Participatory mechanisms and inequality reduction: searching for plausible relations

V. Coelho, L. Waisbich
{"title":"Participatory mechanisms and inequality reduction: searching for plausible relations","authors":"V. Coelho, L. Waisbich","doi":"10.16997/JDD.265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brazil is known for being one of the most unequal countries in the world. Since the 1990s many scholars, both in Brazil and those analyzing the country¹s trajectories from abroad, have been describing a decrease in country¹s inequalities. In this article we discuss the possible role of expanding citizen participation in policy making processes and overseeing their implementation in inequality reduction. To do so we explore the connections between the participatory mechanisms and the implementation of policies that are expected to reduce inequalities in two different participatory experiments that have taken place in Brazil: Sao Paulo municipal health councils and the country¹s participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP). We argue that, despite their thematic and historical differences, there are good reasons to believe that these two participatory experiences sustained the expectations concerning their role in contributing to reduced inequalities. However, these cases suggest that their contributions were less determined by the quality of the participatory process, as defined by the deliberative democracy literature, than by the nature of political alliances and mobilization processes that supported these spaces.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"324 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Deliberation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Brazil is known for being one of the most unequal countries in the world. Since the 1990s many scholars, both in Brazil and those analyzing the country¹s trajectories from abroad, have been describing a decrease in country¹s inequalities. In this article we discuss the possible role of expanding citizen participation in policy making processes and overseeing their implementation in inequality reduction. To do so we explore the connections between the participatory mechanisms and the implementation of policies that are expected to reduce inequalities in two different participatory experiments that have taken place in Brazil: Sao Paulo municipal health councils and the country¹s participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP). We argue that, despite their thematic and historical differences, there are good reasons to believe that these two participatory experiences sustained the expectations concerning their role in contributing to reduced inequalities. However, these cases suggest that their contributions were less determined by the quality of the participatory process, as defined by the deliberative democracy literature, than by the nature of political alliances and mobilization processes that supported these spaces.
参与性机制与减少不平等:寻找合理的关系
众所周知,巴西是世界上最不平等的国家之一。自20世纪90年代以来,许多巴西学者和从国外分析该国发展轨迹的学者一直在描述该国不平等现象的减少。在本文中,我们讨论了扩大公民参与政策制定过程并监督其实施在减少不平等方面的可能作用。为此,我们探讨了参与机制与政策执行之间的联系,这些政策有望在巴西进行的两项不同的参与实验中减少不平等现象:圣保罗市卫生委员会和该国参与开放政府伙伴关系(OGP)。我们认为,尽管它们在主题和历史上存在差异,但有充分的理由相信,这两种参与性经历维持了人们对它们在减少不平等方面的作用的期望。然而,这些案例表明,它们的贡献与其说是由协商民主文献所界定的参与进程的质量决定的,不如说是由支持这些空间的政治联盟和动员进程的性质决定的。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信