Abstract
Considering several developments recently, especially at local self-government level, on budget design and application, we can notice that citizens have a deeply different perception on local PA performance than this last itself. Local government continuously claims their increasing performance, especially on accountability processes, even measuring it through effectiveness and efficiency of their investments as well as number and size of public services offered to the local community. Their pay-offs are not far of being glorious and making happy everybody taking notice on the presentation. While, on the other side, citizens of the same community have a far different view and estimation on this regard. They complain on communication, quality of public services, distribution quality of investments, division of local budget through sectors, till that point to refuse paying local taxes and tariffs, as well as burning career of “highly performance” local leaders (mayors) voting ‘no’ on elections not considering their ‘glorious increasing performance’ during the governmental mandate. Introducing citizen participation in a process of budget decision making in local self-government, especially during priority selection stage, as well as budgeting an important part of the local budget through common decision making – PA and community representativeness, analysing, first, the state of nature through adverse pricing or asymmetry reduction, both in their perception on prioritization, as well as estimating investments to each priority through independent estimation by each participator in a common Committee PA&citizens, Participatory Budgeting Committee, and second, presenting their project proposal, as well as defending it in front of the City Council, could produce a far better perceived performance by both sides.
Towards Zoomocracy – an Explorative Study on Virtual Democratic Decision Making in Swedish City Council Meetings in the Wake of the Covid-19 Pandemic
