, it is usually taken that there are three levels of participation -information disclosure, consultation and active participation of citizens (Enshassi and Kullab, 2014;Im et al, 2014). Information disclosure entails only one-way communication between government and citizens, in which government provides data and information on the planned and adopted policy decisions to the citizens.…”

“…Active participation supposes a partnership between citizens and government, i.e. the actual influence of citizens on the budget (Im et al, 2014).…”

“…If we reflect on the mentioned three levels of participation (Enshassi and Kullab, 2014;Im et al, 2014), information disclosure does formally flow between the city of Zagreb government and the citizens, but only one-way. Budgetary acts, data and information on planned and adopted policy decisions are publicly available to the public.…”

“…Against this backdrop, one implication of our findings would be that public policy needs to focus on raising awareness among citizens of the ways they could influence the budget process. One example would be measures aimed at encouraging spontaneous participation in that process, discussed for instance in Im et al (2014). These authors suggested that more active participation could evolve in the form of specific partnerships between the citizenry and the city government, so as to allow an effective influence of citizens on the budget.…”