Participatory budgeting
Residents directly decide how part of a public budget is spent, which moves money toward basic services in poorer areas.
Start small
Ask one local council, school or community fund to commit a small pot (for example US$10,000 to 50,000) for one cycle. Run 3 to 4 neighbourhood idea assemblies, a volunteer delegate group of 10 to 15 people to develop proposals, and a public vote over about 4 to 6 months. Publish delivery progress afterwards.
The problem
Failure to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Public budgets often skip the sanitation, health and education needs of poorer neighbourhoods because of clientelism and weak accountability.
Where it fits
Thrived where a local government had real investment money to hand over, strong political commitment, and organised neighbourhood associations. Needs yearly cycles of open assemblies, elected delegates, rules that favour needier districts, and visible delivery of the projects people chose.
The principle underneath
Giving residents binding say over real money brings information about local needs into the budget and makes officials accountable for delivery. Spending then follows need rather than patronage.
Who to call
Participatory Budgeting Project (USA); People Powered (global hub for participatory democracy); International Observatory on Participatory Democracy (OIDP); WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities.
Watch out for
Tokenistic budgets too small to matter. Dependence on a single mayor or party. Low turnout from the poorest groups unless the rules weight need. Projects that are voted but never built, which destroys trust.
Where it comes from
Created in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 1989 with neighbourhood associations, and since spread to more than 2,700 governments worldwide. The method is openly documented and freely adaptable.
Where it's worked
Porto Alegre, Brazil · 1989 to 1997
Sewer and water connections rose from 75% to 98% of households; health and education share of the budget rose from 13% to about 40%.
DocumentedSource
Brazilian municipalities (national panel) · 1990 to 2004
PB municipalities raised health and sanitation spending and cut infant mortality by 1 to 2 per 1,000 births.
Peer reviewedSource
New York City, USA · 2009 to 2018
PB districts shifted discretionary capital toward schools, public housing and streets across 10,728 projects and over US$2.5 billion.
Peer reviewedSource
Where it failed
In Porto Alegre, participation peaked around 2002 and declined; a new administration suspended PB in 2017, citing lack of resources, after political support had faded. World Bank analysis found it stayed limited to neighbourhood capital projects, with weak budget oversight. Elsewhere, PB pots are often too small to shift outcomes.
Related Fruit
- TreeMember-owned savings and credit groupsNeighbours pool regular small savings into a fund they own and govern, and lend it back to each other, giving people financial services where banks don't reach.
- TreeCommunity-owned renewable energy co-operativeLocals pool small investments to own a wind or solar project together, so the power, profits and decisions stay in the community.
- TreeCommunity currencyA local money, issued and governed by the community, that keeps spending and credit circulating among neighbours and local businesses.
- TreeCommunity forest managementLegal rights to manage, use and earn from forests go to organised local communities, which then protect them better than many parks do.