Conclusion: Time for Participatory Budgeting to Grow Up

Only a few years ago, participatory budgeting (PB) in the US was in its infancy, a tiny experiment in democracy. After a five-year growth spurt, PB has entered its awkward adolescence, full of bold achievements, flashes of potential, and some stumbles. PBNYC’s innovation has raised new questions for participatory democracy, as the contributors to this special issue highlight. In this article, I lift up the key impacts and challenges that they discuss, and their practical implications. I argue that for PBNYC and other PB processes to grow up, city leaders need to invest in equity, expand project eligibility and funding, and scale PB up to the city level.     

Beyond Inclusion: Critical Race Theory and Participatory Budgeting

Critical Race Theory (CRT) researchers maintain that mainstream liberal discourses of neutrality and colorblindness inherently reify existing patterns of inequality, and that privileging the voices of people of color and the marginalized is essential to addressing issues of equity and equality. Participatory budgeting (PB) aims, too, to include the voices of the marginalized in substantive policy-making. Through a CRT lens, I examine the ways in which the New York City PB process has thus far worked to simultaneously disrupt and maintain racial hierarchies. I pay particular attention to how social constructions of the “good project” shape the discourses around community priorities and winning projects—especially in the areas of security/policing and education. While the New York PB process has successfully reached out to and effectively enfranchised traditionally marginalized constituents, including communities of color, its current focus on districts and the voting phase, alongside limited work on critical praxis, limits the extent to which these newly enfranchised constituents can problematize larger funding formulas and criteria in public budgets.     

Trust Matters: Enhancing Government Legitimacy through Participatory Budgeting

Legitimacy is a problem of contemporary governance. Communities lack trust in elected officials—in their effectiveness, fairness, and representation of the public interest. Participatory budgeting (PB)—a set of democratic processes where residents determine how to spend a public budget—helps bridge that distance by letting the public make spending decisions. Since 2011, some of New York City’s (NYC) council members have been implementing PB with their capital budget—setting aside a million dollars in their districts each budget cycle for PB. Participatory budgeting has the potential to rebuild relationships between government and communities. Using data from over eighty interviews conducted by New York University (NYU) graduate students in 2013 and 2014 with PBNYC participants over two years, this article suggests that in council districts using PB, residents have greater feelings of access to and voice in local government, and better understanding of the complexities of spending public monies, often leading to a more positive view of government officials, and bolstering legitimacy of local government.     

Emerging Roles of School District Administrators: Implications for Planning, Budgeting, and Management

School district administrators are defining new roles for themselves, adding to their more traditional role. The traditional role is characteristic of purely "public sector" managers, whereas the emerging roles are more characteristic of purely "private sector" managers (both the for-profit and not-for-profit private sectors). A primary cause of the development of the new role is that school administrators are beginning to pursue revenue-generating opportunities via private sector models due to the limits of the public sector model. The traditional role, the new role, and the implications of their mutual presence in school districts are examined in this paper.     

From Porto Alegre to New York City: Participatory Budgeting and Democracy

Because of its popularity, there is now a large literature examining how participatory budgeting (PB) deepens participation by the poor and redistributes resources. Closer examinations of recent cases of PB can help us to better understand the political configurations in which these new participatory democratic spaces are embedded, and articulate the conditions that might lead to more meaningful outcomes. Who participates? For whose benefit? The articles in this symposium, on participatory budgeting in New York City (PBNYC), highlight both strengths and challenges of the largest American PB process. They focus less on redistribution, more on the dimensions of the process itself and of PBNYC’s successful social inclusion, new dynamics between participants and local politicians, and the subtleties of institutionalization. The symposium also reminds us, however, that contestations over meaningful participation are on-going, and that of all of PBNYC’s multiple goals, equity has proven to be the most elusive.     

Defining and Achieving Normative Democratic Values in Participatory Budgeting Processes

Achieving public participation often is a goal for public budgeting entities, but it is difficult to accomplish in practice. This study examines three questions: How do public representatives interpret and define their democratic responsibilities? What are their insights regarding opportunities for and barriers to participatory budgeting processes? To what extent are these goals met? To address these questions, this research employs a qualitative research strategy with a case study design of a public university budgeting committee. The findings reveal that respondents (1) define their mission structurally and procedurally, (2) identify a need for ethical behavior and leadership, and (3) recognize that democratic values such as participation and efficiency are in tension with one another. Being open and inclusive comes in the form of the citizen–public administrator dialectic and requires intellectual, ethical, and practical engagement with competing democratic values.     

Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues

Participatory budgeting (PB), a process whereby governments seek direct input from citizens into financial decisions, is gaining a foothold in the community engagement practices of Australian local governments. Following questions of definition, we survey the theoretical terrain, locating PB within several components of local democracy. We then provide details of six PB processes in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. We identify several questions for the future of PB in Australian local governments, including the role of deliberative practices as part of the broader work of councils, the issue of the adaptability of councils and leaders, the impacts upon state and local governments, and the role of third parties. The article concludes by reflecting on how PB sits with democratic practices at the local level if it continues to be implemented.     

State Medicaid Budgeting in Hard Times: Implications for Long-Term Care

This qualitative analysis compares the annual Medicaid budgeting processes in Utah and Illinois from the late 1970s until 1985, explaining why Utah cut the proportion spent on nursing homes and Illinois did not. It posits rational, organizational, and political process interpretations of each state's choices. The states implemented Medicaid rationing (through preadmission screening, rate freezes and adjustments, and expansion of alternatives) in significantly different ways. Utah reduced utilization of nursing homes while Illinois contained rates. Such diverse policy choices have aggravated disparities among the states in access to and quality of long-term care. Rational planning for our aging society will have to overcome these growing disparities among state policies.     

Current Practices and Issues in Capital Budgeting and Reporting

Budgeting and accounting professionals, as well as other interested parties, are currently examining ways to improve governmental capital budgeting and reporting. Although progress has been made, major policy issues are still being analyzed and debated. This article provides an overview of current practices and the major policy issues that are being addressed. The discussion incorporates related ideas and observations made by Jesse Burkhead four decades ago. The author concludes that many of Burkhead's insights in the area of capital budgeting and reporting are still relevant and useful today.     

Multi-Year Budgeting: A Review of International Practices and Lessons for Developing and Transitional Economies

In recent years, many developed countries have moved to develop their annual budget process in a strategic multi-year framework. While a common feature of multi-year budgeting approaches is the inclusion of revenue forecasts and expenditures estimates for two or three years beyond the current year, multi-year budget practices vary substantially between countries. This article reviews multi-year budgeting practices in six developed countries (Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Great Britain, and the United States) and attempts to draw lessons from these experiences for the potential application of multi-year budget techniques by developing and transitional countries. We draw five lessons from the multi-year budget practices of developed countries that are relevant for developing and transitional economies: (1) a multi-year dimension could be a valuable fiscal policy and management tool for developing and transitional countries; (2) the approach chosen in each developing or transitional economy should reflect the country's policy objectives, unique budget institutions and traditions, and administrative capabilities; (3) the introduction of a multi-year budget dimension is a gradual process; (4) the multi-year budget should be used to encourage the constructive involvement of line ministries in the budget process; and (5) the usefulness of the multi-year budget approach will crucially depend on the reliability and accuracy of the medium-term budget estimates.     

Capital Budgeting and Management Practices: Smoothing Out Rough Spots in Government Outlays

Public capital budgeting and management literature recommends long‐term capital and fiscal planning practices to prevent large fluctuations in outlays caused by fiscal stresses. This study extends the literature by examining the effects of long‐term capital planning and management practices such as the use of a capital budget, separate impact analyses, and the use of bond financing and dedicated revenue sources on capital spending volatility. The empirical results confirm that several of these practices smooth out state government capital outlays that vary because of socio‐economic and financial factors.     

Budgeting for Our Times: Target Base Budgeting

Target base budgeting sets limits on how much a department may request in its budget. Departments must submit two budget requests—one within the target base and another for additional funds. Some supplemental requests may be funded from a reserve pool. Target base budgeting has been used in parts of the federal government over the last forty years. Its use continues to slowly expand. This article examines the experiences in three cities: Rochester, Tampa, and Phoenix.     

Accrual Budgeting: Accounting Treatment of Key Public Sector Items and Implications for Fiscal Policy

Budgeting in accrual terms is one of the most controversial issues in public sector accounting. In this paper, we analyze the accounting treatment of problematic elements of the financial statements when introducing accrual budgeting, and discuss the effects of the analyzed accounting alternatives on fiscal policy. We focus on three pioneer countries in the implementation of accrual budgeting and accounting: the United Kingdom, Sweden, and New Zealand. The accounting standards of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board, the European System of Accounts, and the Government Finance Statistics Manual of the International Monetary Fund are taken as benchmarks.     

Budgeting for Accountability: Municipal Budgeting for the 1990s

The emphasis of a public budget depends on the time and circumstances in which it is developed. During the 1990s, for example, the emphasis has increasingly been on accountability due to widespread public belief in recent years that government is uncontrollable and responds only to special interests. Over the past few years, local budgeters have begun to adapt to this new environment by improving the accountability of the budget to the public. This article summarizes some of the changes taking place and suggests some additional changes that could be adopted to make local budgeting more accountable.     

The Implications of GASB Statement No. 34 for Public Budgeting

This paper discusses a variety of audit issues related to the implementation of GASB Statement No. 34. Ten specific audit issues are addressed. Each issue is defined and discussed, and the relevant professional literature is reviewed. The results of interviews of four experienced auditors of governments are presented with respect to these issues. These auditors identified several additional issues related to the implementation of Statement No. 34. The focus is on gaining insight from the concerns of auditor professionals to assist academics by identifying topics that warrant future research.     

Shifting Priorities: Participatory Budgeting in New York City is Associated with Increased Investments in Schools,Street and Traffic Improvements,and Public Housing

ABSTRACT

In participatory budgeting (PB), residents instead of public officials decide how public money is spent. PB may reveal that residents prioritize different investments than public officials, which could lead to more socially just spending. However, little research has examined whether and how PB shifts spending priorities. This study leverages publicly available records on New York City council districts’ capital project allocations over ten years (2009 through 2018), comparing spending within and across PB and non-PB districts. Multi-level regression models show that, on average, when council districts adopted PB, greater proportions of their discretionary capital budgets were allocated to schools, streets and traffic improvements, and public housing. PB was associated with decreases in spending on parks and recreation projects and housing preservation and development projects. The article shows that priorities shift when residents are directly involved in budgeting. Implications for equity and community well-being, and directions for future research are discussed.