Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the Montreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’

Abstract

The intent of this article is to reflect on the notion of empowered participatory governance in order to gain a better understanding of the institutional contexts and parameters that encourage a more participative democracy, and thereby bring to light the political mechanisms that contribute to broadening the decision-making process. The example we consider is the Montreal Participative Budget (PB). We focus on the impact of decentralization, more specifically on the form this took as the Montreal PB was being elaborated. We examine how much decentralization circumscribes the PB process. The Montreal Participative Budget provides an illustration of the emergence of a participative level in a political context that is, on the whole, hostile to participatory decision making. We suggest that the PB in this context benefits from a new window of opportunity. The chosen example has a dual significance: it underlines the role of temporal contingencies and scales of the process of decentralization in the participative structures at the local level, and it enables us to gain a better grasp of the problem of institutional architectures in implementing participatory democracy by emphasizing the political and social realities underlying new loci for decision making. Participatory democracy, decentralization and empowered participatory governanceCreating participatory democracy implies decentralization, which is both a particular feature of democracy and a process in its own right. Indeed, it appears difficult to activate citizen participation and expand citizens' decision-making capacity without devolving powers to the level at which citizens can effectively influence issues. Moreover, as a project and specific democratic arrangement, participatory democracy has a particular appeal within the contemporary context of increasing multilevel governance. 1 One of the consequences of this type of governance, which is marked by the proliferation andWe are grateful to the three IJURR reviewers for their insightful comments. 1 The term 'multilevel governance' is polysemic; its meaning depends on which field in the literature you are considering. We will be using it to underline both the proliferation and interlocking of levels of government at the local level (a result of, inter alia, processes of decentralization) and the integration of new actors into a system of decision making that henceforth will be less hierarchical and based more on cooperation (Hooghe and Marks, 2003).

Decentralization of Inter-Budget Relations: Theory, Practice, and International Experience

“…Source: The table was developed by the authors based on (Patsias et al, 2013) The issue of government grants also needs further elaboration, namely, in consolidating the possibility of delegating to the subjects of the highest level the authority to provide subsidies to territorial communities at the expense of the regional budget (Table 8). The funds for implementation of this delegated authority should be provided to higherlevel entities from the Regional Compensation Funds (Prud'Homme, 1995).…”

The promise and limitations of participatory budgeting

“…Subsequent Canadian analysis engages much more critically with the question of enabling factors and their capacity to serve as a meaningful corrective against hegemonic approaches to urban governance. Patsias, Lattendresse, and Bherer (2013) discuss how the restructuring of local government by the province of Quebec led to both openings and public demand for participatory budgeting experimentation in the Plateau‐Borough of Montreal. Finding the openings created by this public demand to be significantly circumscribed, the authors conclude that “decentralization constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for participatory budgeting” (Patsias, Lattendresse, and Bherer 2013: 2223).…”

“…Patsias, Lattendresse, and Bherer (2013) discuss how the restructuring of local government by the province of Quebec led to both openings and public demand for participatory budgeting experimentation in the Plateau‐Borough of Montreal. Finding the openings created by this public demand to be significantly circumscribed, the authors conclude that “decentralization constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for participatory budgeting” (Patsias, Lattendresse, and Bherer 2013: 2223). Furthermore, Maley and Pin both foreground the prevalence of neoliberalization and New Public Management discourse, arguing that participatory forums are able to succeed only insofar as they are compatible with trends of neoliberalization and New Public Management (Maley 2010: 121; Pin 2017: 135; Pin 2016: 74).…”

“…This despite their official role in any dialogue over public infrastructure and occasional recognition of staff influence in Brazil (Baiocchi 2005; Nylen 2003). Aside from Pin, Su, and Jabola‐Carolus, staff are often mentioned as significant but are not situated as the focus of analysis (Maley 2010: 121; Patsias, Lattendresse, and Bherer 2013: 2218). Pinnington, Lerner, and Schugurensky (2009) discuss the role played by staff but focus on the agency of a specific staff person rather than the pivotal nature of their institutional position (p. 477).…”

Participatory Budgeting in Poland AD 2019: Expectations, Changes and Reality

“…Literature about participatory budgeting is very broad. To show some examples as follow:Pres, March, 2010;Stoker, 2016;Baiocchi, 1999 and2003;Hong, 2015;Patsias, Latendresse, Bherer, 2013; Participatory Budgeting, 2008 and newer Polish titles: Gawłowski, Machalski, Makowski, 2019;Gawłowski, Popławski, 2019;Kębłowski, 2014;Poniatowicz, 2014;Sobol, 2017. …”