The Global Adoption of PB

This chapter develops a framework to explain how and why governments adopt and adapt PB as it spreads around the world. The chapter identifies three waves of adoption: 1989 through the mid-1990s; mid-1990s through mid-2000s; and mid-2000s through 2020. Within each wave, the authors identify where PB is adopted and who is driving adoption. They identify and explain key transformations in the areas of scale/place of adoption, decision-making rules, and social justice considerations during each wave. This chapter also provides a typology to help categorize the global patterns of change that we see across the PB landscape. The chapter identifies six types of PB programs, including: Empowered Democracy and Redistribution; Deepening Democracy through Community Mobilization; Mandated by National Governments; Digital Participation; Social Accountability and Development; Efficient Governance. The typology links PB’s core principles and the political motivations of the main actors promoting adoption. The typology then also captures the differences across the cases and helps the reader better understand the diversity of PB programs and outcomes.

Theorizing PB’s Effects on Individuals and Communities

This chapter develops an original “theory of change” that connects PB programs to three community-level outcomes: the promotion of accountability, expansion of civil society, and improvements in well-being. To explain the variation in outcomes, this explanatory framework includes macro-level (political context, decentralization, economic conditions) and meso-level (government support, configuration of civil society, state capacity) factors that condition PB programs’ impacts. The discussion then moves beyond the macro and meso to drill down to “variation in program design.” The chapter identifies several rules (scale/level of adoption, presence of social justice rules, program emphasis on social inclusion, vote rules, and oversight process) that significantly influence the outcomes that PB programs produce. Thus, this chapter illuminates how variation in the macro, meso, and PB design rules condition and constrain the types of outcomes associated with PB. The chapter concludes by linking the theory of change to the PB Types (introduced in Chapter 1) to theorize how each PB program type is likely to be associated with distinct impacts.

Where It All Began

Latin America is PB’s birthplace and the region where it was first widely adopted. PB currently exists in almost every country of this region of the world. This chapter documents PB development in Brazil, its spread from Brazil to other countries as well as PB’s transformation since the 1990s, when it changed from a social justice program to a policy tool that promotes citizen empowerment and community mobilization. Latin America also led the way with the first mandated programs, as Peru’s national government was the first country in the world to require that all subnational governments adopt PB. Latin American PB programs are among the most studied in the world, which means that solid research findings identify when and where PB produces significant social and political change. Most importantly, there are many comparative, longitudinal, and large-N studies from Brazil that demonstrate that PB is generating positive change. But, research on other countries, such as Peru and Mexico, suggest that PB’s impact is much weaker in those countries. The chapter provides a summary of the rich body of evidence that has emerged since 1989, and describes PB in Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, and Mexico.

Parallel Paths to Local Democracy in Asia

Extensive experimentation with new democratic institutions took place in Asia across the 1980s and 1990s, but PB only formally arrived at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The spread of PB across Asia thus stems from democratic impulses to empower citizens in new democracies. This chapter focuses on three countries—South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia—to illuminate key trends in the region. The chapter shows that a small number of local governments initially adopted “PB-like” programs. Positive evaluations of these programs then spurred national governments to mandate PB to incorporate large segments of the population in public decision-making. An additional focus, toward the end of this chapter, is the expansion of PB to China because it helps to illuminate how the malleability of PB’s rules enables local governments to implement the program in authoritarian contexts; the use of PB by authoritarian governments is one of the most controversial issues facing PB today. The cases from Asia reviewed in this chapter offer the promise of social and political change. However, the limitations on evidence means that enough information about these programs’ specific impacts is still lacking.

South-to-South and Donor-driven Diffusion in Sub-Saharan Africa

Governments in sub-Saharan Africa began to adopt PB in the early 2000s. The World Bank, USAID, DFID, and other international organization led the push to expand PB. By 2019, the region included more than nine hundred programs. PB’s diffusion across sub-Saharan Africa has led to its transformation in scale, rules, and impact. Most PB programs in sub-Saharan Africa focus on building accountability and allowing participants to select small-scale development projects. These programs are located both in major cities (Maputo, Nairobi) as well as in poor, rural areas across the region. These programs are intended to improve local governance, but the involvement of international donors means that local governments must address their concerns as well as those of participants. The programs also emphasize placing new development projects in poor, marginalized communities, thus retaining potential for improving well-being. This chapter documents these trends by focusing on PB in Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Senegal, South Africa, and Uganda.

Conclusion: The Frontiers of PB

This chapter summarizes the main findings about PB’s adoption, adaptation, and impact. It raises questions about PB’s future and the limited evidence that continues to hamper researchers and policymakers’ ability to make key policy recommendations. PB is now used in settings as diverse as large cities in wealthy industrialized democracies, rural, low-income villages in countries governed by semi-authoritarian regimes, municipalities of middle-income countries in the Global South, and a variety of contexts in authoritarian countries. This diversity of program types and institutional contexts showcases the allure of PB around the world. Yet, it also highlights the challenges facing policymakers as they consider creating their own programs. The chapter ends with a conceptual discussion to guide policymakers as they adopt or support PB in the future.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the reader to PB’s core principles and basic institutional design. The core principles include voice, vote, social justice, social inclusion, and oversight. All PB programs adhere to these principles, but each program gives different weights to each principle, which helps to account for the differences in program design around the world. The chapter provides a detailed explanation of PB, based on the Porto Alegre model, which emerged as the early example that other governments sought to replicate. The chapter also introduces three guiding questions that shape the rest of the book: How has PB transformed during the past thirty years as it spreads around the globe? What are the causal mechanisms through which PB programs may produce social and political change? To what extent have PB programs actually generated this social and political change? The authors emphasize these questions as critical for advancing theoretical and empirical debates surrounding PB as well as participatory democratic institutions in general.

Re-engaging Citizens in Europe and North America

The spread of PB in the North Atlantic region (Europe, the United States, and Canada) is taking place as citizen apathy, declining trust, social exclusion, and growing inequalities spread in these wealthier democracies. By 2016, major cities such as New York City, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Toronto, and Seville adopted some form of PB. The national governments in Poland and Portugal now mandate some form of PB. The authors see significant institutional innovation in these PB processes as PB’s original rules have been reimagined to address different types of problems. New York City and Chicago initiated their PB programs at sub-municipal levels. Paris, Madrid, and Barcelona had adapted their PB programs to strongly emphasize online participation. At the broadest level, PB in Europe and North America is more heavily geared toward civic education and community empowerment than toward the redistribution of spending priorities. In some place PB remains a democratic institution that retains some of the radical features of the first wave but it is also a policymaking tool in other places, designed to generate government efficiencies. Most importantly, most programs retain the radical idea that a wide variety of citizens, especially those from politically weaker and more marginalized groups, should be directly involved in decision-making.