Conclusion: Doing Participatory Budgeting Right

The conclusion offers four implications and three recommendations for better participatory budgeting practice. First we note how, rather than reflecting a coordinated participatory budgeting process, each council district operates its own process that reflects that there as many PB projects as there are participating council members. Second, there is substantial top-down behavior that effectively inhibits sharing power with marginalized members of the community. Third, the process is opaque in many ways, with many members of the community unaware of participatory budgeting. There is a lack of public notice with respect to the critical agenda setting stage. Fourth, some voting locations are potential beneficiaries of proposed projects and some volunteers at pop-up voting tables are advocates for particular projects, which undermines the fairness of process. Proposed changes to improve participatory budgeting include taking positive steps to invite in disadvantaged members of the community, create a reliable normalized process, eliminate opaque practices, and detach participatory budgeting from the council discretionary budget. We urge all involved with PB to address the barriers detailed in this book, to keep reaching toward the higher, critically important goals it has set forth throughout the world, and in doing so, truly offer citizens the real money and real power they deserve.