The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory
Abstract
This paper examines civic governance in Porto Alegre in terms of deliberative democratic theory, as outlined in Cohen (1997), Fung (1998), and Wright and Fung (1999). Civic governance in Porto Alegre has developed in the ten years of the municipal administration of the Workers’ Party (P.T.) into a complex system of participatory fora where citizens decide and deliberate upon a variety of municipal policies. The cornerstone of the system is the much-publicized Participatory Budget (Orcamento Participativo, O.P.), a neighborhood-based set of deliberative fora on the city’s budget priorities. Based upon interview and historical research as well as a survey I applied (n=1039), in this paper I seek to add to the substantive account of democracy at the center of theories of deliberative democracy. I argue that evidence from these institutions offer a robust defense of the potential of deliberative democracy in face of criticisms deliberation will foster domination of more powerful citizens. Instead, we have evidence of the didactic function of participatory governance in Porto Alegre. I also argue that the institutions of civic governance in Porto Alegre force us to re-examine and theorize the types of civil society-deliberative forum interfaces and the potential impacts of civic governance on civil society. Here, I argue that participatory governance has directly fostered the creation of new autonomous institutions of civil society. Finally, I also argue civic governance in Porto Alegre has flourished under two sets of conditions that may make it not immediately transportable to other contexts: that of an unusually endowed municipal government (for Brazilian standards) and the radical driving vision of Worker’s Party administrators.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Development as institutional change: The pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation
Evans, P. (2004) · Studies in Comparative International Development · doi:10.1007/bf02686327 · Cited by 639
Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities
Fung, A. (2003) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100134 · Cited by 474
Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics
Innes, J. E. (2004) · Planning Theory · doi:10.1177/1473095204042315 · Cited by 438
Cabannes, Y., & Lipietz, B. (2018) · Environment and Urbanization · doi:10.1177/0956247817746279 · Cited by 173
Theoretical Perspectives on Bureaucrats: A Quest for Democratic Agents
Železnik, A., & Fink-Hafner, D. (2023) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997231165998 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- BAIOCCHI, G.
- Venue
- Politics & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-72
- ISSN
- 0032-3292 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7514
- OpenAlex
- W2044199898
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 71.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0032329201029001003
- The paper
- BAIOCCHI, G. (2001). Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democratic Theory. Politics & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.