Participatory Budgeting without Participants: Identifying Barriers on Accessibility and Usage of German Participatory Budgeting

Robert Zepic, Marcus M. Dapp, H. Krcmar
{"title":"Participatory Budgeting without Participants: Identifying Barriers on Accessibility and Usage of German Participatory Budgeting","authors":"Robert Zepic, Marcus M. Dapp, H. Krcmar","doi":"10.1109/CeDEM.2017.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Participatory budgeting aims at finding an appropriate solution to meet the increasing demands of citizens worldwide for more transparency and political participation in financial affairs. Several thousand projects related to this topic have been conducted worldwide to date. In Germany, public participation rates in these projects were often below expectations of public administration and politics, rarely surpassing a one-digit percentage of eligible voters. This leads to the question, how can this public disinterest be explained? We conducted an interdisciplinary literature review and considered scientific journals, conferences, monographs and anthologies to identify barriers to accessibility and usage of German participatory budgeting. Our findings show a wide range of reasons that were assumed by scholars to be responsible for low participation rates in participatory budgeting. We developed five meta categories, which summarize the findings topically. Twenty barriers to participation were found. The results of our literature review provide a basis for further scientific examination and allow political and public administration decision-makers to develop measures appropriate to increase participation rates.","PeriodicalId":240391,"journal":{"name":"2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CeDEM.2017.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Participatory budgeting aims at finding an appropriate solution to meet the increasing demands of citizens worldwide for more transparency and political participation in financial affairs. Several thousand projects related to this topic have been conducted worldwide to date. In Germany, public participation rates in these projects were often below expectations of public administration and politics, rarely surpassing a one-digit percentage of eligible voters. This leads to the question, how can this public disinterest be explained? We conducted an interdisciplinary literature review and considered scientific journals, conferences, monographs and anthologies to identify barriers to accessibility and usage of German participatory budgeting. Our findings show a wide range of reasons that were assumed by scholars to be responsible for low participation rates in participatory budgeting. We developed five meta categories, which summarize the findings topically. Twenty barriers to participation were found. The results of our literature review provide a basis for further scientific examination and allow political and public administration decision-makers to develop measures appropriate to increase participation rates.
无参与者的参与式预算:识别德国参与式预算的可及性和使用障碍
参与式预算的目的是寻找一种适当的解决办法,以满足全世界公民对财政事务的透明度和政治参与日益增加的要求。迄今为止,全世界已开展了数千个与这一主题有关的项目。在德国,这些项目的公众参与率往往低于公共行政和政治的预期,很少超过合格选民的一位数百分比。这就引出了一个问题,如何解释这种公众不感兴趣的现象?我们进行了一项跨学科文献综述,并考虑了科学期刊、会议、专著和选集,以确定德国参与式预算的可及性和使用障碍。我们的研究结果表明,学者们认为导致参与式预算参与率低的原因有很多。我们开发了五种元分类,对研究结果进行了专题总结。发现了20个参与障碍。我们的文献综述结果为进一步的科学研究提供了基础,并允许政治和公共行政决策者制定适当的措施来提高参与率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信