Recently, a major city decided to take a different approach to investing in public works. Instead of deciding what new facilities to build for the population, they put it up for an online vote. Elected officials set aside $11 million taxpayer dollars to build the most popular proposals in each of the city’s nine wards. What better way to end interminable debates and remove the decision from political wrangling: let the people decide.
What city attempted the bold program? Perhaps Portland, OR? Maybe one of the rustbelt strivers like Pittsburgh, PA? Try Belo Horizonte, capital of the state of Minas Gerais in Brazil. The innovative 2007 project is described in detail in a recent working paper by e-democracy researcher Tiago Peixoto, who speculates the case may just be an example of the long-discussed potential for local e-democracy.
The Process
The city administration, in consultation with local elected officials, created four possible public work projects costing roughly $1.2 million each in each of the city’s nine wards. (The projects listed in Portuguese, and a machine English translation) The winners would receive funding from the total pool of $11 million in available funds. The project built upon the city’s grassroots-driven participatory budgeting program, which has allowed citizens to allocate resources through participatory decision-making since 1993. During a 42-day voting period, registered voters could log on and vote for one project in each ward, as well as post comments in an Internet forum. In order to maximize availability of the voting system, the city established 178 voting points around the city, including a mobile unit consisting of a bus with Internet access and carried out an extensive public relations campaign.
Results
After voting closed, 172,938 people had registered votes in the system, 9.98% of the city’s registered voters. (Voter registration is mandatory for adults) The forum received 1,210 posts. Peixoto’s paper compared the average number of votes per capita from each district and the average income per capita, and found there was no relationship between the two. Sadly, the case study does not discuss the nature of the public works projects, the nature of the winners, or evaluate whether the government actually followed through and built them. (The results seem to include parks and sports facilities.)
In one of the most provocative findings, Peixoto claims a minimum of 30% of the votes came from other cities, states, and countries. Assuming it was not caused by security problems, this pattern of remote voting raises interesting questions, namely, should democratic participation require physical presence? In the U.S., many college students retain voting registration in their home towns, traveling home to vote while students or young professionals. Although a majority of the visitors to Rethink College Park were local, we were interested to find many committed readers who lived far away, yet retained personal or emotional attachments to the place, or commuted there occasionally for work or pleasure. Should they have a formal voice in local politics? Are our highly spatially fixed political structures obsolete in a mobile world?
After the successful 2006 experiment described in Peixoto’s paper, the city ran the program again in 2008 (participatory budgeting happens every two years). The openness of this city to creating innovative, democratic processes for urban investment stands in stark contrast to the budgeting process in the U.S., where all to often special interests, politicians, and bureaucrats wage battle in drawn-out power struggles to implement their favored projects. Also interesting is how the online process emerged from a carefully calibrated conventional (offline) participatory budgeting process, which allocates funds according to a detailed 9-step process that provides more resources to neighborhoods with lower quality of life ratings. Although conventional participatory budgeting allocated $43 million in the same year the Internet vote spent $11 million, many more voted online than attended the participatory budgeting meetings. It seems clear the key to the programs success lie not simply in the proper technical design, but the overall program design and history of engagement in the community.
> Belo Horizonte: Orcamento Participativo Digital (E-Participatory Budgeting)
> e-Democracy Centre: e-Participatory Budgeting: e-Democracy from theory to success?
This post originally appeared on the Goodspeed Update.
TomFlanagan said:
Thank you, Bibi. My question was not intended to challenge the authenticity of the author's claim but rather to see if the experience might be replicated here in the US.
As I understand your answer, you appear to be telling me that the success experienced in Brazil may not be replicable in the US. I am hopeful that participatory budgeting might be achieved here in the US. Cultural differences can be critical.
We have cultures that are anchored in conflict and in the use of legal mechanisms to achieve a resolution ... or perhaps a compromise. This makes for a messy business. We also have a very low rate of participation in elections. This sets up a situation where elected officials generally are empowered to manage, but rarely to lead. There are darker aspects to our culture of participation that may present special problems for us. Still, the "hardball" approach will not work for us more than as a very short-term, crisis response. We cannot build a sustainable culture on a tradition of coercion.
For us, creating an “opening” for a collaborative public dialogue is a huge challenge. We can “talk together,” but we struggle to “plan together.” [I my individual view] In some very fundamental ways, we are struggling to rediscover authentic democracy.
Tom
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-03-20 08:03 — Tom FlanaganBibiParchenReis said:
@ Flanagan
Since we are Brazilian, we have less money, average median CIA factbook annual income US$10,300; the project and programmes correspond with Brazilian values and culture. While I am not here to defend the author of this post, I might add that, if you don't follow Brazil, our political process is structured differently than in post industrial societies, so your concerns are framed based on your society, which is not our society. We are a G20 nation with a GDP equal to that of France. We are a very inclusive, multi-cultural society that does not require affirmative action and a degree of corruption that pales in comparison with what we have witnessed with the US subrime or AIG. In Brazil people reach consensus that do not require "hardball" as they call it on a popular American television programme. So I wouldn't worry too much about our processes. If you read the article carefuly, particulary the last paragraph, you will see that the voting did impact the outcome, particularly to low income areas.
- reply
- 0 points
Thu, 2009-03-19 20:51 — Bibi Parchen ReisTomFlanagan said:
This is an important topic.
How does one come to the conclusion "It seems clear the key to the programs success lie not simply in the proper technical design, but the overall program design and history of engagement in the community.?" What troubles me about this is that the technology for participation seems to be diminished. I worry about this. I think that the "how" is every much as important at the "what," and the "how the vote is framed" part of the voting is a very large "how." The group that controls the framing of the questions controls the outcomes. Voting is essential, but it is not sufficient. And ... let's get a folllow up ... did the voting impact the outcome? Voting for show alone is dishartening.
You have my iterest. Thank you for a most exciting post!
tom
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-03-13 08:10 — Tom FlanaganRickReno said:
- reply
- 0 points
Tue, 2009-02-03 19:40 — Eric Ehrmannboyybibi said:
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-08-21 08:13 — boyy bibiPost new comment