Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg, Anja Röcke Participatory Budgets in Europe: Between Civic Participation and Modernisation of Public Administration Some comparative elements
April 2006
1
Team
Research director: Yves Sintomer Researchers: Carsten Herzberg, Anja Röcke In collaboration with 14 researchers from 8 countries: • Belgium: Ludivine Damay, Christine Schaut • France: Marion Ben-Hammo, Sandrina Geoffroy, Julien Talpin • Great Britain: Jeremy Hall • Italy: Giovanni Allegretti (coordinator), Pier Paolo Fanesi, Lucilla Pezzetta, Michelangelo Secchi • Netherlands: Hugo Swinnen • Poland: Elzbieta Plaszczyk • Portugal: Luis Guerreiro • Spain: Ernesto Ganuza Administrative director: Hans-Peter Müller, Humboldt University (Berlin) Source of funding: Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Marc Bloch Centre (Berlin)
2
Introduction
There is a dynamic development of participatory budgets (PBs) in Europe. This presentation aims at:
• giving information about the conditions for and the context of European PBs • discussing the impact of PBs on administrative reform, politics and social justice Nota bene: • Though we give examples of concrete impacts of PB, these results cannot be generalised because a) experiments are still very young; b) the lack of quantitative data. Impacts going beyond single cases therefore present hypotheses • Concrete procedures and ideal-typical models are presented without further explication, additional PP presentations exist 3
Contents
I. II. III. IV. Appendix. Development Context Typologies Effects and hypotheses Additional material by country
4
I. Development
5
Development
PB was invented in Porto Alegre at the beginning of the 1990s. Since then, it has been adopted in hundreds of other Brazilian and LatinAmerican cities In Europe, the first experiments started in Italy (Grottammare 1994), Great Britain (Salford 1996) and Germany (Mönchweiler 1998)
The World Social Forum, first organised in Porto Alegre in 2001, contributed to the exponential spread of PBs in Europe Countries with most examples of PB currently are Italy (15), Spain (14), France (11) and Germany (10). There exist also cases in Great Britain (2), Portugal (2) and Poland (1) The population of cities with participatory budgets increased from 14.723 in 1994 to 4.8 million in 2005 Broadest scope in Spain: 2 Mio. citizens (5,2 % of the population) are concerned. Increasing tendency
6
Participatory budgets (2000)
Participatory budgets (2002)
Participatory budgets (2003)
Participatory budgets (2005)
7
Quelle: Sintomer/Röcke/Herzberg: Europäische Bürgerhaushalte
Number of participatory budgets in Europe
60 55 50 40 40 32 30 22 20 13 10 0 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 1 2 2 3 3 6
8
Number of participatory budgets in Europe by country (1993-2005)
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Italy Spain
France Germany
Others*
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
*Others = Great Britain, Portugal, Poland
9
Percentage of participatory budgets in Europe: repartition by countries (2005)
Portugal 4% Poland 2% Britain 4% Spain 25% France 20%
Germany 18%
Italy 27%
10
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Europe: repartition by countries
Poland 3% Portugal 2% Britain 9% France 9% Spain 43%
Germany 23% Italy 11%
11
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Europe
6.000.000
5.000.000
4.816.648
4.000.000 3.680.512 3.000.000
2.000.000
2.078.096 1.528.785
1.000.000 0 0 1993
906.232 234.732 234.732 237.932 237.932 14.732 14.732 342.592 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
12
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Europe: Graph by countries
2.500.000
2.000.000
Spain
1.500.000
1.000.000
Germany
Others* 500.000 Italy France
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
*Others = Great Britain, Portugal, Poland
13
Citizens living in a city/district with a participatory budget as percentage of the population of the country
6% 5,2% 5%
4%
3%
2% 1,4% 1% 1,1% 0,9% 0,8% 0,7% 0,3%
0% Spain Germany Portugal Italy France Britain Poland
14
II. Context
15
Size of cities
PBs exist in cities of different size PBs develop increasingly in larger cities of more than 100.000 inhabitants, their number doubled in the last two years; examples are Salford (GB), Plock (Pl), Bonn (D) More and more European capitals start at the district level with PB: Berlin, Paris, Roma, London; perhaps Madrid in Oslo in the future
16
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
300.000
50.000
Sevilla Córdoba Bonn Berlin Lichtenb. Berlin Treptow-K. Salford London-Harrow Terassa Jérez Paris XX San Sebastian Modena Getafe Albacete Roma XI Płock Cottbus
Saint-Denis Cinisello Santarem Hilden Palmela Puertollano Aubagne Landau Emsdetten Courneuve Petrer
Population of cities/districts with participatory budget in Europe (2005)
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Europe (2005): details
Puente Genil Lübecke Vimercate Almansa Groß-Umstadt Vlotho Morsang Arcueil Limeil-Brevannes Castelmaggiore Pieve Emanuele Poitiers (OPARC)
0 709.000 320.000 313.000
17 cities/districts with more than 100.000 11 cities between 30.-100.000 12 cities between 15.-30.000
15 cities with less than 15.000
Grottammare Vimodrone Cardano Bobigny (OPHLM) Pont de Claix Torreperogíl Colorno Isola Vicentina Vif San Canzian d'Isonzo Viladecavalls Ripatransone Altidona San Sebastion da Po Figaró
17
Population of European cities/districts with more than 100.000 inhabitants and with participatory budgets
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1993 0 1994 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2 1 1 1 1 4 7 11 17
18
Social context
The social context has no direct influence on the set-up of PBs. It varies considerably • Unemployment rate between 3,8% (Salford) and 23 % (Córdoba) • Percentage of foreign nationals between 0,9% (Płock) and 26,2% (St. Denis)
19
Unemployment rate in selected cities/districts
Participatory budgets 25,0%
4 cities 23,0% with more than 20% 21,0%20,4% 20,4% 5 cities/districts between 10-20% 8 cities between 5-10% 2 cities with less than 5% 21,0%
Other instruments
20,0%
16,3% 16,0% 15,4% 14,7% 14,0% 12,5% 10,0% 9,6% 8,0% 7,9%
15,0%
10,0%
7,7% 7,1% 7,0%
6,2% 4,0% 3,8%
5,9% 3,5%
5,0%
Venezia (3 districts)
Berlin-Lichtenberg
Mons (2 districts)
Puente Genil
Rheinstetten
Haemeenlinna
Grottammare
Pont Claix
Bradford
Córdoba
St. Denis
Utrecht
Emsdetten
20
Esslingen
Albacete
Morsang
Bobigny
Paris XX
Roma XI
Palmela
Salford
Hilden
Płock
0,0%
Percentage of foreign nationals in selected cities/districts
Participatory budgets
35% 30% 25% 20% 15,2% 15% 10% 5% 0% 11,3% 11,0% 14,5% 8,7% 7,4% 5,8% 5,8% 5,3% 4,0% 3,8% 3,6% 3,0%3,0% 3 cities with more than 26,2% 20% 25,0% 23,0% 21,0% 3 cities/districts between 10-20% 5 cities/districts between 5-10% 9 cities/districts with less than 5% 31,0%
Other instruments
2,1% 1,7% 1,3% 0,9%
1,7%
Berlin-Lichtenberg
Venezia (3 districts)
Pieve Emanuele
21
Mons (2 districts)
Haemeenlinna
Puente Genil
Pont Claix
Rheinstetten
Emsdetten
Grottammare
Esslingen
Bobigny
Albacete
Paris XX
Sevilla
Hilden
Bradford
Morsang
Salford
St. Denis
Roma XI
Córdoba
Płock
Utrecht
Political context
Current situation: most PBs in cities with left-wing government (85,5%), mostly social-democrats (nearly 50% of all 55 cases) Differences in political affiliation between countries: • consensual in Germany (all parties involved) • post-communist majority in France • communist/social-democrat balance in Spain • social-democrat majority in Italy Voting turnout between 32,5% (Płock) and 87 % (Mons); generally declining voting tendency PBs at the intersection between a legitimacy crisis of representative democracy and the search of left-wing parties for a new profile?
22
Mayoral political affiliation by party in cities/districts with participatory budget (2005)
conservatives/liberals 7,3%
others 7,3%
post communists/alternativ e left 36,4%
social-democrats 49,1%
23
Political party of Mayor at introduction of participatory budget (1998 - 2005)
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 Germany France Spain Italy 7 9 6 3 8 2
others
1 1
2
2
7
12
conservatives/liberals socialdemocrats
post communists/alternative left
24
Mayority of council in cities/districts with participatory budget (2005)
Changing majority 10,9% Center conservatives and nationalists 5,5% Post communists /plural left 41,8%
Center left 41,8%
25
Political affiliation of mayor and procedure of PB
No correlation between political affiliation and selection of a specific procedure of PB
Analysis country by country • Germany: mayors of all parties support the procedure “Consultation on public finances”. Post-communists tend to introduce voting procedures and to strengthen the feedback
• France: only post-communist and social democrat mayors support PB, both favour “Proximity” procedure • Spain: mostly post-communist and social democrat mayors are engaged in PB. Initially, the former tended to favour the “POA” procedure (Corcoba, Figaro), whilst the latter tended to prefer a mixed procedure between “POA” and “Organisation of organised interests” (Albacete, Almansa). • Italy: mainly social democrats and post-communists introduce PB. They chose either the procedure of “Proximity” or of “POA”, there are no clear party preferences
26
Electoral participation in selected cities/districts
27
Dynamics of participation (I) Is there a bottom-up process?
In no case mere bottom-up process In Albacete, Cordoba, Grottammare: combination of bottom-up and top-down process
In most cases (16 of 19 selected cities): top-down process
28
Origin of participatory budget implementation in 19 selected cities/districts
18 16 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 top down interaction top down/bottom up bottom up 3
29
Dynamics of participation (II)
Which social classes participate?
In most cases (12): Combination of upper working class and middle class Middle class participation in all 3 selected German towns*, in Płock and Albacete In some cases mostly upper working class participation: Bobigny, Pont de Claix
Open question: In PB more working-class participation than in other participatory devices? * Berlin-Lichtenberg: to early for evaluation
30
Participatory budget participation by social clases in 18 selected cities/districts
14 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 2 0 working class upper working/middle class middle class
5
31
* Bobigny is counted twice: working class and joint working/middle class for different instruments
Dynamics of participation (III) Type of participating citizens
In more than 50% of cases (11 of 20), participation is directed towards both active and organised citizens Mostly active citizens: Bobigny, Saint Denis, Rheinstetten
Only organised citizens: Albacete
Sectors of population: Youth and/or children: Pont de Claix, Sevilla (attempts), Cordoba (6-12 years-old children) in 2005 All citizens: No referendum in the framework of PB
Partly ordinary citizens (random selection): Emsdetten, Hilden, Berlin-Lichtenberg, Pont de Claix Use of random selection is a European specificity with respect to Latin America! 32
Financial situation
Financial situation of city/district has no direct influence on development of PB • Part of municipal budget per citizen varies from 42 Euros (Płock) to 3869 Euros (Venezia) • Municipal debt in relation to total municipal budget varies from 5,6% (Morsang) to 169,5% (Salford) Public enterprises manage high amount of additional resources (which don‟t appear in municipal budget reports) Hilden (85% of the city budget), Emsdetten (75%), Sevilla (50%) and Płock (45%) Are public enterprises included into deliberations within PB? Yes: Puente Genil To some degree: Groß-Umstadt (during one year, the duties, income and expenditure of public enterprises were „transparently‟ presented and discussed within PB)
33
Municipal budget per citizen in selected cities/districts
Participatory budgets
6000
Other Instruments 8 cities/districts with less than 1000
5121 4839
5 cities with more than 2000
5000
8 cities/districts between 1000 and 2000
4000
3869
3000 2267 2155 2000 2141 2045
2775 2273 1902 1835 1818 16591630 1604 1140 1118 841 785 758 701 630 629 336 42
1000
Berlin-Lichtenberg
Venezia (city)
Puente Genil
Rheinstetten
Pieve Emanuele
Haemeenlinna
Grottammare
Mons (city)
Pont Claix
Bradford
Córdoba
St. Denis
Utrecht
Emsdetten
34
Esslingen
Albacete
Morsang
0
Bobigny
Salford
Paris XX
Roma XI
Hilden
Sevilla
Palmela
Płock
Total municipal debt in relation to total municipal budget in selected cities/districts
Participatory budgets 180% 169,5% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 114,4% 91,4% 90,5% 75,8% 70,4% 62,8% 57,8% 37,6% 26,8% 15,2% 5,7% 5,6% 15,6% 5,8% 1,6% 54,8% Other instruments
Rheinstetten
Hameenlinna
Mons (city)
Esslingen*
Bradford
Pont Claix
Cordoba
St. Denis
Emsdetten
Albacete
Morsang
Bobigny
35
Utrecht
Salford
Sevilla
Hilden
Płock
0%
Municipal budget in comparision to total budget of public enterprises in 10 selected cities/districts
Participatory budgets
700,0
Other instruments
600,0
600,0
500,0
400,0
municipal_budget
302,4 300,0 262,0
enterprise_budget 253,0 227,0
209,1
200,0
127,0
108,0
100,0
89,8
40,8
85,6 57,2
12,3 43,4
42,0
2,4
25,0
1,5
12,0
31,8
Rheinstetten
Haemeenlinna
Mons (city)
Pont Claix
Emsdetten
Esslingen
0,0
Bobigny
Sevilla
Hilden
Płock
36
625,8
Budget allocation per inhabitants through participatory budget in selected cities/districts (Euos)
132,52
Participatory budgets
303,92
45,00 40,00 35,00 30,00 25,00 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00
Other instruments
40,37
120
100
27,90 24,00
80
60
16,86
40
8,05 5,52 3,18 2,18 1,91
7,40
20
2,52
0
Sevilla
Berlin Jurys
Pieve Emanuele
La-Roche-surYon
Salford
Bradford
Płock
Grottammare
PoitouCharentes
Morsang
Córdoba
St. Denis
Pont Claix
37
Utrecht
Is there a form of budget allocation for the participatory budget? (21 selected cities/districts)
no 11
yes 10
38
III. Typologies
39
Typology of procedures
40
Global Typology
41
IV. Effects and hypotheses Remember: New experiments! Concrete impacts difficult to evaluate!
42
Modernisation of administration
• European PBs do not develop mostly in the most modernised cities • PB as a way of « nachholende » modernisation?
43
Modernisation of administration: 5 main trends (I)
1. Improvement of services via Feedback of citizens/use of associations„ expertise (9 cases) • Pont de Claix: Improvement of proximity services • Pieve Emmanuele: Improvement of communication (front office), local police and social-cultural services (youth) ... • Albacete: Analysis of urban infrastructure and of infrastructure needs made by federation of neighbourhood initiatives • Other examples in: Córdoba, Salford, Puente Genil, Sevilla, Plock
2. More transversal links between services (7 cases) • Pont de Claix: 4 multitask teams created in neighbourhoods • Cordoba: Coordination between secretaries which are linked to PB • Puente Genil: Transversal commission and working groups of different secretaries, implementation of transversal programmes • Other examples in: Pieve Emmanuele, Venezia, Palmela, Albacete, Sevilla 44
Modernisation of administration: 5 main trends (II)
3. Acceleration of administrative procedures (6; 3 at „proximity“-level) • Salford: different services at neighbourhood level • Grottammare: reform and application of urban master plan • Albacete: repartition of investments on infrastructure between neighbourhoods • Other examples in: Puente Genil, Bradford, Palmela 4. Problem solving: citizens elaborate solutions for important community problems (5; 4 at „proximity“level) • Bobigny: problems of cleanliness discussed and ameliorated • Salford: problems of every day live in neighbourhoods • Albacete: PB council elaborated propositions for resolving conflict about water prices • Other examples in: Roma XI, Venezia
45
Modernisation of administration: 5 main trends (III)
5. More transparency on local finances • More transparency about projects (14 of 19) than about municipal budget (11 of 19). 8 of 19 cases: transparency about projects and budget • Weak tendency to deepen information on municipal budget • No capacity of budget control. Little information about controversial projects. Main decisions are often taken outside PB (exception: some Italian experiments?) • Transparency is an aim in itself • Difficult to evaluate whether transparency is linked to other modernisation effects
46
Transparency on public finances in 19 selected cities/districts with participatory budget
9
8
8 7
6
6 5 4
3
3
2
2 1
0
0
Insufficient information
Exclusive on projects
Exclusive on town budget
Projects and town budget
capacity of control
47
Effects of participatory budgets on modernisation (municipal level) in 19 selected cities/districts
10 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 0
More coordination Acceleration of Service provision by Problem solving procedures citizens Improvement of services/expertise of associations Reduction of expenses Change of management structure Better control
2
2
48
Role of citizens
Two main roles: consumer and stakeholder
• Consumer sometimes only at „proximity“-level • Stakeholder often either weak or only at „proximity“-level (most notably in France) Little co-realisation
Little control
Citizen are nearly not involved as municipal employees Attempts in Saint-Denis, otherwise not at all
49
Autonomy of civil society (“countervailing power”)
No general tendency. Analysis needs to be made country by country
In Germany nearly no autonomy. Some procedural autonomy in Berlin-Lichtenberg Examples of global autonomy (procedural and social) only in Spain (Albacete, Cordoba, Sevilla); In selected Italian cases autonomy is either mostly procedural (Pieve E., Roma XI) or mostly social (Grottammare, Venezia) Weak autonomy in France, no general tendency for Great Britain
In nearly all selected cases with autonomy of civil society, at least medium effects on social justice (Albacete, Cordoba, Sevilla, Grottammare)
What is the exact relationship between autonomy of civil society and various effects? 50
Impact on social justice
Major difference with respect to situation in Porto Alegre (inversion of priorities…)!
No impact at all in half of the experiments (9 of 19) In other half some weak effects (8 of 19) • Albacete and Bradford: (re-)integration of minorities • Emsdetten: tax on enterprises • Cordoba: enhancement of deprived districts • Pieve Emmanuele: some infrastructure projects for peripheral districts • Sevilla, Puente Genil: social justice criteria for prioritisation of projects/distribution of resources • Płock: Support for “social” associations (working with handicapped or homeless people..) • (Roma XI: more justice regarding distribution of resources between neighbourhoods) Only one case of strong impact 51 Grottammare (I): reintegration of two districts with strong social problems
Effects of participatory budgets on social justice in 19* selected cities/districts
10 9 9 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 0 no impact weak effects strong impact
52
* Process in Berlin-Lichtenberg too young for including data
Impact on gender-relations
No articulation between PB and gender mainstreaming/gender budget analysis Strong (though not always equal) participation of women. Trend towards a more equal participation of both sexes within participatory democracy? In some cases, measures conceived particularly for women
• Pieve Emmanule: Child-caring • Sevilla: Child-caring, additional mobilisation of women, participation procedures for women In the huge majority of cases, no special participatory procedures for women. A contrast with Latin-America, where gender issues are integrated in some experiments
53
Impact on municipal employees
Attention towards needs of public employees • Training for Participation: Berlin-Lichtenberg, Emsdetten, Bobigny, Bradford, Pieve Emmanuele and Palmela
• Payment of additional work: Cordoba, Puente Genil (Sevilla?) • No attention at all: Ten of nineteen cases Almost no role of trade-unions In Germany some influence; in Albacete, unions are part of the participatory budget council; in Italy some influence perhaps in the future
Participatory procedures for administration In the huge majority of cases, no participatory procedures
54
Deliberative quality of PB
Low quality in 5 of 19 cases All 3 German cases, 1 case in France (St. Denis), 1 in Great Britain (Salford) Medium quality in 12 of 19 cases • Germany 1 case: Berlin-Lichtenberg • France 2 cases: Bobigny, Pont de Claix • Spain 2 cases: Puente Genil, Sevilla • Italy all 4 cases: Grottammare, Pieve E., Roma XI, Venezia • Great Britain 1 case: Bradford • Further cities: Płock, Palmela
High quality only in two cities Albacete, Cordoba
55
Deliberative quality of participatory budgets in 19 selected cities/districts
14 12 12
10
8
6
5
4 2 2
0 low medium high
56
Influence on elections
No influence of PB on electoral turnout • The exact relationship between turnout and PB difficult to evaluate • In some cases process is too young for comparing turnout • Increase of turnout only in Roma No general trend regarding the confirmation/better results for governing party • PB is often part of of a global transformation process: Spain, Italy, France • Germany: no impact. In some cases, negative results for governing party, but no clear relation with PB • Some impact in France and Spain (Bobigny, St. Denis, Albacete…) • Strong impact in 2 Italian cases: Grottammare, Pieve E. (in Roma XI, some impact)
57
Political culture of civil society
Civil society changed to some degree (medium) in majority of cases (12 from 20 cases) • Better knowledge of municipal budget: above all German cities, Pont de Claix, Salford • More propositions for citizens: Emsdetten, Bobigny, Pont de Claix, Bradford, Salford, Spanish towns • More coordination between associations/civil society: Albacete, Bobigny, Hilden Only one case with strong change of civil society In Albacete, coordination between most important associations is institutionalised through PB-council which meets weekly
58
Political culture of political system
Political system changed to some degree (medium) in majority of cases (15 of 20) • Most effects in France, Italy and Spain. Single effects and modest change in Germany (Emsdetten) and Great Britain (Salford) • France and Spain: participation in political parties weakens, participation in PB as a substitution? A general trend?
• France, Spain, Italy, Germany: visibility and new legitimacy for post-communist parties. PB contributes to changing the political culture of post-communists • (Selective) listening in places where there was no communication before
59
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0%
Venezia (3 districts) 71,8% 72,0% Puente Genil 75,6% 67,8% Albacete 63,0% 65,3% 63,4% 61,7% BerlinLichtenberg Córdoba 62,5% 61,6% Hilden 55,8% 52,4% Rheinstetten 51,7% 48,9% 49,2% St. Denis 46,5%
Evolution of electoral participation in 9 selected cities/districts
Bobigny
54,4% 44,1%
Former election Last election
60
Effects by country
Germany: weak effects. Modernisation: strong discourse, weak effects (only some impacts on budget transparency). No social effect, some modest political effects Great Britain and France: some effects (medium) on modernisation at the neighbourhood level. No general change of political culture, few or no effects on social justice Spain and Italy: strongest effects, above all concerning modernisation and change of political culture. Impacts on social justice are possible but remain modest, except in a few cases (Grottammare, possibly Pieve E.)
61
Conclusion (1)
No correlation between political party and chosen procedure of PB. Party preference for procedures needs to be analysed country by country (see details)
Some correlation between deliberative quality and modernisation effects The use of random-selection is not enough for reaching a representative group of participants, though there are some ameliorations Which procedure leads to the highest number of participants? Which procedure produces highest variety of effects? Is there a “best procedure” of PB?
62
Conclusion (2)
Empirical tendencies difficult to assess – most cases are very recent ones What relationship between procedural/global typologies and concrete results? Empirical dynamics do not correspond to single procedures Elective affinity between modernisation and PB?
63
Appendix. Additional material by country
64
Cases of participatory budgets in Germany
Cases of Participatory Budgets in Germany
Berlin
12
„Kommunaler BHH NRW“ (2000-2004)
10
10
„Kommunen der Zukunft“ (1998-2002)
8 7 6 6 4 4 6 5
2 1 0 0 1997 1998
1
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
65
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Germany
1.200.000 1.110.800
1.000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000 192.500 107.860 0 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 3.200 3.200 192.500 211.756 177.000
200.000
66
Participatory Budgets in Germany (2005)
Emsdetten
Lübbecke
Bezirk Lichtenberg (Berlin)
Bezirk Treptow-Köpenick (Berlin)
Vlotho Cottbus Hilden
Bonn
Groß-Umstadt
Landau
67
68
Participatory budgets in Germany and population involved since 1997
120 1.200.000
1.110.800
100 1.000.000
80
800.000
60
600.000
40
400.000
Citizens 192.500 192.500
20
211.756 7 5 2004
177.000 10
107.860 0 0 1997 3.200 1 1998 3.200 1 1999 4 2000 6
200.000
Cases 6
0
0
2001
2002
2003
2005
69
Number of participatory budgets in France
12 11 10 10 8 8 7 6
4 2 2 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
70
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in France
500.000 450.000 450.000 400.000 350.000 300.000 250.000 200.000 150.000 100.000 50.000 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 114.000 407.000 442.700 454.950
71
72
Cases Italy
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1994 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1 1 7 11 16
1
1
73
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Italy
600.000
518.020 500.000
400.000
300.000
286.901 237.501
200.000
100.000 0 1993 14732 14732 1994 1995 14732 14732 14732 14732 14732 14732 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 14732 2002 2003 2004 2005
0
74
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in Spain
2.500.000
2.060.380 2.000.000 1.844.745
1.500.000
1.000.000 717.341 581.200 500.000 365.000 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
75
Number of participatory budgets in Spain
16 14 12 10 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 6 5 3 14
76
Population of cities/districts with participatory budgets in France: details (2005)
180.000 1 district 200.000 with more 180.000 than 160.000 100.000 140.000 120.000 100.000 80.000 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 43.000 35.000 20.00018.000 17.000 15.000 12.250 12.000 8.000 94.000 3 cities between 30.100.000 4 cities between 15.-30.000 3 cities with less than 15.000
es
e
ve
)
)
is
XX
ix C la
e
l
ei
LM
C
en
gn
rg
nn
eu
-O
cu
R
t- D
va
Ar
PA
PH
ri s
ba
rn
Pa
Au
ou
-s
(O
(O
re
in
Sa
ng
l-B
C
s
y
La
sa
ei
i ti
or
m
Po
M
Bo
Li
bi
gn
Po
er
nt
de
ur
77
Vi
f