Brazil has embarked on the task of strengthening its democratic institutions. It is experimenting with participatory budgeting (PB) at the local level. How successful has this been? This research from the University of Birmingham examines the claims made for PB experiments in the cities of Porto Alegre (PA) and Belo Horizonte (BH) and concludes that they should be valued more for heightening citizenship than for the material gains they may bring.
Recently Brazil has embarked on re-democratisation and decentralisation. As a result, experiments have been carried out at all levels of government aimed at, among other things, increasing the participation of citizens in the decision-making process. One experiment is that of PB at the local level, which sets aside part of local revenues for allocation to be decided upon by local citizens.
Reviewing the literature on PB in Brazil and analysing the experiences of PA and BH gives rise to a number of questions: How does it work? How does the literature view PB? Does PB increase the capacity of excluded social groups to influence the decisions about the allocation of resources? Does PB increase the poor’s access to basic urban services? Does local expenditure reflect the priorities of the poor? Assessing the main strengths and weaknesses of participatory budgeting in the two cities (in an attempt to analyse its limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions) the following answers emerge:
- PB is a state-sponsored experience, which is well accepted in the cities analysed. Such approval is probably one of the reasons for the re-election of the governing coalitions that have implemented it.
- The problems and early frustrations of PB (in the case of PA) did not make those involved in it give up on the experience.
- This might indicate that PB is overcoming Brazil’s tradition of changing public policies every time a new government comes to office.
- PB is addressing one of the main problems identified by the literature on Brazilian public policies: the pursuit of policies until the problem that generated them has been tackled.
- Popular acceptance manifested through organised social movements and opinion polls might also play a role in PB’s survival.
It can be concluded that the experience on participatory budgeting in highly unequal societies like Brazil should be valued not so much for the material gains it may bring but for providing citizenry to formerly excluded groups in society.
- It is an important step towards building democratic institutions.
- Although some claims of both experiments deserve more research, the experience allows low-income segments of neglected areas to decide investment priorities in their communities.
- There is no single model of PB, but a collection of experiences that have acquired different features. Maybe the greatest risk PB poses is the adoption of a copy and implement approach.
- There is a risk of PB becoming just another bandwagon.
- The main strength of PB seems to be the insertion of some marginalised people and communities into the political process for the first time.
- Allowing these citizens the right to decide may have a long-term impact on Brazil’s unequal balance of power.
