CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Public Policy and Administration ResearchPolitical Theory and DemocracyE-Government and Public Services

Citizens Engaging Government: Participatory Budgeting in Greensboro, North Carolina

Afonso, Whitney B.·2017·Public Administration Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/073491491704100102
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Local governments are responding to growing pressures to increase transparency and citizen engagement, particularly in light of the fiscal stress created by the Great Recession. Historically, the budget process has been a target for these efforts, generally through public hearings and requirements for publicly available budget documents. However, there is growing interest in moving past information sharing to more dynamic and interactive engagement. A review of citizen engagement literature reveals the diverse ways in which local governments and citizens engage with each other. It also reveals that most studies are presented primarily from the perspective of the local government. This article responds by presenting a case study on Greensboro, North Carolina, where a citizen-led effort successfully introduced participatory budgeting (PB). In October 2014, Greensboro passed a resolution in which it committed $500,000 annually to PB, allowing citizens to develop and vote on budget proposals. The research presented here is a first step toward understanding efforts to increase transparency and engagement from a citizen perspective, and it highlights some of the unique challenges that citizens face when they take on such an initiative.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/073491491704100102

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior research on participatory budgeting demonstrates that planning, implementation, managerial characteristics, and political support can affect access to marginalized groups, the fairness of the process, the quality of the participatory budgeting program, and outcomes.

    “Overall, prior research on PB demonstrates that planning, implementation, managerial characteristics, and political support can affect access to marginalized groups, the fairness of the process, the quality of the PB program, and outcomes (Afonso 2017;Johnson et al. 2021;Migchelbrink and Walle 2022;Shybalkina 2022;Su 2018).”

    From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Afonso 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Afonso, W. B.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Afonso, Whitney B.
ORCID
Afonso, Whitney B.
Venue
Public Administration Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-03
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
7-42
ISSN
  • 0734-9149 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-4433
DOI
10.1177/073491491704100102
OpenAlex
W2611268254
Cited by
13
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Public Administration Quarterly (publishedVersion)
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 › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
participatory budgeting, citizen participation, local government, budget process, transparency, citizen initiatives, budget voting, Great Recession, Greensboro, North Carolina

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