CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Political Theory and DemocracyPolitics and Society in Latin AmericaUrban Planning and Governance

Revisiting the democratic promise of participatory budgeting in light of competing political, good governance and technocratic logics

Open access
Cabannes, Yves, Lipietz, Barbara·2018·Environment and Urbanization
DOI 10.1177/0956247817746279
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Participatory budgeting (PB) has been a major innovation in participatory governance worldwide, with more than 3,000 experiences listed across 40 countries. PB has also diversified over its 30 years, with many contemporary experiments (referred to as PBs) only tangentially related to the original project to “radically democratize democracy”. We propose a taxonomy to distinguish the logics currently underpinning PB in practice: political (for radical democratic change), good governance (to improve links between the public and citizens’ spheres), and technocratic (to optimize the use and transparency of public resources for citizens’ benefit). Illustrating these competing rationales through contemporary experiences, we reflect on the contributions of the good governance and technocratic frameworks to managerial and state modernization. Undoubtedly, these help explain PB’s growing attraction for proponents of the good governance agenda. However, rekindling PB’s promise for democratic deepening, we argue, requires refocusing on its deliberative quality. We draw attention to civic education and empowerment of participants as key components of PB practices intent on opening pathways towards alternative political systems – indeed, of materializing Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the city”.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956247817746279

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Participatory budgeting practices can inform government officials of citizen preferences, thus reducing the information asymmetry that exists on behalf of local governments.

    “When done well, PB practices can inform government officials of citizen preferences, thus reducing the information asymmetry that exists on behalf of local governments (Cabannes and Lipietz 2018;Ebdon and Franklin 2006).”

    From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Cabannes and Lipietz 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cabannes, Y., & Lipietz, B.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Environment and Urbanization
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-12-29
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
67-84
ISSN
  • 0956-2478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1746-0301
DOI
10.1177/0956247817746279
OpenAlex
W2790038601
Cited by
173
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
45.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environment and Urbanization (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Society in Latin America
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
Keywords
participatory budgeting, democratic deepening, good governance, technocracy, political logic, deliberation, citizenship education, citizen empowerment, right to the city, state modernization, participatory governance

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