Toward a positive theory of public participation in government: Variations in New York City's participatory budgeting
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Author | Iuliia Shybalkina |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12754 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Toward a positive theory of public participation
in government: Variations in New York City's
participatory budgeting
Iuliia Shybalkina
Martin School of Public Policy and
Administration, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky, USA
Correspondence
Iuliia Shybalkina, Martin School of Public
Policy and Administration, University of
Kentucky, 415 Patterson Office Tower,
Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Email: iuliia.shybalkina@uky.edu
Abstract
Normative research on public participation in government
related to desirable amounts and modes of participation has
been flourishing. However, positive research explaining var-
iations in real-world participation processes, while gaining
momentum, is still thin and fragmented. This article aims to
further the positive perspective by examining differences in
participatory budgeting (PB) and the reasons for these dif-
ferences in six New York City council districts based on
fieldwork and secondary sources. The evidence suggests
that district offices were invested in PB to gain strategic
advantages, such as answering calls for political renewal,
recovering from a mismanagement scandal, and signaling
progressive values. Similarly, civil society organizations ste-
ered their resources toward PB only if they were interested
in agenda items and in doing work with as opposed to
against public officials. In the end, this study discusses
implications for positive research and possible external
interventions to achieve more even participation standards.
Abstract in Ukrainian
Залученнягромадськості додержавногоуправліннячасто
вивчаєтьсяз«нормативної»точки зору,тобтовиносяться
судженняпроцінність залученнята йогорізних шляхів.
«Позитивні»дослідження,які мають справузреальними
процесами залученнягромадськості,набирають обертів,але
щеіснує багатосуперечок.Цястаттямає на меті посприяти
розвитковіпозитивноїточки зору.Дляцьоговона досліджує
відмінності у «спільному бюджетуванні»та причини цих
Received: 28 January 2021 Revised: 26 April 2021 Accepted: 10 May 2021
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12754
Public Admin. 2022;100:841–858. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 841
відмінностейушести районах Нью-Йорка на основі
польових та вторинних даних.Факти свідчать,щолишеті
райони,вяких політичні еліти зрозуміли щовони можуть
отримати стратегічні переваги від спільногобюджетування,
доклали зусиль допроцесу.Приклади таких ситуацій
включають зміни еліт,кор упційні скандали,та попит на
прогресивні цінності.Схожи м чином,лишегромадські орга-
нізації які були зацікавлені у темах на порядку денному та
співпраці з чиновниками приєдналисядопроцесу.На
останок,цястаттяобговорює наслідки дляпозитивних досл-
іджень та можливості зовнішньоговтручаннядлядося-
гненняпевногостандарту залученнягромадськості.
1|INTRODUCTION
Public participation in government refers to various processes that allow people to influence public decision-making, be it
identifying problems or evaluating solutions. Much of the literature amassed in the field of participation since the 1960s
has been normative (i.e., focused on how much and what kinds of participation are desirable). Scholars have argued that
participation benefits individuals, communities, and government institutions. Further, to maximize these benefits, scholars
have stated that governments should trust people with decision-making authority, engage a large and representative
group of citizens, and provide opportunities for education and discussion (e.g., Arnstein, 1969;Brysonetal.,2013;
Ebdon & Franklin, 2006; Fung, 2006;Nabatchi,2012;R obbins et al., 2008;Smith,2009;Wampler,2012).
Instead, a positive theory of participation revolves around a different question: Why is there so much variation
in public involvement? This research area has been growing (e.g., Askim & Hanssen, 2008; Ebdon, 2000; Muthomi &
Thurmaier, 2020; Wampler, 2009; Wampler et al., 2018; Wang, 2001; Welch, 2012; Williams & Waisanen, 2020;
Yang & Callahan, 2005; Zhang & Feeney, 2018; Zhang & Liao, 2011; Zhang & Yang, 2009). Perhaps the most consis-
tent finding is that public officials' personal and professional qualities affect participation. Otherwise, scholars have
struggled to measure variations in participation. Further, how political environments and community characteristics
affect variations in public involvement is also inadequately understood.
Making further progress on a positive theory of participationis essential for at least two reasons. First, it will help
us determinewhen participation activitiescan emerge by themselves and whenthey require external intervention. Sec-
ond, it will enableus to estimate the effects of participation activities on outcomes. The fact thatparticipation is delib-
erate makes it crucial to distinguish between the direct impact of participation and factors affecting results and the
preference for participation (e.g., Boulding & Wampler, 2010; Calabrese et al., 2020; Gonçalves, 2014; Hagelskamp
et al., 2020; Shybalkina & Bifulco, 2019; Touchton et al., 2019; Touchton & Wampler,2014;WorldBank,2008).
This multiple case study aspires to build on the literature and better understand differences in participation and
the reasons for these differences. It uses the example of participatory budgeting (PB), which transfers the authority
to propose and make decisions on publicly funded projects from elected representatives to the public. PB has been
rapidly and extensively catching on throughout North America and beyond (Dias, 2018). In the United States and
Canada, district-level PB is the most common arrangement (Participatory Budgeting Project, n.d.). In this article, PB
processes in six New York City (NYC) council districts are compared based on authority sharing, participant selection
and recruitment, and information and communication. Then several drivers are judged in terms of their ability to
842 SHYBALKINA
To continue reading
Request your trial