Bridging the Gap: The Challenge of Implementing Participatory Budgeting in Scotland
Last week, Glasgow Caledonian University was buzzing with intellectual curiosity and fervour. The GCU Social Innovation Fair, held on the 18th and 19th of May, brought together some of the brightest minds in the field of social innovation. Representatives from Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Poland, and of course the UK, gathered to engage in thought-provoking discussions about social innovation. One topic that was particularly significant and relevant to our recent experience was Participatory Budgeting (PB), a practice in which citizens play a direct role in determining how public funds are allocated.
Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process that allows community members to decide how to allocate a portion of the public budget. Originally established in Puerto Alegre, Brazil in 1989, and introduced in the U.S. two decades later and in Scotland since 2014, PB has seen increasing adoption due to its numerous benefits, including the development of community leaders, fostering of civic engagement, and enhancement of public awareness. PB is structured into five stages: Design, Brainstorm, Develop, Vote, and Fund. Despite its lengthy implementation period, PB has proven effective in various U.S. jurisdictions as well as in Europe, Africa and, of course, South America.
At Prespect, we have been closely involved in one attempt at instigating PB and can provide a case study on how NOT to do it. One glaring anomaly that has been identified by, for example, Claire MacRae from GCU and Susan Paxton from the Scottish Community Development Centre is the disparity in the level of public engagement in PB processes between different nations.
Take Portugal, for example. In the Municipality of Cascais, PB is thriving. It’s organised and run by the local council, which invites all citizens to apply for funding consideration for their proposals. The shortlist is determined by citizen panels at large events organised by the council, and the final vote is as simple as sending an SMS message. For local projects, participation is astounding, with around 10,000 participants out of a population of roughly 120,000. That doesn’t sound like a high percentage, but compared to a few councillors it’s orders of magnitude higher, and the effect on the wider community is overwhelmingly positive.
For the successful implementation of PB, there are a few ground rules. PB must advance equity by involving a diverse range of community members and must offer stakes high enough to motivate participation, usually suggested as £1M per 100,000 population or 1%-15% of the budget. The process should also actively involve youth, as their unique perspectives and unbiased opinions can significantly contribute to the decision-making process. Importantly, PB is not a task to be offloaded to a growing hierarchy of third-party organisations; rather, a combination of full-time staff, volunteers, and community partners should share the responsibilities associated with PB. Despite the challenges associated with juggling priorities within a constrained budget, PB promotes mutual appreciation and understanding through community participation in funding decisions. When done well, voting events can be joyful celebrations of the good work happening in communities and an opportunity for groups and services to attract community support.
In contrast, the Scottish experience has been notably different and less encouraging. Our local councils tend to delegate decision-making and project initiation to semi-private/third-sector organisations, which often have staff sizes akin to council departments. These organisations are pre-assigned with making funding decisions. They create steering groups consisting of major institutional stakeholders (who themselves pose problems for our service users), who then decide on the priorities. Only then is a singular “citizens panel” formed from yet another organisation. By this point, the potential pool of participants has been whittled down to a small, self-selected group of individuals who effectively become gatekeepers within the funding ecosystem, whether they intend to or not. This was our experience in Edinburgh where PB was half-heartedly attempted and undermined by compartmentalised thinking, ignorance of process, self-interest and reluctance to relinquish power.
In essence, PB has enormous potential to transform the relationships between local communities and public institutions. To achieve this transformation, we must ensure diverse voices are heard in local decision-making. Actively engaging with communities to advance equality and eliminate inequalities is integral to participatory decision-making and the allocation of public resources.
So, how can we improve the situation in Scotland?
We need to encourage greater public engagement and foster a sense of collective responsibility. For PB to be successful, the local council must take the reins. Decision-making must be transparent and involve direct engagement with the community. It is crucial that the citizen panel includes a diverse group of community members rather than a small, self-selected group of individuals who are already stakeholders within the funding ecosystem. The councils should be aiming for thousands of people to make decisions in their communities with amounts that can make a difference.
We can learn from successful PB models, such as in Cascais, and apply these lessons here in Scotland. It won’t be an overnight fix, but by embracing a more inclusive and participatory model, we can make PB a potent tool for social change.
In conclusion, let’s take the spark from the GCU Social Innovation Fair and use it to ignite a commitment to a more engaged and transformative PB process in Scotland. Together, we can bridge the gap between our institutions and the communities they serve.
It’s time for our decisions to be made by us, not for us.
