Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States: Democratic Connection or Citizen Disconnection?

Abstract

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.

The Effects of Community Quality of Life on Local Policy Decisions

“…From this standpoint, advocates maintain that the responsiveness of governments enhances governmental accountability and the effectiveness of performance measurements. Citizen feedback on governmental services and programs has been incorporated into performance measurements to more accurately represent citizen needs in policy decisions (A. L. Franklin, Ho, & Ebdon, 2009;Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008). Various ways --such as voting, campaigning, joining an interest group, relying on citizen surveys, using citizen advisory committees, and attending public hearings --have been used to increase government responsiveness in performance management (Franklin et al, 2009;Swindell & Kelly, 2000).…”

“…Citizen feedback on governmental services and programs has been incorporated into performance measurements to more accurately represent citizen needs in policy decisions (A. L. Franklin, Ho, & Ebdon, 2009;Wichowsky & Moynihan, 2008). Various ways --such as voting, campaigning, joining an interest group, relying on citizen surveys, using citizen advisory committees, and attending public hearings --have been used to increase government responsiveness in performance management (Franklin et al, 2009;Swindell & Kelly, 2000). By focusing on QoL, this study contributes to fuller understanding of public performance management, to probing the linkage of policy choices and citizen needs, to furthering a normative standard for reducing social inequality, and to examining more fully the potential influences on local policy decisions.…”

“…5 Of the various ways to obtain citizen feedback on public policy, satisfaction surveys are widespread in local performance management (Franklin et al, 2009;Poister & Streib, 1999). Local decision makers and elected officials rate citizen surveys as the most valuable tool for educating the public, engaging in two-way communication, informing decisions, gaining budget support, and enhancing community trust (Franklin et al, 2009). …”

Urban Planning in Decentralization and Local Autonomy Era: A Case Study on the Relationship Between Local Government and Civic Group in Development and Budget Planning in Malang City (Indonesia)

“…This issue has been illustrated by the results of research conducted by scholars such as Franklin et al [3], Davenport and Skandera [1], Vissanu and Salahudin (2016), Souza [11], and King et al [9]. They have indicated that local government has dominated civic groups in the budgetary process.…”

“…Therefore, the final approved budget may be seen as taking the side of the administrators of public affairs. As highlighted by Franklin et al [3], budget planning is underlined by the actions of administration officials. This causes a disproportionate distribution in favor of government over social affairs in budget policy [15].…”