The journey of participatory budgeting: a systematic literature review and future research directions
Open accessAbstract
This systematic literature review analyses the body of knowledge on the budgeting practice known as participatory budgeting (PB). This review identifies and analyses a dataset of 139 English-language papers focused on PB in the public sector published over three decades (1989–2019) in academic journals of different disciplines. The findings shed new light on PB, by systematizing this body of knowledge and explaining the PB idea journey. A research agenda is also set by clarifying overlooked areas of research and practical interests. Points for practitioners: The review provides a conceptual model to cope with specific issues in each phase of a PB journey, and it also sheds light on the role of political and managerial actors. Traditional and new themes to design a PB and implement participatory mechanisms are proposed. Practitioners can benefit from indications about the use of technological tools in mobilizing participation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A manager's background, leadership, professionalism, and perceptions of participatory budgeting can influence its success.
“Similarly, multiple studies have shown that a manager's background, leadership, professionalism, and perceptions of PB can influence its success (Bartocci et al. 2023;Manes-Rossi et al. 2023;Migchelbrink and Walle 2022;Shybalkina 2022).”
From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Bartocci et al. 2023
Cites
INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
DE VRIES, H., BEKKERS, V., & TUMMERS, L. (2016) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12209 · Cited by 1,214 · see citing works
From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0462 · Cited by 1,121 · see citing works
Cabannes, Y., & Lipietz, B. (2018) · Environment and Urbanization · doi:10.1177/0956247817746279 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis
Taylor, C. R., Afshan, S., & Lawrence, K. L. (2025) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.13055 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bartocci, L., Grossi, G., Mauro, S. G., & Ebdon, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Perugia (IT)
- Kozminski University (PL)
- University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
- University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
- Corresponding author
- Grossi, Giuseppe
- Venue
- International Review of Administrative Sciences
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-02-17
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 757-774
- ISSN
- 0020-8523 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7226
- OpenAlex
- W4213351811
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 10
- FWCI
- 6.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Review of Administrative Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Policy and Governance
- Keywords
- participatory budgeting, public sector budgeting, citizen participation, participatory mechanisms, conceptual model, research agenda
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
