Participatory budgeting

Citizen participation (→ overviews )
Participatory budgeting
Goal / function	Advice to decision-makers, consultation, civil decision
typical topics	Municipal finance (fully or partially)
context	Questions at the local level
typical clients	Local politics, local government
Duration	1 day to several years
Participants (number and selection)	1,100–20,000 people; Self-selection
geographical distribution	worldwide, v. a. South America and Europe
Source: Nanz / Fritsche, 2012, pp. 86–87

The participatory budget , including participatory budgeting and participatory budget called, is a technology developed in the 1980s, direct kind of (local) public participation . The administration of a city, a municipality or another administrative unit tries to achieve more budget transparency and allows the citizens to participate in at least part of the freely usable budget funds. The citizens agree on the use of the available funds independently in a deliberative process, which the administration mainly accompanies in a moderating and advising manner .

The first participatory budgeting (Orçamento participativo) was carried out in 1989 in Porto Alegre ( Brazil ). There are now almost 200 such municipalities in Brazil and over 1000 in all of Latin America. The transparency of the municipal budget is also proving to be an effective means of combating corruption . From there, the idea was "exported" to many parts of the world, including initiatives in this direction as part of the Local Agenda 21 . In 2015, the status report of the Buergerhaushalt.org portal named 71 participatory budgeting that were introduced or continued in Germany. Another 128 municipalities discussed the introduction of participatory budgeting.

Basics

aims

With participatory budgeting , cities usually try to achieve several goals, including:

• enable direct democracy with delegates who are responsible to those who send them,
• Greater participation of the population in local decision-making processes ( participatory democracy , citizen participation )
• Disempowerment of potentially corrupt politicians,
• Reduce waste of funds,
• Making politics enforceable for poorer, less well-represented citizens,
• Shift decisions to the level of those affected.

It should be noted here that the goals and arguments in favor of participatory budgeting can vary greatly depending on the specific individual case. Participatory budgeting in Germany, for example, provides for direct citizen participation instead of a delegate system.

definition

Is it enough if a procedure is referred to as participatory budgeting? Or is it just participatory budgeting when, as in Porto Alegre, investments are discussed and priorities are named? An examination of the practice shows that quite different procedures can be found under the term “participatory budgeting” (written surveys, distribution of household brochures, holding information events, provision of neighborhood funds, etc.) that have little in common. In order to ensure minimal comparability, the research project “European participatory budgeting” developed five criteria for local participatory budgeting, which are taken up in the scientific literature and used as a basis by more and more municipalities. According to this, participatory budgeting is defined as follows:

“In participatory budgeting, citizens without a political mandate participate in the creation and / or implementation of public finances. Five other criteria need to be added to this definition in Europe to distinguish participatory budgeting from other participatory processes:

1. At the center of the procedure are financial aspects, more precisely the discussion about limited resources.
2. Participation takes place at the level of the city as a whole or a district with its own political-administrative competencies (the district level alone is not enough).
3. It is a long-term process (an event or a referendum on financial issues is not participatory budgeting).
4. The consultation / decision of the citizens is based on a discussion process ( deliberation ) in the context of special meetings / forums (the opening up of existing procedures of representative democracy to "normal" citizens is not participatory budgeting)
5. The organizers must account for the results of the discussion.

Based on these criteria, there were over 55 participatory budgeting in Europe and ten in Germany in 2005. In a document published by the European Parliament in January 2016, the number of more than 1,300 participatory budgeting in Europe is mentioned.

Spread the idea

The model awarded at the UNO Habitat II conference (“Capital of Democracy”) is found in all of Brazil (over 70 municipalities such as Belo Horizonte , Belém or Recife ), in Europe ( Saint-Denis (Seine-Saint-Denis) , Barcelona ), North America ( Toronto , New York City , Chicago ) and even New Zealand in Christchurch attracted great interest.

In Germany, the cities of Monheim am Rhein and Blumberg tried out a citizen-oriented budget preparation procedure before a council decision in 1998 as part of the network of local authorities in the future , with positive results. From November 2000 to May 2004, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Ministry of the Interior of North Rhine-Westphalia carried out a joint project on this. Erlangen , Hamm , Castrop-Rauxel , Vlotho , Emsdetten , Hilden , Monheim are now working with elements of the process as it was tested in Porto Alegre. In Germany, the Greens and Die Linke in particular discuss the participatory budget and other forms of direct democracy in their local political papers. In 2004, a non-partisan list on the subject of participatory budgeting was successful in local elections in Pforzheim . The Citizen Participation Budget List (LBBH) received a mandate for 4.3%. The first participatory budgeting in a major German city started in the Berlin district of Lichtenberg (260,000 inhabitants) in 2005. The large cities of Hamburg and Freiburg im Breisgau also carried out participatory budgeting. In Potsdam , participatory budgeting has been discussed with citizens and partially formulated since 2006. Originally only the administrative budget part, but now also the “property budget” part at the request of the citizens. Cities such as Unterschleißheim near Munich or Cologne have recently made their own budget of EUR 100,000 available for the participatory budget for the city or, in the case of Cologne, for each city district, which serves to implement the ideas submitted by the citizens for urban development.

Low participation

While the introduction of participatory budgeting in Germany was initially marked by a certain euphoria in the press, politics and administration and was accompanied by an increase in the number of procedures carried out, there has been a decline in recent years. In 2011, 37 municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia alone had a participatory budget, but by 2016 their number fell to 16. The reason for the decision to discontinue the procedure is not infrequently the number of participants in NRW and elsewhere, which the cities perceive as too low become.

Contrary to the widespread opinion that the lack of response from the population is only due to the lack of interest on the part of the citizens, Zepic et al. (2017) identify a large number of other barriers to participation as part of a research project. The limitation of the procedural period, which often limits participation to a period of only a few weeks a year, lack of expertise on the part of citizens in budgetary issues, insufficient skills in dealing with digital media, data protection concerns, lack of anonymity or complicated registration processes in online participation procedures or low trust in The implementation of the proposals are just a few examples of the total of 26 identified barriers.

Procedure

The Porto Alegre procedure

Using the example of Porto Alegre, it is explained how a participatory budget can work.

The procedure is determined by the citizens

The starting point was the decision to involve citizens where they live, in the district. The citizens should remain the actors in the process, which is why the process was given an autonomy vis-à-vis politics and administration. The process has been continuously developed by the citizens with the support of the administration since 1989.

The equity budget cycle

(OP = Orçamento Participativo)

The cycle of the surgical procedure begins in March of each year, lasts ten months and is repeated every year. The first level of the process is 21 basic assemblies :

• Citizens' assemblies are convened in the 16 districts of the city of Porto Alegre , to which several hundred citizens appear on average. Since 1993, the number of participants at the official meetings has always been between 10 and 20 thousand. The meetings begin with an accountability report of the elected OP councilors and the mayor or his representative. At these meetings, the city administration presents its previous work, a representative from the finance department provides information about the financial possibilities of the municipality, presents the city administration's program and reveals the city administration's rules of the game. These rules of the game concern z. B. Construction standards or responsibilities and are coordinated with the operating theater committees.

• Since 1994, five thematic forums have also been offered in which the subjects of transport and traffic , health and social affairs , economic development and municipal tax policy , education, culture and leisure , as well as municipal organization and urban development are discussed at the city-wide level . Numerous experts work in the thematic forums, so the well-educated middle classes are particularly represented here.

The district and thematic assemblies send delegates to their delegate assemblies , which form the second level of the process. These delegates are mostly representatives of civic organizations such as residents' associations, women's organizations, environmental protection groups, small and medium-sized enterprises, farmers, street vendors, teachers, sports clubs, associations for the disabled, trade unions, but also some individuals.

From March to May, the delegates discuss the applications from the population and harmonize them with the city administration's budget planning. You decide on the prioritization of the project. The public assemblies of delegates then meet weekly for two months, usually in the evening, without the city administration. Official meetings with the city administration will then take place again in June / July.

The third level of the procedure is the OP Council , which is elected by the Assembly of Delegates. He coordinates the work of the delegates in the city districts and the thematic forums at the city level and works closely with the finance department and the city planning office (July / August). The high organizational coordination and communication effort is supported by 20–30 employees of the Citizens Office who are trained in moderation. B. Organize rooms, get experts.

In September the budget prepared in this way is handed over to the mayor by the OP advisory board. His authority then coordinates the coordination of the disputed issues. In October, the draft budget is submitted to the city council, which decides on it in November. Because of the high level of publicity, the city council only made minor changes to the investment budget that was drawn up in this way.

In the further course, the measures such as water or sewage supply, asphalting of roads, lighting are carried out.

After all, the citizens check in the following years whether the measures decided have also been implemented, e.g. B. decrease construction work in their residential areas themselves.

experience

The first two years it was very difficult to do the exercise in democracy. There was almost no free budget for investments, but after the first projects that had been decided on, the number of participants increased sharply. Although the process is long, it is now producing visible results. In the meantime, decisions in the double-digit millions are being made.

The initial rejection of many council members has now largely subsided, although they complain about their disempowerment. The investment budget in Brazil has long since emerged from the “exotic” corner. In the state elections at the end of 1998, the then ruling bourgeois opposition party ( PMDB ) campaigned for its own part with its own variant of the OP. The state election was won by the PT, which also disseminated the OP procedure at the state level.

The OP can show an increased interest of the citizens in the long-term development of their community, around 30,000 residents take part each year. Accountability, transparency and the new accountability of citizens have strengthened citizens' communal identity. Corruption has also decreased noticeably. Citizens groups not previously involved in politics in the city were able to be won over to “participate” through the OP procedure. The fear expressed at the beginning that the citizens have too little knowledge about administration and budget preparation was resolved through close cooperation between the non-governmental organization (NGO) CIDADE and the finance department. In the first 10 years over 2,000 citizens were trained in matters of budget law, budget preparation and moderation methods.

One experience of the Brazilian example of Porto Alegre is that autonomy from administrative procedures works and is also necessary for success.

One positive effect of this model is the fairer distribution of urban resources and finances. Funds were given to all parts of the city, but poorer ones were given preference, which was also acceptable for residents of richer neighborhoods due to the transparency of the process. One effect was the increase in households with a sewage connection from 46% (1989) to 84% (1999). Further programs of the city administration promoted the construction of schools and apartments, e.g. B. by supporting housing cooperatives.

The existing structure of the OP councils and the advisory board was also used in other urban planning contexts, e.g. B. when Carrefour wanted to set up a new supermarket in the Zona Norte . Not everything was accepted here with the argument of “job creation”. Conditions of a social nature were formulated which Carrefour then accepted, including: a. the construction of a kindergarten, selection guidelines for employees, the sale of local products.

Procedure in Europe

Taking into account the definition, according to Sintomer / Herzberg / Röcke, six ideal types of participatory budgeting can be constructed for Europe:

• Porto Alegre in Europe,
• Participatory budgeting of organized interests,
• Community funds at district and city level,
• private-public negotiating table,
• citizen-oriented participation,
• Public finance consultation.

The real examples can be more or less close to the individual types. The following describes the procedures in pairs. The illustration is taken from the text From Porto Alegre to Europe , which can be found in full under the downloads on the homepage www.buergerhaushalt.org.

Porto Alegre in Europe and participatory budgeting of organized interests

The Porto Alegre participatory budgeting has had a direct impact on some processes in Europe, such as B. that of the Spanish city of Cordoba (320,000 inhabitants). Participatory budgeting was introduced there in 2001, which is very similar to the Brazilian model. This prompted us to name the ideal type derived from this example “Porto Alegre in Europe”. What are the similarities and differences compared to the organized interests model? While participation in the first ideal type is aimed at individual citizens, in the second clubs, associations and other organized groups are the main actors. The subjects of participation are also different: The “Porto Alegre in Europe” model is primarily about investments and projects, while participatory budgeting for organized interests focuses on the discussion of political norms and concepts. B. Specifications for the content orientation of the housing, education, environmental or local transport policy, etc. Another difference is in the handling of the proposals. In the case of the “Porto Alegre in Europe” model, the municipal council still makes the final decision on the budget from a formal and legal point of view, but the commitment to implement the participatory budgeting proposals is very high, so that citizens can speak of de facto decision-making authority. As with the Brazilian model, this process has a distribution key for the investments. However, the criteria of Porto Alegre do not necessarily apply. Other indicators, such as e.g. B. the number of social assistance recipients in the district, the participation in the meetings or the participation of the citizens in the implementation of the projects. In the participatory budgeting of organized interests, however, it is an advisory consultation. For this purpose, new bodies outside of the classical representative democracy are created. There is no priority setting here. There are also no distribution criteria in this model, but funding criteria are possible for certain target groups. There is a relatively good deliberative quality in both models. Discussions are not only held in the large plenary session, but also in manageable forums, committees or delegate bodies.

The strength of these models lies in the potential for good deliberative quality. A more in-depth discussion allows the development of detailed proposals to solve problems or to clarify important questions. This can e.g. B. go so far that the participants develop expertise on equipping schools or better integrating minorities. Although effects can certainly be observed, in practice there is still a challenge in combining the procedures with a comprehensive modernization process related to the entire administration. In the Porto Alegre model, the potential conflict between the participation of individual citizens and organized interest groups can become problematic. This is e.g. B. the case when established associations and initiatives fear disadvantages for their funding. There is as yet no direct example of the organized interests model in Europe. The participatory budget of Albacete (150,000 inhabitants) can be understood as a hybrid of both models: As with the model of organized interests, associations and other groups are the most important participants; however, they draw up a list of priorities which also include investments, as is otherwise typical of the “Porto Alegre in Europe” model.

Community funds at district and city level and private-public negotiating table

The model of community funds and the model of the private-public negotiating table have so far only played a marginal role in Europe. However, they show interesting development prospects for participatory budgeting. The basic commonality between the two models is that there is a fund for investments or for projects in the social, environmental or cultural areas etc. Such a fund exists e.g. B. in the British city of Bradford (467,000 inhabitants) and in Polish Płock (128,000 inhabitants). What is special about the models is that they are relatively independent of the municipal budget, because the money under discussion does not come from the local administration or only in part. For this reason, the municipal council does not have the final say on the acceptance of the proposals, but a committee, committee or delegate assembly, which is also responsible for drawing up a list of priorities. Participants in both procedures are organized groups such as associations, initiatives, etc. The deliberative quality can be assessed as good, as several meetings take place with a manageable group of participants.

At the private-public negotiating table, part of the money is raised by private companies. In Płock, in addition to the city administration and the UN development program, the oil company ORLEN SA has a 50% stake in a fund totaling around 300,000 euros. Due to the financial participation in this model, the private sponsor can be expected to influence the design of the procedure. In contrast, the rules of the community fund are decided by the participants autonomously. The economy is excluded, the money comes from a national program or is generated by the institution itself. As can be deduced from the term “community fund”, the model attaches great importance to promoting socially disadvantaged groups. In 2004 in Bradford, as part of the Neighborhood Renewal Program, a fund of more than 875,000 euros was set up exclusively for groups from disadvantaged neighborhoods, which, similar to the “Socially Integrative City” program in Germany, is intended for projects in neighborhoods with special development needs. A special feature is that in the ideal type of community fund, the applicants take on the implementation of the projects themselves. This is also possible with the private-public negotiating table, but it is not a necessary criterion for constructing the model.

These two models also have advantages and disadvantages. The connection to local politics is weak or not at all pronounced. After all, the municipal council retains a certain influence at the private-public negotiating table, as part of the money is raised by it. The influence of the private donor depends on the amount of his contribution: Is it a question of equal financing between the city and the company or does one of them play a dominant role? The community fund, for its part, also shows new possibilities for participatory budgeting. Here could e.g. B. national or Europe-wide programs of urban and infrastructure promotion are locally linked with participatory budgeting. This process could then explicitly refer to the promotion of disadvantaged neighborhoods or groups of residents. An advantage of both models is that civic engagement is very pronounced in them, as those affected are involved in the implementation of the projects themselves.

Community participation and consultation on public finances

While examples of the citizen participation model can be found primarily in France, the consultation model on public finances is particularly characteristic of participatory budgeting in Germany. Both models have in common that they are purely consultative. This means that the results of the discussion are summarized by the administration and not by the affected citizens themselves. In contrast to the models presented so far, there is no coordination and no hierarchy of the proposals by the participants for the ideal types. Rather, it is a process of “selective listening”, which means that the government or local council only implements proposals that are in line with their own interests. (cf. spectrum of citizen participation ) Civil society has only a weak influence on the design of the procedures. It should be noted that these models do not pursue any social goals, which is why criteria for the distribution of investment funds cannot be found here. Another thing they have in common is that clubs hardly play a role or no role in shaping the process. Participation takes place through citizens' assemblies, which are invited to participate via announcements in the media, by letter or by addressing them personally. In Germany, for the purpose of mobilization (additionally), a random selection of participants from the residents 'register is often made, who receive a personal invitation from the mayor to the citizens' forum (Röcke 2005). This method is u. a. in Emsdetten (35,000 inhabitants), Hilden (56,000 inhabitants), Vlotho (21,000 inhabitants) and in the Berlin district of Treptow-Köpenick (233,000 inhabitants).

The procedures differ in that the model of closeness to the citizen primarily includes the neighborhoods and can also involve investments at this level. At the level of the city as a whole, it is no longer about investments, but about general (normative) goals. There is no specific calculation of the costs, which is why a coupling with processes of strategic planning is possible. The term “closeness to the citizen” means two aspects in particular: On the one hand, it refers to geographical proximity, i.e. the participation of the citizens in the individual districts, and on the other hand, the term can be used for close contact between the community leadership or administration and the Citizens stand. Following this example, z. B. the mayor of Bobigny (45,000 inhabitants) twice a year open meetings in the districts, where he answers questions from the residents. The “consultation on public finances” model, on the other hand, is primarily about making the city's financial situation transparent. Information on the general budget is provided in brochures, on the Internet and in press releases. The model exists in two variants. In the one, which is most widespread, services of public institutions and areas of responsibility of administration are presented. It is about the income and expenditure of libraries, swimming pools, kindergartens or street cleaning, sewage treatment or garbage disposal etc. The citizens can then express their suggestions in an open plenum or in specific forums. The second variant of the “public finance consultation” model aims to compensate for a budget deficit, such as E.g. in Emsdetten in North Rhine-Westphalia, where in 2002 the citizens were presented five options for a balanced budget: reduction of personnel and operating costs, reduction of voluntary tasks, withdrawal from the reserve or increase of taxes and fees. With the help of a questionnaire, each participant was able to develop their own proposal from the combination of the above options. At the end of the event, the overall recommendation of the citizens' forum was calculated from the individual opinions. The deliberative quality of the model is generally low, as in most cases there is hardly any time for a more in-depth discussion. In the case of the model of closeness to the citizen, on the other hand, the quality of the discussion can be better because sometimes the work is carried out in small groups that meet several times over a longer period of time.

What makes the 'public finance consultation' model interesting is its connection with the process of administrative modernization. But how can this be strengthened? The broadening of the discussion may contribute to this. In this way, the administration could prepare specific questions in which the feedback from the citizens contributes directly to the improvement of public services. Example: "Do you see areas where street cleaning should be intensified or are there places where, in your opinion, cleaning is too often?" One restriction is that in the "consultation on public finances" model, participation is only "appendages" a comprehensive modernization process. In addition, public participation usually only consists of one or two events, but not a “participation cycle”, a series of coordinated assemblies. As mentioned, the model of closeness to the citizen has an advantage in the relatively good discussion between citizens and administration or council members. A disadvantage of both models is that the implementation of the proposals is not binding and the autonomy of civil society is weak.

Example municipalities

Argentina

• La Plata
• Rosario

Brazil

• Porto Alegre

Germany

Under German municipal law the stands municipal councils , the budget law to, d. H. the municipal budget is decided by the elected municipal council as a statute and is subject to state supervision .

The participation of the community citizens in the drawing up of the budget charter is only provided for in exceptional cases. For example, Section 80 (3) of the municipal code for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia gives residents and taxpayers the opportunity to raise objections to the draft statutes. Some municipal regulations provide for so-called knowledgeable residents to be included in the advice of the municipal committees, such as the budget committee. However, these citizens only have a right to consult, not to vote. As a rule, citizens only have the right to attend public meetings of the budget committees and to inspect the statutes that have been adopted and published.

Citizens' petitions about the budget charter are generally inadmissible.

On the other hand, it is permissible, within the framework of statutory budgetary principles such as § 51 HGrG, to include separate budget titles for civic initiatives with a local reference in an approved and confirmed budget charter, the use of which the citizens can decide on in individual cases. As a so-called citizens' budget, for example, the possibility has become established of submitting proposals for a specific use of this budget to the municipality and allowing the residents to vote on the proposals. The application for certain project funds is also practiced, the allocation of which is then decided by a citizens' jury (so-called Kiezfonds).

Examples can be found in:

• Bad Freienwalde
• Bergheim
• Berlin-Lichtenberg , since 2005
• Bischofsheim (Mainspitze)
• Bonn
• cottbus
• Eberswalde
• Emsdetten
• Erfurt
• eat
• Freiburg in Breisgau
• Gera
• Glienicke / Northern Railway
• Groß-Umstadt
• Hamburg
• Hilden
• Hohen Neuendorf
• Jena
• Kerpen
• Cologne
• Lahr / Black Forest
• Mansfeld-Südharz district
• Waldeck-Frankenberg district
• Langenhagen
• Leipzig
• Lüdenscheid , once for the 2011 budget
• Münster , since 2011
• Nauen
• Norderstedt , since 2011
• Potsdam , since 2006
• Prenzlau
• Rheinstetten
• Schwedt / Oder
• Solingen
• Stuttgart , since 2011
• trier
• Troisdorf
• Wildeshausen
• Worms
• Wuppertal
• Wustermark

France

• Bobigny
• Saint-Denis

literature

• Neaera Abers: Inventing Local Democracy. Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder 2000, ISBN 978-1-55587-893-1 .
• Bertelsmann Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, municipal community center for administrative management (ed.): The participatory budget - a manual for practice. Gütersloh 2002.
• Bertelsmann Foundation, State of North Rhine-Westphalia (Ed.): Municipal participatory budgeting: A guide for practice. Gütersloh 2004.
• Petra Brangsch, Lutz Brangsch: Budget, Budget Policy and Democracy. Dietz, Berlin 2005, ISBN 978-3-320-02959-3 .
• Federal Agency for Civic Education (Ed.): Carsten Herzberg, participatory budgeting in large cities. Working materials for implementation. Bonn 2005. Full text as PDF.
• Ursula Eising: Possibilities and Limits of Citizen Participation in Cooperative Democracy. A critical inventory of participatory budgeting (diploma thesis). Constance 2005.
• Jochen Franzke, Heinz Kleger (Hrsg.): Municipal participatory budgeting in theory and practice using the example of Potsdam. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, Potsdam 2006, ISBN 978-3-939469-21-6 . Full text as PDF.
• Carsten Herzberg: From citizen to solidarity commune. Local democracy in times of globalization. VS Verlag, Hamburg 2009, ISBN 978-3-89965-372-4 .
• Oliver Märker and Ulrich Nitschke: Participatory budgeting as a framework for a culture of participation, in: Ködelpeter & Nitschke: Young people plan and design living environments. Participation as an answer to social change, pp. 129–142, VS-Verlag: Wiesbaden 2008, ISBN 978-3-8350-7016-5 .
• Misereor, DGB, Service Agency Communities in One World / InWEnt gGmbH (Ed.): Learning from the South. Porto Alegres participation budget becomes a model for direct democracy. Without a place, 2002.
• Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg, Anja Röcke: Participatory budgeting in Europe: a realistic utopia. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 978-3-531-17083-1 .
• Sebastian Weise: Participatory budgeting in Berlin. The participatory budgeting project of the Lichtenberg district. Lit-Verlag, Hamburg / Münster 2007, ISBN 978-3-8258-0083-3 .
• Jochen Franzke, Heinz Kleger: participatory budgeting. Opportunities and Limits. edition sigma, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-8360-7236-6 .
• Volker Vorwerk, Toni Loosen-Bach, 2010: Participatory Budgeting in Germany and the Trier Example. A new institution is conquering the town halls, in: Alternative Kommunalpolitik 1/2010: 41–43
• Volker Vorwerk (Ed.), 2009: Participatory budgeting and gender budgeting - (how) does it work together ?, City of Cologne full text as PDF.
• Volker Vorwerk, Maria Gonçalves, Peter Hedwig, 2016: Revitalizing Cologne's participatory budget. A concept proposal is developed from the evaluation of the process, the perspective of those involved, comparison with other procedures, citizen knowledge full text as PDF.
• Volker Vorwerk, 2008: Citizen Participation Budget 2008/09. Procedure and results. Internet - Questionnaire - Citizens' Forum, City of Bergheim Full text as pdf.
• Robert Zepic, Marcus Dapp, Helmut Krcmar (2017): E-participation and nobody participates. The secret of low participation rates in German participatory budgeting. In: HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Volume 54, No. 4, August 1, 2017. ISSN  1436-3011 , pp. 488-501. Full text.

Web links

Overviews and supporting institutions in Germany

• The Internet platform for participatory budgeting of the Federal Agency for Civic Education and the Service Point for Municipalities in One World
• Service point for municipalities in one world under the umbrella of InWEnt
• Foundation cooperation
• Berlin model / guidelines of the Federal Agency for Civic Education

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Patrizia Nanz , Miriam Fritsche: Handbook Citizen Participation: Procedures and Actors, Opportunities and Limits , bpb (vol. 1200), 2012 (PDF 1.37 MB) →  to order the printed edition at bpb.de.
2. ^ BpB: Transparency and Proximity to the Citizen, First International Congress on Participatory Budgeting, January 2010 Berlin
3. ↑ Ermert, Julian; Pützer, Hannah; Ruesch, Michelle: 8th status report of the Buergerhaushalt.org portal. June 2015 (PDF) June 2015, accessed on October 26, 2017 . 
4. ↑ Brangsch, Petra; Brangsch, Lutz: Why? How so? Why? Arguments for participatory budgeting . Ed .: Kommunalpolitisches Forum e. V. Berlin.
5. ^ Röcke, Anja., Herzberg, Carsten .: Participatory budgeting in Europe - a realistic utopia? Between participatory democracy, administrative modernization and social justice . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 978-3-531-92176-1 .
6. ↑ Sgueo, Gianluca: Participatory budgeting. An innovative approach. (PDF) European Parliament, accessed on October 26, 2017 . 
7. ↑ Participatory budget. City of Unterschleißheim, accessed on October 26, 2017 . 
8. ↑ Participatory budget 2017. (No longer available online.) City of Cologne, archived from the original on October 26, 2017 ; Retrieved October 26, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
9. ↑ The citizen as a chamberlain. The number of hands-on budgets in NRW is falling. Westfälischer Anzeiger, October 16, 2017, accessed October 26, 2017 . 
10. ↑ Tobias Rösmann: The end of participatory budgeting . April 22, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2017 . 
11. ↑ Robert Zepic, Marcus Dapp, Helmut Krcmar: E-participation and nobody participates . In: HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik . tape 54 , no. 4 , August 1, 2017, ISSN  1436-3011 , p. 488–501 , doi : 10.1365 / s40702-017-0328-z ( springer.com [accessed October 26, 2017]).
12. ↑ [1] (PDF; 297 kB) Status: April 6, 2012
13. ↑ Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. As of April 6, 2012  
14. ^ City of Porto Alegre, Brazil
15. ↑ Material- rich website of the NGO Cidade, which monitors the investment budget in Porto Alegre ( Memento of the original of May 24, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
16. ^ The World Bank on Porto Alegre
17. ↑ cf. Section 43 (4) of the municipal constitution of the State of Brandenburg (BbgKVerf)
18. ↑ Participatory budgeting: Participation of the citizens in the budget procedure Brandenburg State Center for Civic Education, accessed on October 24, 2018
19. ↑ cf. Statute on the Citizens' Budget of the City of Prenzlau published in the Official Gazette for the City of Prenzlau 05/2017 of June 3, 2017, p. 3
20. ↑ Karolina Wrobel: With the Kiezfonds, neighborhood projects can be achieved Berliner Woche , May 26, 2017
21. ^ Bad Freienwalde: Citizens' budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
22. ^ Documentation of participatory budgeting of the city of Bergheim
23. ^ Berlin-Lichtenberg district
24. ↑ Municipality of Bischofsheim ( Memento of the original from May 8, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
25. ^ City of Bonn
26. ↑ City of Cottbus ( Memento of the original from April 5, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
27. ↑ [2]
28. ↑ City of Emsdetten (North Rhine-Westphalia)
29. ^ Participatory budget / citizen participation budget Erfurt . erfurt.de. Retrieved July 3, 2011.
30. ↑ Citizen-involved budget security "Essen gets the curve!" Of the city of Essen ( memento of the original from October 30, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
31. ↑ Participation budget of the city of Freiburg ( Memento of the original from July 12, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
32. ↑ [3]
33. ^ Glienicke / Nordbahn: participatory budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
34. ↑ City of Groß-Umstadt (Hessen) ( Memento of the original from July 18, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
35. ^ City of Hamburg
36. ↑ City of Hilden  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
37. ↑ [4]
38. ↑ [5]
39. ↑ City of Kerpen
40. ↑ City of Cologne (2008) ( Memento of the original from April 26, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
41. ↑ City of Cologne (2010) ( Memento of the original from March 17, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
42. ↑ Lahr: City Gulden Lahr. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
43. ↑ Mansfeld-Südharz district
44. ↑ Landkreis Waldeck-Frankenberg ( Memento of the original from August 25, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
45. ^ City of Langenhagen
46. ^ City of Leipzig
47. ↑ Lüdenscheid - participatory budgeting ( Memento from July 5, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) (see also older and newer archives )
48. ↑ City of Münster
49. ^ City of Nauen: Citizens' Budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
50. ^ City of Norderstedt
51. ↑ Potsdam
52. ^ City of Prenzlau: Prenzlau Citizens' Budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
53. ↑ Stadt Rheinstetten (BaWü) ( Memento of the original dated February 11, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
54. ^ City of Schwedt / Oder: Citizens' budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
55. ↑ Citizen-involved budget security "Solingen saves!" Of the city of Solingen
56. ^ Stuttgart participatory budget
57. ↑ Participatory budget of the city of Trier (2009 to 2016)
58. ^ City of Troisdorf
59. ↑ Participatory budget of the city of Wildeshausen (2011, 2012)
60. ↑ Worms Dialog ( Memento of the original from December 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
61. ^ City of Wuppertal: Citizens' budget Wuppertal. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
62. ^ Community Wustermark: Citizens' budget. Retrieved October 23, 2018 . 
63. ^ Bobigny, France
64. ↑ St. Denis, France