See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/299864822

Participatory Governance

Chapter · May 2015

CITATIONS READS
8 880

2 authors:

Stephanie McNulty Brian Wampler

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephanie McNulty on 14 June 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Forthcoming  (January  2015).  In  Robert  Scott  and  Stephen  Kosslyn  (eds.)  Emerging  

Trends  in  the  Social  and  Behavioral  Sciences,  Hoboken,  NJ:    John  Wiley  and  Sons.    

By Stephanie L. McNulty, Franklin and Marshall College and Brian Wampler, Boise

State University

Abstract: Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative

participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past twenty-five years.

This trend, called participatory governance, involves state-sanctioned institutional

processes that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that

produce real changes in citizens’ lives. Billions of dollars are spent supporting these

efforts around the world. The concept, which harks back to theorists such as Jean-Jacques

Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, has only recently become prominent in theories about

democracy. After presenting the foundational research on participatory governance, the

article notes that newer research on this issues falls into three areas: 1) the broader impact

of these experiments; 2) new forms of engagement, with a focus on representation,

deliberation, and intermediation; and 3) scaling up and diffusion. The article concludes

with a research agenda for future work on this topic.

Keywords: participation, democracy, decentralization, governance, deliberation, public

policy

Disciplines: Political Science, Public, Policy Sociology, Development Studies

  1  
 Introduction

Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative

participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past twenty-five years.

From participatory budgeting to citizen councils, ordinary citizens are now able to

participate in an array of decisions that would have been unimaginable a few decades

ago. This trend, called participatory governance, involves state-sanctioned institutional

processes that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that

produce tangible changes in citizens’ lives. These processes engage citizens in public

venues throughout the year, thereby allowing them to be involved in policy formation

and selection as well as oversight.

A broad number of examples fall under the rubric of participatory governance—

from the “Right to Information” campaigns initiated in Northern India to Indonesia’s

World Bank-sponsored Community Driven Development Program to Uganda’s

participatory constitution-making process to Brazil’s participatory budgeting. A common

thread among these forums is that citizens and/or civil society organizations are actively

engaged in state-sanctioned policymaking arenas in which actual decisions regarding

authority and resources are made.

How does participatory governance differ from more well-known alternatives of

direct democracy or deliberative democracy? Direct democracy in the context of the

United States is mostly associated with state-level recalls and referendums, which allow

citizens to express a binary choice with very little opportunity to engage their voice in an

ongoing way (Bowler and Donovan, 2002). Modern forms of direct democracy in the

United States were crafted to limit the power of party elites and to increase access of

  2  
excluded groups (Pateman, 2012). They were not designed to allow people to be involved

in ongoing policymaking processes. Deliberative institutions, such as deliberative polling,

allow citizens to exercise voice but do not necessarily link participants’ vote to binding

decisions that require government officials to act in specific ways (Fishkin, 1993).

Participatory governance institutions, on the other hand, are specifically designed to give

interested citizens the right to reshape local policy outcomes in ongoing ways.

Why have these experiments become so prevalent around the world? The

explosion of participatory governance is closely linked to what Samuel Huntington called

the third wave of democratization. The third wave was accompanied by policies of

decentralization in many parts of the world. Both decentralization and the emphasis on

participation became an integral part of this third wave, as countries around Latin

America, Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe began to hold regular and free elections. Over

time, however, many began to note that institutions associated with representative

democracy at the subnational levels were not working as well as initially hoped. Many

countries, such as those in Central Asia, seemed to “backslide,” or become less

democratic. Other countries, such as Nigeria, Bolivia, and Honduras seemed stuck in the

same patterns of corruption, clientelism, and elite rule that had dominated politics for

decades. As a result, political philosophers, politicians, and activists began to promote the

idea of participatory democracy, hoping that these new institutions could solve a myriad

of problems.

The adoption of participatory governance is often based on the perception that

representative democracy is unable to improve the quality of state performance, educate

and empower citizens, and make reasonably good use of scarce public resources (Fung

  3  
and Wright, 2003; Pateman, 1970). However, participatory governance does not

necessarily reflect a rejection of representative democracy; rather, it represents an effort

to redesign institutions and improve the quality of democracy, social well-being, and the

state.

One of the most interesting developments in participatory governance has been

the dissemination of these experiments from the developing world, where they first began

to emerge, to the developed world. This has been especially true with the case of the

participatory budget, which began in Porto Alegre, Brazil in the late 1980s. This form of

budgeting spread around Latin America first and then took hold in Canada, Spain, the

United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. It is estimated that over 1,500 participaotry

budgeting processes take place around the world.1

As the next section demonstrates, ideas about participatory governance are not

new. They are rooted in debates about the nature of democracy and participation that

have been taking place for centuries.

Foundational Research

Thinking about the nature of participation harks back to theorists such as Jean-

Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, both of whom argued that active citizen

participation is essential for the success of the polity. However, arguments about the

importance of broad participation in democratic regimes never dominated mainstream

theories. Instead, the predominant theories stressed participation through electoral means,

such as voting. Some of this emphasis is linked to an inherent fear of the masses as a

potentially destabilizing force in democratization processes. As a result, more

                                                                                                               
1  For  more  information  see  [Link]  

  4  
contemporary theorists of democracy (e.g., Joseph Shumpeter and Robert Dahl) stress

formal and electoral participation and competition.

In the 1960s, activists and scholars began to advocate for a different

conceptualization of democracy, based on widespread and direct participation as opposed

to the more formal representative channels. New social movements in the United States

and Europe demanded entry into the political system. Theorists such as Carole Pateman

(1970), Jane Mansbridge (1983) and Ben Barber (1984) began to argue for more

participatory forms of democracy. These scholars also demonstrated that these forms

could work. Pateman’s work documented a successful example of participatory

governance in the workplace and Mansbridge’s research focused on effective deliberation

in town hall meetings. Academic research began to show that democratic systems must

find ways to engage its citizens beyond the voting booth to deepen the quality of

democracy.

When democratic reforms began sweeping the world during the third wave, these

ideas gained prominence in scholarly and practical debates. As noted above, as elections

and voting began to take place on a regular basis in Latin America, Africa, and Asia,

citizens increasingly expressed disillusionment with the idea and practice of

representative democratic channels. Legislative bodies were not always responsive to

citizens and elected heads of state were still corrupt. Critics argued that the stress on

representative institutions and elections had failed the average citizen in many of these

countries. For some, participatory forms of government emerged as a complement to

what are now commonly called “democratic deficits.”

  5  
 The most well-known experience with participatory governance began in the late

1980s in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Officials from the Workers’ Party worked closely with

citizens and neighborhood groups to set up participatory budgeting, a policy-making

process that would debate and decide local budget priorities. An institutionalized

participatory budget process was born. Inspired by this experience, as well as similar

innovations in India, Mexico, and the United States, scholars began to focus on the

emergence and success of participatory governance in some contexts.

Two books stand out for providing a framework for understanding this concept.

Leonardo Avritzer’s Democracy and the Public Sphere in Latin America explores the

experience of participatory budgeting in Brazil and direct citizen participation in Mexico

as a way to promote what he calls “participatory publics.” Focusing on Latin America,

Avritzer (2002, p. 9) argues that “democratization can be broadened if public arenas that

have given rise to political renewal are transformed into forms of public deliberation.”

In Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory

Government, Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright put forth a framework for understanding

experiments meant to engage citizens in political decision-making. Coining a term that is

now regularly employed, they document forms and explore the implementation of

Empowered Participatory Governance. This specific form of participatory governance

brings together three principles: 1) a focus on specific, tangible problems; 2) bottom-up

participation which involves ordinary people; and 3) the use of deliberation in solving

problems (Fung and Wright, 2003).

As new experiences with participatory governance emerged around the

developing world, scholars continued to document their origins and implementation.

  6  
Much of the early empirical research documented case studies, including participatory

budgeting, citizen councils, and participatory development planning. Many of these case

studies focused on participatory budgeting in Brazil (Abers, 2000; Nylen, 2003; Baiocchi,

2005; Wampler, 2007; Avritzer, 2009). As institutions of participatory governance

expanded around the world, scholars began exploring examples in other parts of the

world, such as India (Isaac and Heller 2003), Peru (McNulty, 2011), and Bolivia (Faguet,

2012).

As scholarship and experiences grew, researchers began to adopt a comparative

design to explore why some participatory institutions worked better than others. For

example, Donna Van Cott’s (2008) work on institutional innovation in local governments

in Bolivia and Ecuador documents higher levels of success when the design is flexible

and locally driven. She finds that leadership and the party system also help explain

different degrees of success. Brian Wampler (2007) researches the spread of participatory

budgeting around Brazil to better understand the factors that determine successful

outcomes. He finds that mayors’ support explain variation in outcomes in Brazil, and the

local configuration of civil society can lead to more or less success with participatory

budgeting. Wampler (2007, p. 5) writes that “citizens must be able to negotiate among

themselves and vis-à-vis the government over the distribution of scarce resources while

also being willing to publicly pressure government officials over the government’s

actions or inactions related to participatory budgeting.”

Stephanie McNulty’s (2011) work on Peruvian participatory institutions echoes

Wampler and Van Cott’s emphasis on the importance of committed leadership and a

collaborative civil society sector. In Peru, as part of a 2002 decentralization reform

  7  
several participatory institutions were designed at the national level and implemented

around the country. McNulty’s within case comparison signals that in many cases,

elected officials ignored or manipulated the mandate. If there was no civil society sector

pushing the reform, these institutions did not take hold. Only in cases where both political

leaders and civil society organizations worked together in what McNulty calls a “virtuous

cycle of participation” did the institution succeed.

Thus, the later wave of empirical research focuses on explaining how well these

institutions function in different contexts. A consensus has emerged that several factors

help us understand varied levels of success with participatory governance. They are: 1)

the role of political parties; 2) the role of civil society organizations; 3) intergovernmental

relations; 4) rules and design of the participatory institution; 5) resources; and 6)

leadership and political will (Wampler and McNulty, 2011). This research has improved

these processes in several places around the world.

Cutting-Edge Research

As these institutions and programs proliferate across the globe, researchers have

an incredible opportunity to expand the sites, topics, and methodological approaches used

to analyze the internal processes associated with participatory governance as well as the

impacts generated. The diversity of sites is astounding. Chicago, Albania, Sevilla, rural

Indonesia, Porto Alegre, the Philippines, China, India, are among the many places where

participatory governance programs are being implemented. Much of the newer research

falls into three areas: 1) the broader impact of these experiments; 2) new forms of

engagement, with a focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and 3)

scaling up and diffusion.

  8  
Broader Impact

Under the context of scarce resources, researchers are leading efforts to help

policy makers and political activists better understand if the allocation of precious time,

expertise, and money to support participatory democracy is worthwhile. Scholars are now

beginning to answer the question: what is the broader impact of participatory

governance? For example, the Institute of Development Studies conducted research for

more than 20 years on participatory programs across the globe. This allowed John

Gaventa and a research team to conduct a systematic analysis of their impact. Their

evaluation focuses on four areas: the “construction of citizenship, strengthened practices

of participation, the building of responsive and accountable states, or more inclusive and

cohesive societies” (Gaventa and Barrett, 2010). They find: “(o)f almost 830 outcomes in

100 cases studied, some 75 per cent were positive” (Gaventa and Barrett, 2010, p. 56).

While the authors recognize some negative results, overall, impact was positive.

Mansuri and Rao (2013) also conducted an extensive review of more than 500

World Bank publications regarding Bank programs that include some sort of participation

(e.g. community-driven development, “demand-side governance,” or decentralization).

They find that “community involvement seems to modestly improve resource

sustainability and infrastructure quality” (p. 6). However, they argue that there “is little

evidence that induced participation builds long-lasting cohesion, even at the community

level” (p. 9). Overall, Mansuri and Rao find modest empirical support that would

continue to justify large investments of time, energy, and financial resources into

participatory governance.

A recent study by Baiocchi, Heller and Silva (2011) compares five Brazilian cities

  9  
that undertake participatory budgeting to five Brazilian cities that do not. This approach

is among the first to systematically compare cities with and without one particular type of

participatory program. The “paired case comparison” enables them to assess whether the

adoption of this particular participatory process produced any meaningful change. They

find strong and compelling evidence that the presence of participatory budgeting

empowers civil society, increases state-society interactions, and alters the types of public

policies implemented by the government. Quite simply, adopting participatory budgeting

does have a positive impact when compared to those cities that do not adopt this process.

Several studies demonstrate the impact of participatory programs on social well-

being (World Bank, 2008; Boulding and Wampler, 2010; Donaghy, 2013). Mike

Touchton and Brian Wampler have developed an original database of 250 Brazilian cities

with more than 100,000 residents. Using matching and cross-sectional time series

analysis they find that municipalities adopting participatory budgeting spend more on

health care, education and sanitation and experience a decline in infant mortality. The

effects grow stronger over time, which signals that the improvements in the quality of life

were not due to the initial introduction of social programs but were the result of an

institutionalization of new policy and governance practices. In addition, they also found

the effects were stronger when the Brazil’s Workers’ Party administered the program,

suggesting that political party association with participatory budgeting leads to stronger

effects. Thus, much of this newer research is documenting positive impacts from

participatory governance.

New Forms of Engagement

Participatory governance induces citizens, civil society organizations, and public

  10  
officials to engage in new forms of political and social engagement. Based on these

experiences, researchers and theorists are recasting debates on deliberative democracy,

representation, state-society relations, and state building.

Some cutting-edge research draws from the concerns of deliberative democrats to

better understand how the specific rules of participatory governance affect deliberation,

participation, and decision-making. Unlike deliberative democracy, most participatory

governance programs use a combination of deliberative and majoritarian voting practices.

Although deliberation is an integral part of participatory governance—it allows citizens

to hold public officials accountable, raise contentious issues, and advocate for their

agenda—what distinguishes most participatory governance programs from the

deliberative formats is the acute need of citizens and governments to find real, working

solutions to pressing social and political problems (Warren, 1996; Fung, 2003; Cornwall

and Coelho, 2007; Mansbridge, 2012).

Deliberative democrats are concerned with the quality, fairness and equality of

deliberative processes. This concern led Ben Olken (2010) to conduct a field experiment

in 49 Indonesian villages to assess the effects of voting rules and participation. He

compares an open, public voting system (participants vote by raising their hands in

public) to a closed, secret ballot. Olken finds that the closed system generated greater

satisfaction than the open voting system. Furthermore, in “women only projects,” the

closed system produces projects that were more likely to be implemented in the poorest

sections of the village. Olken demonstrates that changes in voting rules have a strong

effect on the voting choices of participants, especially the poorest and most politically

marginalized. Given these findings, it is increasingly important to ask how the rules

  11  
governing participatory governance institutions can be adapted to overcome social

inequalities.

In the scholarly and practitioner communities, a rich debate is also emerging

about the changing nature of representation. Participatory governance alters how citizens

are represented in the political arena. Participatory institutions are often situated within

the broader context of representative democracy, which means that there are now

complementary forms of representation occurring across the spectrum of democratic

institutions. Important research is documenting the nature and effects of these changes.

For example, Urbinati and Warren (2008) explore new forms of “authoritization,”

whereby non-electoral mechanisms are used to authorize leaders to act on behalf of their

followers. Adrian Lavalle and his research team in São Paulo explore on how

participatory governance is producing new forms of intermediations between state and

society (see Houtzager and Lavalle 2009, for example). These authors show that the

introduction of participatory governance institutions alters how citizens mobilize as well

as how they engage the state.

Finally, participatory governance programs also expand the number of access

points into the state, thereby broadening the state’s surface area (Heller and Evans, 2010).

The creation of new participatory venues changes how the state functions. Citizens gain

access to new information, are able to make use of public forums, and are included in

policy networks. Changing how citizens engage the state creates the possibility of

changing how the state exercises its authority. It appears that altering internal state

processes as well as state officials’ activities is a vital part of increasing the impact of

participatory institutions.

  12  
 Although most participatory governance programs are housed in democratic

environments, there are a growing number of programs emerging in authoritarian

contexts. Baogang He (2011) demonstrates that local-level governments in China are

using aspects of participatory governance as part of a process of incorporating citizens’

interests into local decision-making processes. The input appears to be “feedback” rather

than actual decision-making. This case highlights how authoritarian governments can use

participatory governance as a means to strengthen their hold on power rather than

extending authority to citizens.

Diffusion and Scaling Up

Participatory governance programs are spreading across the globe and are

increasingly being scaled up beyond the local level of government. One of the most

important diffusion processes is the development of a South-to-the-North and South-to-

the South flow of information and ideas, thus reversing the long standing trend of North-

to-South diffusion of ideas and knowledge. The South-North diffusion has largely been

initiated by Brazil. Importantly, and evident in the discussion above, participatory

governance spread outward from Brazil and India across South America (Van Cott, 2008;

Goldfrank, 2011; McNulty, 2011), Europe (Allegreti and Herzberg, 2007), as well as into

Africa and Asia (Ganuza and Baiocchi, 2012; Sintomer et al, 2012). However, we still do

not fully understand the diffusion mechanisms.

The World Bank—the largest single funder of participatory governance programs

across the globe—has been a key conduit for the spread of the ideas from South-to-South

(Shah, 2007; Goldfrank, 2012). Employing the term “demand-side” governance to

categorize the direct participation of citizens in policymaking process, World Bank

  13  
promotion is also controversial. Analysts debate whether the World Bank has “co-opted”

participatory governance to push forward neo-liberal economic reforms or whether there

is true commitment to empower individuals.

Ben Goldfrank’s insightful analysis of the internal dynamics of the World Bank

reveals an additional layer to this debate (2012). Goldfrank argues that a few social

scientists working within the World Bank promote the idea of “demand-side” governance

to economists and engineers, who comprise the majority of decision-makers within the

Bank. Thus, participatory governance reforms are included in World Bank projects but

remain at the margins rather than the heart of what the institution does. Goldfrank’s work

suggests that the World Bank incorporates some basic aspects of participation but that it

has not altered its basic governance approach.

Finally, participatory governance processes are increasingly being scaled up

beyond the local level. The early wave of programs has its roots at the local level, such as

Porto Alegre and Kerala. Many worry that this focus is too narrow—that “Thinking

Globally, Acting Locally” might limit the impact of the programs. Over the past decade,

many national-level governments have mandated citizen participation directly into

budgetary and policy-making affairs nation-wide. A diverse set of countries including

South Korea, Brazil, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, and Bolivia have passed legislation to

include participatory institutions in local and intermediate levels of governments around

the country.

Future Trends

As public officials, civil society organizations, and citizens increasingly turn to

participatory governance as a means to solve a variety of social and political problems,

  14  
this is an exciting time to conduct research on this topic. The goal of future research

should be to develop better practices and policies that guide these experiences as they

continue to emerge and evolve around the world.

Future work should focus on three lines of research. First, scholars need to

continue to research examples of participatory governance with an eye towards the

increasing number of cases in both industrialized nations and authoritarian regimes. The

fact that more and more developed countries are adapting these experiences suggests that

these efforts resonate in countries around the world, regardless of their levels of

economic development. Furthermore, as participatory governance emerges in

authoritarian regimes, such as China, it will be important to understand the motivations

behind these kinds programs as well as the unique implementation environment. We

should expect more examples of participatory governance to emerge in a variety of

contexts around the world and start to ask questions about why and how.

Second, the next wave of research on these experiments needs to continue in order

to even more systematically examine their impact. As the previous section demonstrates,

after more than twenty years of implementation of these programs, we continue to have

only a very preliminary understanding of the range and intensity of their effects. This

new line of inquiry is of vital importance because billions of dollars are being spent on

these projects (Mansuri and Rao, 2013). We need more extensive evidence to

demonstrate whether participatory governance programs are producing the outcomes

desired by their proponents. People are investing their precious time, energy, and

resources in the hope that participatory institutions will improve the quality of ordinary

people’s lives. Future work in this area might also use Archon Fung’s (2006) “democracy

  15  
cube,” which is a tool to help policy makers make decisions about the intensity and

breadth of participation.

Third, new research also needs to focus on cross-country comparisons that

generate information about a broader number of cases. Most of the existing knowledge

about participatory governance is based on case studies about one country or one kind of

participatory institution. To date, there have not been any cross-regional, cross-national

studies that include multiple types of participatory institutions.

Challenges for this research agenda exist. Undertaking extensive research on

additional countries and cases of participatory governance demand time and money.

Grant making institutions and universities will need to buy into the need for this kind of

policy relevant research. Furthermore, to develop solid cross-country comparative work

on a variety of forms, scholars from around the world will need to coordinate regularly to

advance the research. Finally, researching participatory governance in authoritarian

contexts may pose a different set of challenges as information about the process may not

be readily available. Even given these issues, we are confident that future work will

address these important questions.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Blair Ruble and Allison Garland of the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars for their ongoing support. In 2011, the Wilson Center

published our co-authored report, “Does Participatory Governance Matter?” With their

permission, we draw from the ideas presented in the report and at a May 2011 workshop

that Brian Wampler organized at the Wilson Center. We also thank participants at that

conference.

  16  
References

Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder:

Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Allegretti, G. & Herzberg, C. (2007). Participatory budgets in Europe:

Between efficiency and growing local democracy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Transnational Institute.

Avritzer, L. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

———(2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in

Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., and Silva, M. K. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy:

Transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Boulding, C. and Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect

of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125-135.

Bowler, S. and T. Donovan. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen

influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(02), 371-390.

Cornwall, A. and Coehlo, V.S. (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of citizen

participation in new democratic arenas. New York: Zed Books.

  17  
Donaghy, M. (2013). Civil society and participatory governance: Municipal councils and

social housing programs in Brazil. New York: Routledge.

Faguet, J.P. (2012). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in

Bolivia. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Fishkin, J.S. (1993). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration

Review, 66(1), 67-75.

——— (2004). Empowered participation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

——— (2003). Survey article. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design

choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3), 338–367.

Fung, A. and E.O. Wright. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in

empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London: Verso.

Gaventa, J. and Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the

outcomes of citizen engagement. Research Summary of Working Paper 347,

November 2010. Retrieved from [Link]

Ganuza, E. and Baiocchi, G. (2012). The power of ambiguity: How participatory

budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).

Goldfrank, B. (2012). The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting.

Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1-18.

———(2011). Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation,

decentralization, and the left. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania

State University Press.

  18  
Gret, M. and Sintomer, Y. (2005). The Porto Alegre experiment: Learning lessons for a

better democracy. London: Zed Books.

Grindle, M. (2007). Going local: Decentralization, participation, and the promise of

good governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———(2000). Audacious reforms: Institutional invention and democracy in Latin

America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three

different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.

Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: the politics of decentralization in Kerala, South

Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131-163.

Heller, P. and Evans, P. (2010). Taking Tilly south: Durable inequalities, democratic

contestation and citizenship in the southern metropolis. Theory and Society 39, 433-

450.

Houtzager, P. P. and Gurza Lavalle, A. (2009). Participatory governance and the

challenge of assumed representation in Brazil. Institute of Development Studies.

Isaac, T.M. and P. Heller. (2003). Democracy and development: Decentralized planning

in Kerala. In Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered

participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London: Verso.

Mansbridge, J. (2012). On the importance of getting things done. PS: Political Science &

Politics 45, 1-8. doi:10.1017/S104909651100165X.

——— (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mansuri, G. and V. Rao. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work?

Washington, DC: The World Bank.

  19  
McNulty, S. (2011). Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori Peru.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Nylen, W. (2003). Participatory democracy versus elitist democracy: Lessons from

Brazil. New York: Palgrave.

Olken, B. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field

experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243-267.

Pateman, Carol. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics,

10(1), 7-19.

———(1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A. and Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of

citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public

Deliberation 8(2). Article 9.

Urbinati, N. and Warren, M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary

democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387-412.

Van Cott, D. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of

democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61-81.

———(2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and

accountability. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University

Press.

  20  
Wampler, B. and S. McNulty. (2011). Does participatory governance matter? Exploring

the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars. Retrieved from

[Link]

matter

Wampler, B. and M. Touchton. (2012). Improving social well-being through new

democratic institutions. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association

Annual Conference. San Francisco, CA.

Warren, M.E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political

Science Review. 90(1): 46-60.

World Bank. (2008). Brazil: Toward a more inclusive and effective participatory budget

in Porto Alegre, 1 (Main Report). Washington, DC.

Further Readings

American Political Science Association. (2012). Democratic imperatives: Innovations in

rights, participation, and economic citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy,

Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile World. American Political Science

Association. [Link]

Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Fung, A. and Wright, E.O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in

empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London: Verso.

Wampler, B. and S. McNulty. 2011. “Does participatory governance matter? Exploring

the nature and impact of participatory reforms.” Washington, D.C.: Woodrow

  21  
 Wilson International Center for Scholars. [Link]

series/does-participatory-governance-matter

Biographies

Dr. Stephanie L. McNulty, author of Voice and Vote: Decentralization and

Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru (Stanford University Press, 2011), is a Latin

Americanist with expertise in decentralization, participatory governance, gender, and

development. She is currently working on a second book about participatory

decentralization reforms in the developing world. Dr. McNulty is an Assistant Professor

of Government at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, PA. She has her Ph.D.

from George Washington University and a M.A. from New York University.

[Link]

Dr. Brian Wampler is a Professor of Political Science at Boise State University,

located in the United States. He is the author of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil:

Cooperation, Contestation, and Accountability (Pennsylvania State University Press,

2007). In 2009-2010, Wampler was a Fulbright Scholar at the Federal University of

Minas Gerais. He is currently finishing a book titled: Activating Democracy in Brazil:

Popular Participation, Interlocking Institutions, and Social Justice. Wampler has

published extensively on participatory forms of democracy in journals such as

Comparative Politics, World Development, and Latin American Politics and Society.

[Link]

  22  
   23  

View publication stats