See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331099234

Participatory budgets in Brazil and Portugal: comparing patterns of

dissemination

Article  in  Policy Studies · February 2019

DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2019.1577373

CITATIONS READS

28 684

2 authors:

Roberto Falanga Lígia Lüchmann

University of Lisbon Federal University of Santa Catarina
40 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   569 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Beyond big narratives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lígia Lüchmann on 20 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Policy Studies

ISSN: 0144-2872 (Print) 1470-1006 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpos20

Participatory budgets in Brazil and Portugal:

comparing patterns of dissemination

Roberto Falanga & Lígia Helena Hahn Lüchmann

To cite this article: Roberto Falanga & Lígia Helena Hahn Lüchmann (2019): Participatory
budgets in Brazil and Portugal: comparing patterns of dissemination, Policy Studies, DOI:
10.1080/01442872.2019.1577373

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1577373

Published online: 14 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpos20
POLICY STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1577373

Participatory budgets in Brazil and Portugal: comparing

patterns of dissemination
Roberto Falangaa and Lígia Helena Hahn Lüchmannb
a
Departamento de Sociologia, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, University of Lisbon (Portugal), Lisbon, Portugal;
b
Sociology and Political Science, Universidade federal de Santa Catarina (Brazil), Florianópolis, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The dissemination of citizen participation in policymaking has Received 7 June 2017
increased considerably worldwide, as in the case of participatory Accepted 9 December 2018
budgeting, considered as the best-known democratic innovation
KEYWORDS
in this field of study and practice. In order to share empirical Participatory budget;
knowledge about participatory budgets, the article provides a dissemination; comparative
comparative analysis of patterns of dissemination in Brazil and analysis; Brazil; Portugal
Portugal. These countries were selected for being paradigmatic
cases in the dissemination of participatory budgets. The
comparative analysis of sociopolitical contexts and institutional
designs sheds light on similarities and differences on democratic
frameworks, political and non-political agents, target public,
approach to participation, and main goals. Findings point to
similarities in the passage from the dictatorial to the democratic
regime in both countries, and differences in the role of political
parties and social agents behind the dissemination. It is within
such sociopolitical contexts that non-associated citizens are the
target of participatory budgets in both countries, although they
are differently approached because address different goals.

Introduction
More than two thousand municipalities around the world have adopted participatory
budgets (hereinafter PBs) to allocate a share of the municipal budget with the participation
of civil society (Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke 2012; Sintomer and Allegretti 2013; Porto
de Oliveira 2016). Despite difficulties in providing greater precision, available data from
the “Brazilian Participatory Budgeting Network” (“Rede Brasileira de Orçamento Partici-
pativo”) reports that 355 municipalities in Brazil had implemented PB by 2012.1 Sgueo
(2016) estimates that between 618 and 1130 participatory budgets are currently being
run in Latin America, while in Europe over 1300 had been registered by 2012. In Portugal,
the country that currently hosts the highest number of PBs at the local level (considering
the ratio between number of PBs and number of municipalities), Dias (2013) identified 73
PB processes implemented between 2001 and 2013, and up-to-date information indicates
the existence of more than 180 PBs in 2017.2

CONTACT Roberto Falanga roberto.falanga@hotmail.it Av. Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisbon,
Portugal
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

The dissemination of PBs has been characterized by varying levels of adaptation and
transformation within different sociopolitical contexts. Scholars have discussed, at
length, variations based on similarities and differences in relation to the first PB ever
implemented in Porto Alegre (Brazil) at the end of 1980s. Sintomer (2005) highlights
the main characteristics of the PB in Porto Alegre that have influenced the implementation
of a vast majority of PBs in Brazil. According to the author (Sintomer 2005), PB is oper-
ationalized through open meetings with citizens and their delegates, who deliberate over a
share of the municipal budget according to formal criteria of economic redistribution. The
transference of this approach to participation to other countries has implied the trans-
formation of some of its key principles. In Europe, throughout the 1990s and 2000s,
PBs have shifted towards goals of modernization of local administrations and recovery
of citizenry trust (Allegretti and Herzberg 2004; Sintomer 2005; Sintomer and Allegretti
2009; Font, della Porta, and Sintomer 2014; Brun-Martos and Lapsley 2016).
As had happened in Europe, the more recent dissemination of PBs in the US was
expected to counteract growing rates of citizen distrust toward political representatives
and institutions. Distrust has been generally expressed through electoral abstention
rates, decreased involvement in political parties, and decline of militancy among unions
and other associative groups and initiatives (Su 2017). Sintomer and Allegretti (2009)
further suggest that agents and agencies involved in the dissemination of PBs include
transnational and international organizations, as in Eastern Europe and ex-Yugoslavia.
Likewise, in Africa the initiation of PBs depended on funding and expertise provided
by international organizations aiming to improve local government transparency. In
Northern European countries, PBs mainly referred to pre-existing initiatives of partici-
pation, mainly at the neighbourhood level, and PBs have been pulled together from pre-
vious autochthonous innovations in Asia as well (UCLG 2008).
Global agencies have played a key role in the dissemination of PBs in some countries
and, in general, for the celebration of the PB worldwide. Their role, however, has also
raised some concern, as the World Bank, mainly in the Southern World and Eastern
Europe, the United Nations, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
and European Union are all argued to have decreased the chances for PBs to promote
sound political changes (Ganuza and Baiocchi 2012; Sintomer et al. 2013; Baiocchi and
Ganuza 2014, 2016). Restrepo (2003) seemingly argues that the global wave of PBs
strengthens a neoliberal strategy aimed at lowering the cost of politics and making poor
communities compete among themselves to access financial support via new clientelist
relations between providers and (poor) beneficiaries.
Against this backdrop, there has been broad acknowledgement of the influence that
political and administrative agents, together with either associated or non-associated citi-
zens, have on the definition of the institutional design of the PBs (cf. Smith 2009; Borba
2012). However, the characterization of different patterns of dissemination in this field of
study has mostly relied on the identification of the different models of participation
implemented worldwide (cf. Sintomer and Allegretti 2009; Sintomer, Herzberg, and
Röcke 2012), while the role of the sociopolitical contexts in shaping and adapting the insti-
tutional designs of PBs has been little addressed by scholars thus far. In order to improve
knowledge about the sociopolitical factors that explain the variable geometry of PBs
throughout the world, the article provides the first comparative analysis of patterns of dis-
semination in Brazil and Portugal. Brazil is the country where the PB was invented at the
 POLICY STUDIES 3

end of 1980s and since then has been extensively disseminated within the country and
around the world. In Portugal, the first PB was implemented in 2002, and since then
the country has witnessed an overwhelming dissemination of PBs within the country,
reaching world records today. The selection is based on the acknowledgment that disse-
mination of PBs has been paradigmatic in the two countries, and represented distinctive
manners of diffusion (cf. Kuhn 1987). According to Flyvbjerg (2006) comparing paradig-
matic cases is one of the methodological strategies in social sciences, and can be of great
help in the field of policy studies (cf. Abbott 1992).
The article firstly introduces an overview of some of the most contentious issues emer-
ging from scientific and grey literature on PBs. Secondly, it characterizes patterns of dis-
semination in the two countries according to their sociopolitical contexts. Analysis of the
PBs in Porto Alegre (Brazil), and of the PB in Lisbon (Portugal), is key to understanding
the institutional designs disseminated within the countries. The last section of the article
provides a comparative analysis of the patterns of dissemination in Brazil and Portugal,
and identifies similarities and differences in the sociopolitical contexts and institutional
designs. Relying on the evidence that dissemination has been distinctive, discussion
about the two countries draws from scientific and grey literature, including the analysis
of official documents produced by local and national authorities in the two countries.
Fieldwork conducted by the authors of the article with PBs in the two countries
through participatory observation further provide empirical knowledge to the inter-
national scientific debate.

Participatory budgeting: an overview

The implementation of mechanisms for citizen participation in decision-making has been
praised by political theorists as a major challenge for contemporary democracies (Mac-
Pherson 1977; Fung and Wright 2003; Pateman 2012). Worldwide, a broad range of par-
ticipatory mechanisms (e.g. consensus conferences, deliberative polls, citizen juries, etc.)
are being implemented in the search for greater consensus on new solutions for govern-
ance (Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs 2004; Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke 2008; Marsh
and Akram 2015). The enhancement of the quality of public policies through the coming
together of social actors and decision-makers has been argued to have improved demo-
cratic values (Chess and Purcell 1999; Smith 2009). Accordingly, scholars have focused
on the chance to adopt participatory mechanisms to both respond more effectively to
local community needs (cf. Lowndes, Pratchett, and Stoker 2001; Cooper, Bryer, and
Meek 2006) and provide greater citizen empowerment (cf. Arnstein 1971).
In an attempt to identify key lessons from the wide range of participatory mechanisms,
Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs (2004) highlight the path-dependent character of partici-
pation, which should be shaped according to specific policy issues. Similar considerations
are shared by Gaventa and Barret (2010) who, in a comprehensive review of participatory
practices around the world, provide further warnings about the risk of the economic and
political elites taking control of the PBs for their own gain. Likewise, Roberts (2002) echoes
the risk that groups with nondemocratic and authoritarian attitudes could take control
over participatory practices. The author (Roberts 2002) provides a comprehensive compi-
lation of the most commonly shared arguments by scholars in favour of and to the detri-
ment of citizen participation in policymaking. Considering pros and cons of participatory
4 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

mechanisms, Fung (2006, 2015) focuses on the concrete possibility of improving govern-
ance by increasing the legitimacy of political institutions and representatives; reforming
public administration; and improving justice in contrast to political and economic lobbies.
When focusing on the institutional design of participatory budgeting, the first PB
implemented in Porto Alegre at the end of the 1980s aimed to respond to local problems
and prevent risks of elites’ capture through the inclusion of non-associated citizens into
the formulation of public measures in favour of the poorest sectors of civil society.
Towards this aim, the design covered all the policy areas governed by the local authority
in annual cycles of participation, as further described below. The adaptation of the design
adopted in Porto Alegre to other contexts within the country and abroad, took place in
three macro historical stages (Cabannes 2004; Dias and Allegretti 2009). The first stage
started in the late 1980s and ended in the mid-1990s, with Porto Alegre as a key reference
for other Brazilian city councils governed by the Workers’ Party (“Partido dos Trabalha-
dores”, hereinafter PT). The second stage started in the mid-1990s, and ended at the begin-
ning of the 2000s, witnessing the expansion of PBs in other countries of Latin America
(Wampler 2008). The third stage of dissemination, which began in the 2000s, has wit-
nessed the mushrooming of PBs worldwide. Ganuza and Baiocchi (2012) argue that
this last stage is characterized by the decrease in the emphasis on goals of administrative
reform and social justice, which were promoted in Porto Alegre and other Latin American
city councils.
In Europe, and more pointedly in Southern Europe, the participation of social move-
ments and leftist parties in the World Social Forums that took place in the early 2000s in
Brazil represented a paramount source of knowledge and provided impetus for dissemina-
tion (Allegretti and Herzberg 2004). The first experiments led by communist and post-com-
munist parties in the early 2000s in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, however, often showed a
paternalistic approach to PB. As pointed out by Sintomer and Allegretti (2009), the
radical left in Southern Europe seemed more concerned with obtaining ownership over
the process than enabling social actors to effectively take control of public spending.
Throughout the 2000s, emphasis on goals for the redistribution of economic resources
was replaced by the need for governance mechanisms to recover the low levels of trust
towards political representatives and institutions. PBs allowed for greater proximity
between elected and electorates and could effectively meet goals of administrative modern-
ization and good governance (Brun-Martos and Lapsley 2016). The reframing of PBs in
Europe corresponded to a change in political leaderships, increasingly intersecting both
left and right-wing coalitions, and the growing disaffection of social movements and grass-
roots groups (Sintomer 2005; Font, della Porta, and Sintomer 2014; Falanga 2014a).
Dissemination of PBs proved to be anything but linear within and among countries. For
example, transformations have regarded variable definitions of policy issues and partici-
patory public, as in cases of PBs for youngsters, migrants, elderly people, women and indi-
genous peoples (Cabannes and Lipietz 2015; Allegretti and Falanga 2016). The
constitution of the participatory public has also led to the utilization of different com-
munication channels, including online and face-to-face interactions (Barnes et al. 2003;
Papadopoulos and Warin 2007). Acknowledging the emerging number of specificities
that necessarily characterize the design of PBs around the world, Sintomer (2007)
argues that participatory processes labelled as PB should formally provide a share of the
local budget and ensure the replication of the process over time. Evidence confirms that
 POLICY STUDIES 5

PBs commonly share between 2% and 10% of the municipal budget for public investment
(Cabannes and Baierle 2004), and that their continuity over time tends to depend on pol-
itical willingness and electoral cycles, as they are only rarely bound by law (cf. Fung 2015).
In the search for common elements that cause different local authorities to refer to a par-
ticipatory process as PB, Ganuza and Baiocchi (2012) argue that transformations have led
to the neutralization of goals for social justice and administrative reforms.
Considering PB as the element to look at when approaching its variable degrees of
adaptation and transformation in different countries (Porto de Oliveira 2016), similarities
and differences need to be more clearly identified to understand specific patterns of dis-
semination. Towards this end, the next sections provide empirical knowledge on patterns
of dissemination in Brazil and Portugal, by describing sociopolitical contexts and insti-
tutional designs of PBs, with focus on the designs of PBs in Porto Alegre and Lisbon,
given their notable influence over the characterization of the patterns of dissemination
within their countries.

The dissemination of participatory budgets in Brazil

In Brazil, the sociopolitical context of transition from dictatorship to the democratic
regime in the late 1980s was characterized by increasing mobilization of the civil
society (Santos 1993). Social movements, labour unions, local associations, some sectors
of national academia, and professional corporations requested a renewed debate on
citizen participation in decision-making (GECD 1999). The creation of the “National Con-
stitutional Assembly” (“Assembleia Nacional Constituinte”) between 1987 and 1988
included groups from civil society to publicly discuss new institutional forms of partici-
pation. Accordingly, the Federal Constitution of Brazil issued in 1988, defined the adop-
tion of participatory mechanisms in a wide range of public policy domains, such as the
“Organic Health Law” (“Lei Orgânica da Saúde”), the “Organic Social Welfare Law”
(“Lei Orgânica da Assistência Social”), the Statutes of the Child and the Adolescent,
and the Statute of the Cities (Avritzer 2006). The Federal Constitution also established
a new pact with sub-national government authorities aimed at favouring greater auton-
omy for the municipalities in political, legislative, financial and administrative realms
(Fedozzi and Lima 2013).
Along with the consolidation of the democratic regime, the country experienced a
strong drive towards industrialization and growth of local powers. The pact for adminis-
trative decentralization issued by the Constitution put the basis for new possibilities in
citizen participation, and encouraged the emergence of new debates over the shared
definition of public investments at the local level (Kowarick 1987; Doimo 1995; Avritzer
1997; Gohn 1997). Sectors of society that urged governments to effectively tackle deep
socioeconomic rifts in the country influenced these debates. The leading role of the PT
in setting up goals of redistribution of socioeconomic resources in favour of the poorest
sectors of society in its political agenda, was met with an increase in demand for social
justice. The formulation of the PB operationalized social claims by engaging citizens in
the definition of a share of the municipal budget as a measure by which to balance socio-
economic inequalities.
As argued by de Souza (2015), PB soon became the brand of the PT, as well as one of the
most important political platforms for its electoral campaigns. In the 1990s, the success of
6 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

PT in local authorities helped spread PBs throughout the country. At the end of the 1990s,
and after the election of the PT leader, Lula, as president of Brazil in 2002, political own-
ership and emphasis on the PB slightly decreased within the PT (Fedozzi and Lima 2013;
Spada 2014).3 Meanwhile, appropriation of PB by other political parties was higher and
changes in the political environment confirmed the centrality of the party-system in
this new phase of dissemination of PBs (Borba 2012; Fedozzi and Lima 2013). For
example, Borba and Lüchmann (2007) argue that in the state of Santa Catarina, in the
south of Brazil, electoral goals triggered the formation of coalitions with political
leaders traditionally averse to participatory innovations, which finally affected the
quality of participatory practices.4
Meira, Oliveira, and Caminhas (2013) confirm that between 1989 and 1992, there were
13 PBs implemented in Brazil; between 1993 and 1996, this number increased to 53;
between 1997 and 2000, there were around 120; between 2001 and 2004, the number
was 190; between 2005 and 2008, there was a slight increase of up to 201; and between
2009 and 2012, there were 355 PBs in total (cf. also RBOP 2012). Nevertheless, while
more up-to-date data is not available on the current number of PBs, evidence suggests
the slow decline in the country and increased political support from both left and right-
wing parties. Local elections in 2016 witnessed a marked shift in the sociopolitical
context, as PT was not elected in more than 50% of the city councils which were
leading the government. For example, in the State of Santa Catarina, 16 PBs were ident-
ified in a search conducted by the authors of this article in 2014, and 15 of them were pro-
moted by local governments where PT was the leader or was acting in coalition with other
parties. After the local elections in 2016, 13 PBs were identified, and only seven of them
were promoted by PT as either leader or in coalition. While PBs were eliminated in
some of the city councils where PT was not elected, 24 municipalities governed by PT
in the state did not implement PBs.5
In summary, it is possible to emphasize that the shift from the dictatorial to the demo-
cratic regime, associated with the new phase of industrialization and administrative decen-
tralization in Brazil characterized the framework of the dissemination of PBs. Increasing
demand by social agents for greater participation was met by the political agenda of the
PT, which consolidated PBs as one of its principal brands. The meaningful reduction of
PT in local councils after the 2016 elections, and the adoption of PBs by other political
parties, suggest the slow decrease of PBs throughout the country (Figure 1).
The first PB in Brazil was initiated by the municipality of Porto Alegre, capital city of
the State of Rio Grande do Sul, in 1988. The coalition “Popular Front” (“Frente Popular”),
composed of PT and the former Brazilian Communist Party (currently “Popular Socialist
Party”) designed the PB in order to redistribute the allocation of a share of public resources
in favour of the most in-need sectors of society (Baiocchi 2001). The approach to partici-
pation was inspired by two guiding principles: greater participation of citizens in public
life, and focus on low-income citizens (Fedozzi 1996; Marchetti 2003). The redistribution
of about 79 thousand Brazilian Real needed to be assured by the incorporation of lay
people from non-associated civil society, aiming to reach those citizens that had limited
access to public arenas (Selee and Peruzzotti 2009; Campos and Silveira 2015; Montam-
beault 2016).
The PB was adopted as a master municipal policy by the city council, providing mech-
anisms of direct and representative participation. The articulation of these two forms of
 POLICY STUDIES 7

Figure 1. Sociopolitical context of the dissemination of PBs in Brazil. Source: Authors’ own work.

participation aimed to challenge the traditional separation between forms of participatory

and representative democracy (Lüchmann 2007, 2011). According to Fedozzi and Martins
(2015), this articulation further helped to disprove the overrated belief that the state was
absent (or unnecessary) in the operationalization of the PB. On the contrary, the PB set the
conditions to connect citizens, delegates, and political representatives on the local scale.
Although PBs are not bound by supra-local legislation – in virtue of the autonomy of
local authorities (Lüchmann 2014) – and are not formally connected to other participatory
institutions – namely regional conferences and national councils (Pogrebinschi 2013) –
their contribution to strengthening the deliberative system of Brazil should not be under-
estimated (Figure 2).
The figure above shows the institutional design of the PB in Porto Alegre. The process is
organized in annual cycles, with public meetings in the 16 neighbourhoods of the city.
Communities are invited to deliberate over priority interventions for their neighbour-
hoods via associative forms (e.g. neighbourhood associations, popular councils,
mothers’ clubs, etc.). Citizens are further invited to elect their delegates whose number
varies according to the number of participants in each public meeting. Together with del-
egates, two councillors are also elected for a two-year mandate with the purpose of repre-
senting neighbourhoods in the PB Council (“Conselho do Orçamento Participativo”,
hereinafter COP).

The dissemination of participatory budgets in Portugal

The end of the dictatorial regime in Portugal, consecrated by the Carnation Revolution,
and social pressure for the instauration of a new democratic regime, led to the definition
of the national Constitution of 1976, which includes principles of participatory democracy
(cf. art. 2,9/c, 263–265, 266, 270). After years of increasing social mobilization and engage-
ment in public life in the end of 1970s (Fishman 2011), the 1980s and 1990s were rather
8 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

Figure 2. Institutional design of the PB in Porto Alegre. Source: Authors’ own work.

characterized by increasing disaffection from the political class, perceived as corrupt and
dishonest by society (Caldas 2012; De Sousa, Magalhães, and Amaral 2014). Negative out-
looks on citizenry’s trust towards democratic institutions and political representatives
were paired with high abstention rates in political elections, peaking in the 2013 local elec-
tions (47.4%), preceded by 41.9% in 2011 and followed by 44.1% in 2015 in legislative elec-
tions (cf. also OQD 2012).
Unlike Brazil, the dissemination of PBs in Portugal began almost thirty years after the
fall of the dictatorial regime and was a result of the output of the learning process that had
started with the Latin American experiences. Scholars recognize two stages of dissemina-
tion in the country: the first generation of PBs inspired by Porto Alegre, as witnessed by
the first PB in Palmela, a small village near Lisbon, implemented in 2002 by the Commu-
nist Party in government; the second generation focused on the recovery of citizenry trust
and opened the ownership to both left and right-wing parties (Cabannes 2009; Dias 2010;
Allegretti, Leiva, and Yañez 2011). The second generation, in the mid-2000s, further
shifted from the adoption of consultative methods with citizens to co-decisional
approaches to the allocation of a share of municipal budgets. Extensive dissemination
occurred within the second generation with the PB of Lisbon, which was the first to be
implemented at the municipal level by a European capital city in 2007/2008.
Portuguese municipalities autonomously decide whether or not to implement the PB
according to their political agenda. In fact, like in Brazil, PBs are not issued by national
legislation, and rely on the willingness of local authorities. The electoral cycles also
affect the continuity of PBs, as confirmed by Alves and Allegretti (2012). However,
recent data shows that rates of PBs have continued to grow throughout the country and
 POLICY STUDIES 9

a recent search made by the authors of this article on the national observatory of partici-
pation website in August 2017 has confirmed that more than 180 PBs were implemented
(website: www.portugalparticipa.pt/monitoring). Around 80% of the PBs were
implemented by local councils, while 20% were led by parish governments. In addition,
almost 70% of PBs encompassed the whole range of policy areas covered by local auth-
orities, while around 20% of them were focused on specific areas of intervention, often
defining the type of public. More importantly, the growth of PBs deliberately aimed at
including young people in the country (Dias 2013).
Despite the extensive dissemination of PBs over the last fifteen years, little systematic
research has been conducted on factors that help explain how the sociopolitical context
has shaped and adapted PBs (Dias 2013). In particular, little emphasis has been placed
on the crisis of trust in representative democracies as the leading factor behind the dissemi-
nation of PBs. Gaining the trust of the local electorate to counteract growing disaffection
towards political representatives and institutions became a priority after the eruption of
the recent global financial crisis, which amplified feelings of distrust (OQD 2012; De
Sousa, Magalhães, and Amaral 2014). The austerity agenda agreed between national govern-
ment and international lenders (International Monetary Fund, European Bank, and Euro-
pean Commission) between 2011 and 2014, also entailed a comprehensive reform of local
administrations (Law 22/2012). Among the measures adopted under the local reform,
cuts in public budgets and administrative personnel encouraged local authorities to
search for effective mechanisms of governance. The OPtar project, led by the University
of Coimbra on the dissemination of PBs in Portugal, confirmed the inclusion of participa-
tory processes, and namely PBs, in the campaign of political parties for the 2013 local elec-
tions (reports available at: http://ces.uc.pt/en/investigacao/projetos-de-investigacao/
projetos-financiados/optar). PBs represented, in some cases, the ways in which the austerity
measures and their impacts could be managed within the proximity of local communities.
The adoption of the PB in the local agendas was consensual among left and right-wing
coalitions. An important role was played by NGOs and national academia, and their
support of PBs through nationally and internationally funded research projects.6 On
the contrary, the presence of social movements and grassroots groups has been edgy
(cf. Allegretti and Herzberg 2004; Sintomer 2005). Font, della Porta, and Sintomer
(2014) confirm that “the idea that the development of a participatory agenda in local gov-
ernment is the result of movements strongly directed from above without much connec-
tion to social pressures is probably correct for Southern Europe” (Font, della Porta, and
Sintomer 2014, 62). Although this trend was common in Southern Europe, this discre-
pancy is meaningful when considering the increase in mobilizations and protests in the
years of austerity against a backdrop of longstanding alienation (Caldas 2012; Baumgarten
2013). While in the neighbouring country of Spain, the convergence of participatory
arenas and mobilizations resulted in increased debate over social inequalities (Baiocchi
and Ganuza 2016), little evidence on similar intersections was retrievable from Portugal.
In summary, the sociopolitical background in Portugal explains the dissemination of
PBs in light of increasing citizenry disaffection for representative democracy institutions.
Political and non-political agents behind the dissemination of PBs elicited the implemen-
tation for closer proximity between electors and the elected. The recent global financial
crisis further decreased rates of political participation and eventually led municipalities
to search for effective and efficient solutions in the management of the reduced local
10 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

budgets. In addition, while an important role was played by NGOs and national academia,
the synergy with social movements and grassroots groups was not evident, even through-
out the years of austerity (Figure 3).
The PB implemented by the Municipality of Lisbon was decisive in the “generational
change” of PBs in the country (Sintomer et al. 2013; Falanga 2014b). Social groups, pol-
itical activists and administrative officials encouraged local representatives from the
Socialist Party to test the PB in the city.7 After a pivotal experience in 2007, the first
official PB started in 2008, and shifted from the adoption of consultative methods to mech-
anisms of co-decision with citizens (Dias 2008). Lisbon was the first European capital city
to implement a PB at the municipal level and its announcement was inscribed within a
wider political strategy of political and administrative reform.8 The search for political dis-
continuity from previous administrations convinced the Socialist Party-led coalition to put
greater emphasis on a new course of participatory governance in the city. The commit-
ment of the mayor António Costa to the PB was evident in his direct coordination of
the inter-departmental network in charge of its management (Costa 2012). Later on,
the success of the PB led to the creation of a specific administrative division (“Division
for Organizational Innovation and Participation”) in 2011, and the appointment of a pol-
itical councillor for its supervision.
The PB chart of principles issued in 2008 defined the allocation of five million euros for
public deliberation. In 2012, the share was reduced to two and a half million euros due to
cuts from national to local governments (cf. Law 22/2012).9 The institutional design of the
PB aims to engage non-associated citizens, either born or living in Lisbon, to propose and
to vote for proposals. Unlike Brazil, neither councillors nor delegates are elected by citi-
zens, and no PB Council exists in the municipality. However, as with Brazil, the approach
to participation has not allowed for the participation of organized citizens, in the form of
local associations and organizations. Emphasis on the role of citizens in the PB has
favoured the creation of informal networks in support of the proposals in order to increase
their chances of being funded.

Figure 3. Sociopolitical context of the dissemination of PBs in Portugal. Source: Authors’ own work.
 POLICY STUDIES 11

According to the PB chart of principles, proposals can be presented in public meetings

and online, and are required to comprise criteria of administrative viability (e.g. municipal
competences in the management of specific issues, costs for the intervention, etc.) and
consistency with the local political agenda. The lack of delegates for the intermediation
and aggregation of proposals, as in Brazil, provides citizens with power to organize infor-
mal networks to garner support for their proposals.10 Some projects funded via PB have
gained strong support from informal networks and this has led to multiple funding from
the PB, as in the case of the project for the creation of a park in the Rio Seco neighbour-
hood in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 editions. This project also confirms a general trend of
projects in Lisbon, which have privileged the solution of urban issues, possibly promoting
sustainable and green values for local development (Figure 4).
The figure above shows the institutional design of the PB in the capital city, which has
been replicated by the majority of Portuguese city councils and parish governments. The
“Division for Organizational Innovation and Participation” is supervised by the

Figure 4. Institutional design of the PB in Lisbon. Source: Authors’ own work.

12 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

“Department of Brand and Communication” and by the Department of “Systems of Infor-

mation, Sport and Relation with the Citizen”. The annual cycle of PB is composed of
sequential stages: (i) citizen proposals (via public meeting and/or online), between April
and June; (ii) technical analysis in the departments devoted to corresponding policy
areas via second (Level II) and first (Level I) level interlocutors, as well as interlocutors
in parish governments (JF) and, since 2016, “Territorial Intervention Units” (UIT),
between June and September; (iii) publication of the projects and opening to citizen com-
plaints, which usually ends in October; (iv) publication of the final list of projects after
public appreciation of complaints; (v) online and SMS voting, in November.

Comparing patterns of dissemination of PBs in Brazil and Portugal

Extensive dissemination of PBs in Brazil and Portugal confirms the need to improve
empirical knowledge of the main factors that explain similarities and differences. Both
countries are paradigmatic in the dissemination of PBs: Brazil is the country where the
broad dissemination of PBs began in the late 1980s, and Portugal is the country that cur-
rently holds a world record for the number of local PBs. In both cases, the role of two cities
was key to spreading the most adopted institutional design of PB within the countries.
Acknowledging the added-value that empirical knowledge from this field of study and
practice can bring to the international debate, and social sciences in general (Abbott
1992; Flyvbjerg 2006), the categories for this comparative analysis are systematically
retrieved from mainstream scientific literature and confirmed by evidence.
Comparison of sociopolitical contexts will be conducted on (i) the democratic frame-
works wherein the dissemination of PBs took place, which is argued to be a key factor to
understanding dissemination (cf. Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke 2008; Smith 2009), and
assumes special interest given the relatively recent passage from the dictatorial to the
democratic regime in both countries; the influence of (ii) political and (iii) non-political
agents, who are identified as key players of dissemination (cf. Borba 2012; Porto de Oli-
veira 2016), and help characterize how PBs disseminated in both countries. Comparison
of the institutional designs will rely on the analysis of: (iv) target public constituted
through PBs (cf. Barnes et al. 2003), as both institutional designs address non-associated
citizens; (v) approach to participation (cf. Delli Carpini, Cook, and Jacobs 2004; Sintomer
2007; Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke 2012), which confirms notable differences in the
engagement of the target public; and (vi) main goals (cf. Baiocchi 2001; Dias 2008)
with evidence confirming the existence of PBs in the two countries (Table 1).
Both countries shifted from dictatorial to democratic regimes between the mid-1970s
and 1980s, and the promotion of new forms of citizen engagement in political life was
similarly addressed to support the quality of representative democracy. Local authorities
included PBs in their governmental agendas in consistency with principles of participatory
democracy promoted by their National Constitutions. Whereas the role of the PT in Brazil
was key to fostering a new political phase at the end of the 1980s, increasing disaffection
towards political institutions and representatives in Portugal in the 2000s led to the broad
dissemination of PBs as a mechanism to recover citizenry trust. On the one hand, the
inclusion of the most disadvantaged sectors of society was placed at the centre of PBs
in Brazil; on the other, PBs in Portugal represented the opportunity to promote closer
proximity between electors and elected. This chance, in Portugal, also intersected with
 POLICY STUDIES 13

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the patterns of dissemination of PBs in Brazil and Portugal.
Categories Brazil Portugal
Sociopolitical Democratic From dictatorial to democratic regime Disaffection towards democratic
context framework institutions and representatives
Political agents Key role of the PT Left and right-wing parties.
Non-political Grassroots groups asking for social justice Leading role of NGOs and national
agents academia
Institutional Target Non-organized citizens Non-organized citizens
Design Approach to Direct and representative participation Direct participation with power to
participation via elected delegates and councilors propose and vote
Main goals Redistribution of socioeconomic Proximity to electors
resources

the worsening outlooks in political life reported after the disruption of the global financial
crisis, which led to the national government adopting harsh austerity measures.
The new federal pact issued by the Brazilian Constitution provided municipalities with
increased political, legislative, financial and administrative autonomy. With such conditions,
the PT was able to include PB as a master policy of the city councils where it won the elections.
The expansion of PBs was further favoured by PT leadership in key local governments of the
country, such as Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and São Paulo. The convergence of direct and
representative approaches to participation responded to the need to assure effective measures
before growing claims for social justice. PBs were designed to make citizens and their elected
councillors and delegates deliberate over public measures in favour of the poorest sectors of
society. This goal should be taken into consideration together with the action of other parti-
cipatory institutions in the country – regional conferences and national councils – that simi-
larly aim to engage citizens and their representatives in policymaking to influence the effective
redistribution of socioeconomic resources.
In a different vein, although social movements and political parties at the left of the
political spectrum showed great enthusiasm for the PB, stronger support from left and
right-wing parties was evident in Portugal. PBs were approached as a means to recovering
citizenry trust and, more recently, manage budgetary cuts close to local communities
during the years of the austerity. Accordingly, the target public was composed of non-
associated citizens without any additional intermediation. As such, similar to the situation
in Brazil, local associations and organizations were formally excluded from PBs. However,
the lack of either delegates or councillors led to different results. The emphasis given on
the competition among citizens improved the emergence of informal networks in
support of projects to be funded via PBs, while room for dialogue with social agents claim-
ing against the austerity was considerably reduced when compared to neighbouring
countries. On the contrary, great support was provided by NGOs and the national
academy, which contributed to the dissemination of PBs with a significant number of
research projects in this field of studies and practice.
In summary, political parties have proved to have played different roles in operationa-
lizing principles of participatory democracy in the two countries. The PB entered the pol-
itical agenda of the PT to address claims for social justice. The effects of such a close
connection are evident in the recent decrease of PBs, as the local elections in 2016 dras-
tically lowered the number of local authorities governed by the PT. Conversely, political
appropriation of the PB was less visible in Portugal, although the lack of supra-local legis-
lation has similarly made PBs dependent on the willingness of the decision-makers, as well
14 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

as on the electoral cycles in local authorities. However, dissemination of PBs in Portugal

was rather pushed forward by the interplay of left and right-wing parties with NGOs and
national academia.
It is within such sociopolitical contexts that PBs have been disseminated in Brazil and
Portugal. Whereas in both countries citizens are invited to contribute as individuals, direct
participation is articulated with delegates and councillors in Brazil, while non-associated
citizens in Portugal are encouraged to compete with their ideas. Different goals explain the
reasons why approaches to participation are designed in this way: while in Brazil, the main
goal of PBs is the attainment of goals of socioeconomic redistribution, it is the recovery of
citizenry trust that moves the dissemination of PBs in Portugal. As a result, the election of
delegates aims to ensure that all Brazilian citizens, especially the poorest, have a voice,
while the main goal in Portugal is to reinforce the relation between the state and citizens.

Conclusions
Participatory budgeting is praised by scholars, practitioners, transnational and suprana-
tional organizations as one of the soundest democratic innovations worldwide. Against
this backdrop, the article firstly shed light on some of the main contentious issues
debated in this field of study and practice. Secondly, it provided an overview of the socio-
political contexts in which PBs were disseminated in Brazil and Portugal, and described
the institutional designs adopted in Porto Alegre and Lisbon, as PBs in the two cities
inspired the majority of PBs implemented in the two countries. The comparison provided
insights from two paradigmatic cases through the analysis of their democratic framework,
the role of political and non-political agents, the target public of PBs, their approach to
participation, and their main goals.
Findings from the comparative analysis confirm that empirical knowledge is needed to
characterize patterns of dissemination of PBs. Findings point to similarities in the socio-
political frameworks established by the passage from the dictatorial to the democratic
regime in both countries, while vast differences stem from the role of political parties
and social agents behind the dissemination of PBs. Furthermore, while non-associated citi-
zens are the main target of PBs in both countries, the engagement of citizens is operatio-
nalized in different ways, relying on the election of delegates and councillors in Brazil,
while there is no intermediation in Portugal. These differences are explained in light of
the main goals pursued by the PBs, namely the redistribution of socioeconomic resources
in Brazil and the recovery of citizenry trust in Portugal.
Findings confirm that the socio-political contexts need to be analyzed to understand the
reasons why institutional designs of PBs have disseminated in specific ways. The charac-
terization and comparison of the patterns of dissemination in Brazil and Portugal can con-
tribute to the ongoing debate on the role of PBs throughout the world, and hopefully
inspire future comparative studies on the patterns of dissemination.

Notes
1. The network was created in 2007. Data from a research conducted by the authors of this
article in 2012 identified 14 PBs in northern states; 79 in northeastern states; 9 in centre
 POLICY STUDIES 15

western states; 151 in southeastern states; and 100 in southern states. More information at:
http://www.redeopbrasil.com.br/home/.
2. More information about local PBs is available at www.portugalparticipa.pt.
3. According to de Souza (2015), although PT did not adopt PB at the federal level, other parti-
cipatory institutions (e.g. regional conferences and national councils) were equally promoted.
For instance, under the leadership of the PT leader Dilma Rousseff, the National Social Partici-
pation Policy (“Política Nacional de Participação Social”) was created in 2014 (Cayres 2015).
4. Gugliano (2016) argues that out of the 42 PBs in the state of São Paulo, only 23 were led by
PT in 2012; while in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, 21 out of 29 were promoted by PT. On the
national scale, data from 2014 shows that 45% of the local PBs were run by PT; 26% by the
“Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement” (“Partido do Movimento Democrático Bra-
sileiro”); 7,5% by the Brazilian Socialist Party (“Partido Socialista Brasileiro”) and 4% by the
Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy (“Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira”), and
other few PBs by 11 small political parties (Fedozzi and Lima 2013).
5. Acknowledgments to Gustavo Venturelli and Heloísa Domingos for this ouput.
6. The “Participatory Budgeting Portugal” project (“Orçamento Participativo Portugal”),
funded by the Equal Initiative promoted by the European Commission in 2008 was one of
the first co-led projects in this field by the University of Coimbra and the NGO In Loco
(see: www.op-portugal.org). Their partnership has been reinforced through several initiatives
for different publics. The European Economic Area-funded project between “Portugal Par-
ticipates: roads to societal innovation” (“Portugal Participa: caminhos para a inovação
societal”) (see: www.portugalparticipa.pt) and the European Union-funded international
project “Empatia” (see: www.empatia-project.eu) are their most recent projects. The
former, which focused on the implementation of pilot participatory processes in a sample
of Portuguese municipalities, managed to start up a national network of municipalities
that have adopted participatory processes – similar to those that already existing in Brazil
and in Mozambique – which annually awards a best practice.
7. Similar societal dynamics occurred in other cities, where the autonomous initiative of social
and political sectors made decision-makers decide to implement PBs. It was the case of town
councillors playing a decisive role for the implementation of the PB in Chicago (Secondo and
Lerner 2011), and social groups in Guelph, Canada (Pinnington, Josh, and Schugurensky
2009).
8. The PB of Lisbon was acknowledged by UN-Habitat in 2009 (Cabannes 2009) and OECD in
2010 (OECD 2011, 216) as an effective democratic innovation, and in the same year the Euro-
cities organization shortlisted the PB as a notable participatory practice (more information at:
http://www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/eurocities-awards/awards2009).
9. The PB distinguished the allocation of financial resources for major and minor projects in
2012 (respectively €1.5 million for minor projects up to €150,000 each, and €1 million for
major projects up to €500,000 each). The PB further altered the allocation of funding for
small projects in 2016, aimed at equally distributing € 300,000 to each one of the five terri-
torial units of the city (Historical Center, Center, North, East, and West)
10. More information about the winning projects is available at: https://op.lisboaparticipa.pt/
projetos-vencedores.

Acknowledgements
This work is the result of the Research Project “New Forms of Political Participation: Protests and
Institutional Participation in Brazil and Portugal in Comparative Perspective” funded by FCT/
CAPES, 39/2014.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
16 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

Funding
This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia: [Grant Number SFRH/BPD/
109406/2015]; FCT/CAPES.

Notes on contributors
Roberto Falanga is Postdoc Research Fellow of Sociology. His key research interests are participa-
tory democracy, policy analysis, and the impacts of global financial crisis in Southern Europe. He
has published in journals such as Clinical Psychology and Universitas Humanas, and published the
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance.
Lígia Helena Hahn Lüchmann is Professor at the Department of Sociology and Political Science,
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Her key research interests are civil society, associativism,
participatory institutions and democracy. She has published in journals such as Revista Dados,
Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, and Revista de Sociologia e Política.

References
Abbott, Andrew. 1992. “What do Cases do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis.” In
What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by Charles C. Ragin and
Howard S. Becker, 53–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allegretti, Giovanni, and Roberto Falanga. 2016. “Women in Budgeting: A Critical Assessment of
Empowering Effects, Limits and Challenges of Participatory Budgeting Experiences.” In Gender
and Participatory Budgeting. Imperative of Equitable Public Expenditure, edited by Cecilia Ng
Choon Sim, 33–53. Netherlands: Springer.
Allegretti, Giovanni, and Carsten Herzberg. 2004. “El “Retorno de las Carabelas”: Los Presupuestos
Participativos de America Latina en el Contexto Europeo.” Transnational institute, 5, FIM
(Fundación Investigaciones Marxistas).
Allegretti, Giovanni, Patricia Garcia Leiva, and Pablo Paño Yañez. 2011. Viajando por los presu-
puestos participativos: buenas praticas, obstaculos y aprendizajes. Malaga: CEDMA.
Alves, Mariana, and G. Allegretti. 2012. “(In) Stability, a Key Element to Understand Participatory
Budgeting: Discussing Portuguese Cases.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8 (2), Article 3. http://
www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art3.
Arnstein, Sherry. 1971. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 57 (1): 176–182.
Avritzer, Leonardo. 1997. “Um Desenho Institucional para o Novo Associativismo.” Lua Nova:
Revista de Cultura e Política 39: 149–174. doi:10.1590/S0102-64451997000100009.
Avritzer, Leonardo. 2006. “New Public Spheres in Brazil: Local Democracy and Deliberative
Politics.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (3): 623–637. doi:10.1111/j.
1468-2427.2006.00692.x.
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo. 2001. “Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre Experiment and
Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Politics & Society 29 (1): 43–72. doi:10.1177/
0032329201029001003.
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo, and Ernesto Ganuza. 2014. “Participatory Budgeting as If Emancipation
Mattered.” Politics & Society 42 (1): 29–50. doi:10.1177/0032329213512978.
Baiocchi, Gianpaolo, and Ernesto Ganuza, eds. 2016. Popular Democracy. The Paradox of
Participation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barnes, Marian, Janet Newman, Andrew Knops, and Helen Sullivan. 2003. “Constituting ‘the Public’
in Public Participation.” Public Administration 81 (2): 379–399. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00352.
Baumgarten, Britta. 2013. “Geração à Rasca and Beyond: Mobilizations in Portugal After 12 March
2011.” Current Sociology 61: 457–473. doi:10.1177/0011392113479745.
Borba, Julian. 2012. “Participação Política: uma Revisão dos Modelos de Classificação.” Sociedade e
Estado 27: 263–288. doi:10.1590/S0102-69922012000200004.
 POLICY STUDIES 17

Borba, Julian, and Lígia H. H. Lüchmann. 2007. Orçamento Participativo: Análise das Experiências
Desenvolvidas em Santa Catarina. Florianopolis: Insular.
Brun-Martos, Maria I., and Irvine Lapsley. 2016. “Democracy, Governmentality and Transparency:
Participatory Budgeting in Action.” Public Management Review 19 (7): 1–16.
Cabannes, Yves. 2004. “Participatory Budgeting: A Significant Contribution to Participatory
Democracy.” Environment and Urbanization 16 (1): 27–46.
Cabannes, Yves, ed. 2009. “72 Perguntas Frequentes sobre Orçamento Participativo. Série Caixa de
Ferramentas de Governação Urbana.” UN-HABITAT/ Iniciativa Comunitária EQUAL. http://
opac.iefp.pt:8080/images/winlibimg.exe?key=&doc=78228&img=1156.
Cabannes, Yves, and Sérgio Baierle. 2004. “Financiamento Local e Orçamento Participativo.” URB-
AL Network Working Paper 9. Porto Alegre: Prefeitura de Porto Alegre.
Cabannes, Yves, and Barbara Lipietz. 2015. “The Democratic Contribution of Participatory
Budgeting.” Working Paper 15–168, Department of International Development, London
School of Economics and Political Science.
Caldas, José C. 2012. The Consequences of Austerity Policies in Portugal. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/09311.pdf.
Campos, Poti Silveira, and Nubia Silveira. 2015. Orçamento participativo de Porto Alegre: 25 anos.
Porto Alegre: Editora da Cidade/Gráfica Expresso.
Cayres, Domitila C. 2015. “Ativismo Institucional no coração da Secretária-Geral da Presidência da
República: A Secretaria Nacional de Articulação Social no Governo Dilma Rousseff (2011-2014).”
PhD Thesis, UFSC. http://www.ipea.gov.br/participacao/images/pdfs/tesedomitilacayres.pdf
Chess, Caron, and Kristen Purcell. 1999. “Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know
What Works?” Environmental Science & Technology 33 (16): 2685–2692. doi:10.1021/es980500g.
Cooper, Terry, Thomas Bryer, and Jack Meek. 2006. “Citizen-Centered Collaborative Public
Management.” Public Administration Review 66: 76–88.
Costa, António. 2012. Caminhos Abertos. Lisbon: Quetzal.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., Fay L. Cook, and Lawrence R. Jacobs. 2004. “Public Deliberations,
Discursive Participation and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature.”
Annual Review of Political Science 7 (1): 315–344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.
De Sousa, Luís, Pedro Magalhães, and Luciano Amaral. 2014. “Sovereign Debt and Governance
Failures.” American Behavioral Scientist 58 (12): 1517–1541. doi:10.1177/0002764214534666.
de Souza, Luciana A. M. 2015. “Do Local para o Nacional: o Orçamento Participativo (OP) e a
Institucionalização da Participação Popular ao longo da História do Partido dos
Trabalhadores (PT).” Interseções: Revista de Estudos Interdisciplinares 17 (1): 226–251.
Dias, Nelson. 2008. “Uma outra democracia é possível? As experiências de Orçamento
Participativo.” E-cadernos CES 1: 183–205.
Dias, Nelson. 2010. “Orçamentos Participativos em Portugal.” Vez e Voz 97: 5–10.
Dias, Nelson, ed. 2013. Esperança Democrática - 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no mundo.
São Brás de Alportel: Associação In Loco.
Dias, Nelson, and Giovanni Allegretti. 2009. “Orçamentos Participativos em Portugal. Em busca de
uma democracia de maior proximidade ou de uma racionalidade funcional?” Cidades
Comunidades e Territórios 18: 59–78.
Doimo, Ana. M. 1995. A vez e a voz do popular. Rio de Janeiro: Relume-Dumará/ANPOCS.
Falanga, Roberto. 2014a. “Changes Need Change: A Psychosociological Perspective on
Participation and Social Inclusion.” Rivista di Psicologia Clinica 2: 24–38.
Falanga, Roberto. 2014b. “Participação e Regras do Jogo: Para um Paradigma da Complexidade.”
Universitas Humanas 11 (2): 49–58.
Fedozzi, Luciano J. 1996. “Do Patrimonialismo à Cidadania Participação Popular na Gestão
Municipal: o Caso do Orçamento Participativo de Porto Alegre.” MA thesis, PPGS/UFRGS.
Fedozzi, Luciano J., and K. C. Lima. 2013. “Os Orçamentos Participativos no Brasil.” In Esperança
Democrática. 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no Mundo, edited by Nelson Dias, 151–162.
São Brás de Alportel: In Loco.
Fedozzi, Luciano J., and André L. B. Martins. 2015. “Trajetória do Orçamento Participativo de
Porto Alegre: Representação e Elitização Política.” Lua Nova 1: 181–224.
18 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

Fishman, Robert M. 2011. “Democratic Practice after the Revolution: The Case of Portugal and
Beyond.” Politics & Society 39 (2): 233–267. doi:10.1177/0032329211405439.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry
12 (2): 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.
Font, Joan, Donatella della Porta, and Yves Sintomer. 2014. Participatory Democracy in Southern
Europe. Causes, Characteristics and Consequences. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration
Review Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management 66: 66–75. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.
2006.00667.x.
Fung, Archon. 2015. “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen
Participation and Its Future.” Public Administration Review 75 (4): 513–552. doi:10.1111/puar.
12361.
Fung, Archon, and Erik Olin Wright, eds. 2003. Deepening Democracy. Institutional Innovations in
Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.
Ganuza, Ernesto, and Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 2012. “The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory
Budgeting Travels the World.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8 (2), Article 8. http://www.
publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art8/.
Gaventa, John, and Gregory Barret. 2010. “So What Differences Does it Make? Mapping the
Outcomes of Citizen Engagement.” Working Paper, Institute of Development Studies,
Development research Centre Citizenship, Participation and Accountability, 347. https://www.
ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp347.pdf.
GECD. Grupo de Estudos sobre a Construção Democrática. 1999. “Os Movimentos Sociais e a
Construção Democrática. Sociedade Civil, Esfera Pública e Gestão Participativa.” Idéias 5 (2)/
6 (1): 7–122.
Gohn, Maria G. 1997. Teorias dos movimentos sociais: paradigmas clássicos e contemporâneos. São
Paulo: Loyola.
Gugliano, Alfredo. A. 2016. “Café e Chimarrão: Comparando Experiências de Orçamentos
Participativos de São Paulo e do Rio Grande do Sul.” Revista Debates 10: 89–110.
Kowarick, Lúcio. 1987. “Movimentos Urbanos no Brasil Contemporâneo: uma Análise de
Literatura.” RBCS 1 (3). http://www.anpocs.org.br/portal/publicacoes/rbcs_00_03/rbcs03_03.
htm.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1987. “What are Scientific Revolutions?” In The Probabilistic Revolution, Vol.1:
Ideas in History, edited by Lorenz Kruger, Lorraine J. Daston, and Michael Heidelberger, 7–
22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lowndes, Vivien, Lawrence Pratchett, and Gerry Stoker. 2001. “Trends in Public Participation: Part
1 – Local Government Perspectives.” Public Administration 79 (1): 205–222. doi:10.1111/1467-
9299.00253.
Lüchmann, Lígia H. H. 2007. “A representação no Interior das Experiências de Participação.” Lua
Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política 70: 139–170.
Lüchmann, Lígia H. H. 2011. “Associações, Participação e Representação: Combinações e Tensões.”
Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política 84: 141–174.
Lüchmann, Lígia H. H. 2014. “25 anos de Orçamento Participativo: Algumas Reflexões Analíticas.”
Política & Sociedade 13 (28): 167–197. doi:10.5007/2175-7984.2014v13n28p167.
MacPherson, Crawford B. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Marchetti, Adalmina. 2003. “Participação e Redistribuição: o Orçamento Participativo em Porto
Alegre.” In A inovação democrática no Brasil, edited by Leonardo Avritzer and Zander
Navarro, 129–156. São Paulo: Cortez.
Marsh, David, and Sadiya Akram. 2015. “Political Participation and Citizen Engagement: Beyond
the Mainstream.” Policy Studies 36 (6): 523–531. doi:10.1080/01442872.2015.1109616.
Meira, Thiago Augusto Velos, Daniel Coelho Oliveira, and Vagner Santana Caminhas. 2013.
“Mapeamento das experiências brasileiras de Orçamento Participativo (1989-2008).”
EFDeportes.com, Revista Digital 18 (184). http://www.efdeportes.com/efd184/experiencias-
brasileiras-de-orcamento-participativo.htm.
 POLICY STUDIES 19

Montambeault, Françoise. 2016. “Participatory Citizenship in the Making? The Multiple

Citizenship Trajectories of Participatory Budgeting Participants in Brazil.” Journal of Civil
Society 12 (3): 282–298. doi:10.1080/17448689.2016.1213508.
OECD. 2011. The Call for Innovative and Open Government. An Overview of Countries’ Initiatives.
Paris: OECD.
OQD Observatório da Qualidade da Democracia. 2012. Report. http://www.oqd.ics.ulisboa.pt/.
Papadopoulos, Yannis, and Philippe Warin. 2007. “Are Innovative, Participatory and Deliberative
Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective?” European Journal of Political Research
46 (4): 445–472. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x.
Pateman, Carole. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 7–19.
doi:10.1017/S1537592711004877.
Pinnington, Elizabeth, Lerner Josh, and Daniel Schugurensky. 2009. “Participatory Budgeting in
North America: The Case of Guelph, Canada.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting &
Financial Management 21 (3): 455–484. http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/edu20/
documents/PB_Guelph_PLS.pdf.
Pogrebinschi, Thamy. 2013. “The Squared Circle of Participatory Democracy: Scaling up
Deliberation to the National Level.” Critical Policy Studies 7 (3): 219–241. doi:10.1080/
19460171.2013.805156.
Porto de Oliveira, Osmany. 2016. “Mecanismos da difusão global do Orçamento Participativo:
indução internacional, construção social e circulação de indivíduos.” Opinião Pública 22 (2):
219–249. doi:10.1590/1807-01912016222219.
RBOP. 2012. “Brazilian Participatory Budgeting Network.” http://www.redeopbrasil.com.br/home/.
Restrepo, Dario I. 2003. “Las practicas participativas: entre la socializacion y la privatizacion de las
politicas publicas.” CLAD Reforma y Democracia. http://old.clad.org/portal/publicaciones-del-
clad/revista-clad-reforma-democracia/articulos/025-febrero-2003/las-practicas-participativas-
entre-la-socializacion-y-la-privatizacion-de-las-politicas-publicas.
Roberts, Nancy. 2002. “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation.” The
American Review of Public Administration 34 (4): 315–353. doi:10.1177/0275074004269288.
Santos, Wanderley G. 1993. Razões da desordem. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
Secondo, Donata, and Josh Lerner. 2011. “Social Our Money, Our Decision. Participatory
Budgeting Takes Root in New York City.” Social Policy, 22–25. http://www.abeoudshoorn.
com/publications/pbnyc.pdf.
Selee, Andrew, and Enrique Peruzzotti, eds. 2009. Participatory Innovation and Representative
Democracy in Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sgueo, Ginaluca. 2016. “Participatory Budgeting. An Innovative Approach.” European
Parliamentary Research Service. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2712213.
Sintomer, Yves. 2005. “Los Presupuestos Participativos en Europa. Retos y Desafios.” Revista del
CLAD Reforma y Democracia 31. http://siare.clad.org/fulltext/0049844.pdf.
Sintomer, Yves. 2007. Le Pouvoir au Peuple. Jurys Citoyens, Tirage au Sort et Démocratie
Partecipative. Paris: La Découverte.
Sintomer, Yves, and Giovanni Allegretti. 2009. I Bilanci Partecipativi nel Vecchio Continente. Rome:
Ediesse.
Sintomer, Yves, and Giovanni Allegretti. 2013. Os Orçamentos Participativos na Europa. Entre
Democracia Participativa e Modernização dos Serviços Públicos. Coimbra: Almedina.
Sintomer, Yves, Giovanni Allegretti, Carsten Herzberg, and Anja Röcke. 2013. Learning from the
South: Participatory Budgeting Worldwide – an Invitation to Global Cooperation. Bonn:
InWEnt gGmbH.
Sintomer, Yves, Carsten Herzberg, and Anja Röcke. 2008. “Participatory Budgeting in Europe:
Potentials and Challenges.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (1): 164–
178. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x.
Sintomer, Yves, Carsten Herzberg, and Anja Röcke. 2012. “Modelos Transnacionais de Participação
Cidadã: o Caso do Orçamento Participativo.” Sociologias 14 (30): 70–116.
Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 20 R. FALANGA AND L. H. H. LÜCHMANN

Spada, Paolo. 2014. “The Adoption and Abandonment of Democractic Innovations: Investigating
the Rise and Decline of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil.” Proceedings of the International
Congress of the Latin America Studies, Chicago.
Su, Celina. 2017. “From Porto Alegre to New York City: Participatory Budgeting and Democracy.”
New Political Science 39 (1): 67–75. doi:10.1080/07393148.2017.1278854.
UCLG United Cities and Local Governments. 2008. Decentralization and Local Democracy in the
World: First Global Report. Barcelona: UCLG.
Wampler, Brian. 2008. “A Difusão do Orçamento Participativo Brasileiro: “Boas Práticas” Devem
ser Promovidas?” Opinião Pública 14 (1): 69–95.

View publication stats