about the book

_
The World Atlas of Participatory Budgeting represents the widest compilation of data, to date, on the situation of these processes on the planet. This is the result of collaborative work and the enormous generosity of more than 70 authors, who voluntarily made themselves available to collect and analyse information that would enable to understand the reality of these initiatives in very diverse quadrants.One of the main motivations of this initiative is to assess the disseminator outreach of Participatory Budgeting and to understand the main trends, over the last 30 years, ensuring a first-level analysis on the data of each country, and in a second moment, on the different continents.

On these pages, the reader will find many reasons of interest, unreleased data and surprising results.

Book Download Page

The methodology
​_

Since the early concept of the Atlas design, it became quite evident that its operationalization would only be feasible through the creation of a network of focal points of authors in different countries, which was only possible thanks to the previous work done in the book “Hope for Democracy” and that was later amplified under a collaborative paradigm between the respective authors through personal contacts and institutions in order to identify academics, researchers and activists qualified to collect data in other countries where there was no interaction established before.
Also, researching online through specialized bibliography and websites focused on Citizen Participation and Participatory Budgeting issues allowed us to strengthen the authors network, especially in countries that usually do not share information with the international scenario. Being that said, it was possible to detect 76 authors in 71 countries, and in some others where it was not possible to find any, like it was mentioned before, an online research was conducted to accomplish this task.
Thus, in order to gather information about the Participatory Budgeting experiences taking place around the world, the Atlas team created a questionnaire that was used as a common tool to simplify and homogenize the collected data from local and regional interlocutors. All the authors filled up the same instrument. This questionnaire is composed by a series of standard questions written in four different languages (English, French, Spanish and Portuguese). For each question, a short description or an exemple was presented in order to facilitate its completion.
The creation of the questionnaire with common indicators for all countries has an additional advantage, that was not anticipated initially. Some authors had to collect data that they did not have originally so they can incorporate these indicators into their information systems.
Therefore, it can be considered that an extra benefit emanates from this project, which is the creation of a common information system about Participatory Budgeting on a large scale. Furthermore, Participatory Budgeting processes are well known for their large methodological flexibility, which makes it difficult to define a single and consensual concept that applies to all the initiatives. Hence, for the purposes of this research and for an adequate filling of the questionnaire, it was necessary to establish a common understanding on what a Participatory Budgeting is. Thereby, the gathered data will provide a more concrete and effective approach of the complex reality of these experiences around the world.

read more

Being that said, it was proposed that the Participatory Budgeting experiences hold the following characteristics:

1. It must be a process that involves a specific portion or the entire amount of an institution’s budget, so that can be freely and independent decided for all the citizens participating in the initiative. This feature comprises two more items:
​

• The type of the institution.
  Despite, the fact that an overwhelming number of initiatives are promoted by the local government, it’s important to take into consideration those experiences organized by other levels of government such as regional, state and national. Also, processes developed by private, lucrative and associative organizations should be included.
  
  
• The participants.
  There are different models. The most common is the universal access, which is open to individuals of a certain territory or institution. However, those processes aimed at more specific audiences will also be taken into account, such as initiatives addressed to a particular social sector like young people, women, immigrants, etc. or at a much more precise target as officials of an entity or company, partners of an association, among other options. Also, representative groups or lager communities (lottery system).

2. The initiative must be organized in two successive cycles, focusing on the decision-making phase, in which the participants are able to make proposals and also the execution one regarding the period of time where the projects are implemented.

3. It should be a continuous practice, meaning that the implementation of the project has to be periodic, taking place during a certain period of time.


In nine of the countries portrayed in the Atlas, it was not possible to count on the collaboration of local authors available for data collection in a timely manner, namely in Angola, Chile, Costa Rica, Estonia, Lithuania, France, Guatemala, Panama and Paraguay. In these cases, the team conducted numerous online investigations in order to: first, find authors with scientific papers or public information systems on the subject; second, contact with these authors and request their collaboration; third, if it was impossible to ensure such contact or obtain a timely response, the Atlas team completed the questionnaire, quoting the respective authors. In all the cases mentioned, we aimed to ensure that the information used was reliable and up to date.

The mapping of Participatory Budgeting on a global scale is always an exercise of enormous difficulty and complexity. The product presented here is by nature incomplete. We assume this limitation without any reservations. This publication should be understood as a process under construction and as a result of a collective effort of people who, with their conceptual orientations, institutional, political and cultural background, as well as their time limitations, have made the best possible contribution to the result presented here.

The number of Participatory Budgeting processes in the world is not accurate. It is always an approximation to reality and a contribution to the construction of knowledge on the matter, in its different latitudes.

The phenomenon of PBs is much richer and more diverse than what can be imagined and portrayed in a publication like this. We are convinced that in some contexts there is an abusive use of the term Participatory Budgeting. Whenever there were doubts about the data presented by some authors, the Atlas coordination team asked for clarification and more concrete evidence about the correct use of the term PB. This was a very rich dialogue, which allowed us to understand the political, institutional and social circumstances in which these processes are taking place in different parts of the world.

We admit that PB numbers in some countries, no more than three, are overestimated or outdated. This does not, in our opinion, compromise the final outcome, to the extent that i) there are other countries with PBs not represented in the Atlas; ii) we understand this work as part of an evolving process.

Moreover, in order to enrich this project about the current phenome of Participatory Budgeting, data from international indexes published by different organizations was collected, namely: “Democracy Index 2018”, “Corruption Perception Index 2018”, “Human Development Index 2018” and “World Happiness Index 2019”.

The aim of this was to compare the outcomes of the global indexes with the territorial distribution of Participatory Budgeting experiences, to better understand the context in which these processes developed in the World. It is not pretend to establish any kind of connection regarding the PB and the results of these indexes, mainly because it’s not the intention of the creators.

Below, details of the motioned indexes will be displayed. It is important to point out that the Atlas team are not the authors of the following information and they are only being used for comparative reasons on the purpose of this publication.

The Indexes used on this edition

DEMOCRACY index 2018

Me too? Political Participation, Protest and Democracy
_
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy, on a 0 to 10 scale, is based on the ratings for 60indicators, grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Each category has a rating on a 0 to 10 scale, and the overall Index is the simple average of the five category indexes.

The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regimes:

Full democracies: Scores greater than 8
Countries in which not only basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, but which also tend to be underpinned by a political culture conducive to the flourishing of democracy. The functioning of government is satisfactory. Media are independent and diverse. There is an effective system of checks and balances. The judiciary is independent and judicial decisions are enforced. There are only limited problems in the functioning of democracies.


Flawed democracies: Scores greater than 6 and less than or equal to 8
These countries also have free and fair elections and, even if there are problems (such as infringements on media freedom), basic civil liberties are respected. However, there are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including problems in governance, an underdeveloped political culture and low levels of political participation.

Hybrid regimes: Scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6.
Elections have substantial irregularities that often prevent them from being both free and fair. Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common. Serious weaknesses are more prevalent than in flawed democracies - in political culture, functioning of government and political participation. Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak. Typically, there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent.

Authoritarian regimes: Scores less than or equal to 4.
In these states, state political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed. Many countries in this category are outright dictatorships. Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance. Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by groups connected to the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of the government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary.


Economist Intelligence Unit (2019). Democracy index 2018: Me too? Political Participation, Protest and Democracy.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT index 2018

The Human Development Index (HDI)
is a composite index focusing on three basic dimensions of human development:
the ability to lead a long and healthy life, measured by life expectancy at birth; the ability to acquire knowledge, measured by
mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling; and the ability to achieve a decent standard of living, measured by gross national income per capita. To measure human development more comprehensively, the Human Development Report presents four other composite indices. The Inequalityadjusted HDI discounts the HDI according to the extent of inequality. The Gender Development Index compares female and male HDI values. The Gender Inequality
Index highlights women’s empowerment.
And the Multidimensional Poverty Index measures non income dimensions of poverty.

UNDP (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018: Statistical update, UN, New York

Corruption Perception Index 2018

The CPI 2018 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years:


· African Development Bank Country Policy & Institutional Assessment 2016;
· Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018;
· Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index 2017-2018;
· Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Service 2018;
· Freedom House Nations in Transit 2018;
· Global Insight Business Conditions and Risk Indicators 2017;
· IMD World Competitiveness Center World Competitiveness Yearbook Executive Opinion Survey 2018;
· Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence 2018;
· The PRS Group International Country Risk Guide 2018;
· World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2017;
· World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey 2018;
· World Justice Project Rule of Law Index Expert Survey 2017-2018
· Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) 2018.

Standardise data sources to a scale of 0-100 where a 0 equals the highest level of perceived corruption and 100 equals the lowest level of perceived corruption.

Transparency International (2018). Corruption Perception Index 2018.

World Happiness Report 2019

These rankings are accompanied by our latest attempts to show how six key variables contribute to explaining the full sample of national annual average scores over the whole period 2005-2018. These variables are GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, generosity, and absence of corruption. Note that we do not construct our happiness measure in each country using these six factors - the scores are instead based on individuals’ own assessments of their lives, as indicated by the Cantril ladder. Rather, we use the six variables to explain the variation of happiness across countries. We shall also show how measures of experienced well-being, especially positive affect, supplement life circumstances in explaining higher life evaluations


Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2019). World Happiness Report 2019, New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Countries’ Population 2018

Demographic estimates for each country were obtained from the following World Bank database.