Participatory budgeting is a flawed model for municipal decision-making
Participatory budgeting is the city’s program that lets community members decide directly how to allocate a portion of a public budget. Each participatory budgeting cycle increases the amount of city funds to be disbursed; the current cycle allocates $2 million; $7.5 million has been allocated to date.
Each time I’ve received the city’s participatory budgeting mailer, I’m struck that some are essential projects that unquestionably should be undertaken, some are feel-good projects and a few are superfluous. Some are ridiculously overpriced (a tree-garden coordinator at $410,000, or 250 rat traps at $1,440 each). Others are safety issues the city should implement without question, such as last cycle’s installation of high-visibility poles for fire hydrants. Upon reflection, I realize that participatory budgeting is a poor substitute for careful policy decisions.
Participatory budgeting programs have gained traction in cities around the world. Proponents argue that they enhance democratic engagement, empower marginalized communities and foster transparency in government spending. A closer examination reveals significant flaws in this approach, particularly in its implementation and impact on equitable distribution of resources.
Participatory budgeting essentially transforms budget allocation into an Internet popularity contest in which projects with the most votes get funding. While this may seem superficially democratic, it inherently favors segments of the population that are more Internet-responsive and enabled. In instances where access to digital technology and Internet proficiency are distributed unevenly, participatory budgeting can amplify existing disparities, diminishing the effect of marginalized groups in the decision-making process. This creates a skewed representation of community needs and preferences, undermining the principle of equal representation in democratic governance.
Moreover, the prioritization of projects based on online popularity overlooks the expertise and nuanced understanding that elected leaders bring to budgetary decisions. Unlike the general public, elected officials have the responsibility and experience to assess the broader implications of budget allocations, considering factors such as public safety, long-term sustainability, alignment with strategic priorities and impact on vulnerable populations. By relinquishing this responsibility to a popularity contest, participatory budgeting risks prioritizing short-term, attractive projects over those that address underlying systemic issues and serve the greater good.
Projects that enhance public safety, bring the city into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act or provide essential services should not be subject to a popularity contest.
Further undermining the supposedly democratic nature of participatory budgeting, city agencies have been using municipal email and resources to lobby the public on behalf of certain proposals. This widen the digital divide and has the appearance of violating state conflict-of-interest laws. This unequal access to mailing lists and citizen attention highlights the problems with a popularity contest to determine budgets.
Participatory budgeting fails to account for the complexity of the municipal process and the trade-offs involved in resource allocation. We elect leaders to balance competing demands and make difficult decisions that prioritize the common good over individual preferences. When more than $2 million dollars is taken out of the budget and redirected to participatory budgeting instead of being allocated through a more thoughtful and deliberative process, democracy is actually undermined.
The City Council should instead pursue public input aggressively and engage citizens for our municipal budget. Participatory budgeting is just one way to build knowledge and participation. Perhaps an allocation of $100,000 per year would be more than adequate to generate ideas that citizens could consider, many of which should be integrated into the general budget because they are essential to public health and deal with climate change. It is the responsibility of our elected leaders to intelligently review and determine which projects and improvements would benefit those in greater need, rather than outsourcing this crucial task of spending $2 million to a popularity contest than can be swayed by those with more resources.
Phillip Sego lives on Norfolk Street.
Very well said.
Right, because so many people have the time and luxury to go to city council meetings on workday evenings.
Sorry Phil, but these objections illustrate a misunderstanding of PB’s process and practices.
First the PB team, unlike other city departments, does an extensive, in person outreach program to marginalized communities to ensure it’s not just “internet responsive people”. They go to schools, youth centers, senior centers and housing complexes to engage a wide range of resident views. So it in fact actually does as you suggest, “pursue public input aggressively and engage citizens for our municipal budget”, as PB is part of the city’s budget.
Second, in the bylaws of the PB there are goals that encourage projects to be developed based on community need, sustainability and equity considerations over popularity. Not all PB programs include this consideration as we do, I was on the steering committee that crafted the program and we agreed unanimously to include it.
What PB does do is empower residents, especially our young people, to get directly involved with their community and help them understand how the city makes its decisions. It breaks the concept of a budget system down to the more relatable project level that gives more people a clearer understanding of how these decisions get made. In the last cycle 8700 residents voted in PB, which is high when you consider only 21,800 residents vote in our local elections.
The other benefit of PB that the city doesn’t communicate well is when resident suggestions highlight various simple maintenance issues to department heads. Many times the issue is just addressed and the proposal doesn’t need to continue through the PB process. Much like a 311 system.
I hope everyone gets the chance to become involved with at least one PB cycle to see how responsive our city government can actually be.
I couldn’t agree more. Citizen engagement is important and difficult but PB is not the way.
@Cambridgeresident – Without getting into too much detail about Council meetings, these aren’t the best places to effect change or offer input. Some time ago, I wrote an article for Commonwealth Magazine that talks about the ‘democratic’ process at the State House (link below). All legislative bodies have ways to ‘move the needle’ – and I’ve successfully gotten Cambridge legislation passed – but not by using the Council’s public input sessions. https://commonwealthbeacon.org/opinion/ex-lobbyist-reveals-how-the-house-really-works/
If the writer is so dissatisfied with the ideas on the ballot, he should volunteer as a budget delegate next time ;)
The participatory budgeting process may not be perfect, but let’s not pretend that attending city meetings or having the ear of city staff/councilors is somehow more accessible or equitable. The PB ballot is available in 8 languages; meanwhile, when’s the last time someone gave public comment in a language other than English? This op-ed really reads as: “There needs to be more public input on our budget – but only through the avenues I personally deem valid!”
It’s strange to frame this as solely an “online popularity contest” when the writer himself mentions receiving a physical mailer each year, and when there’s options to vote by phone or in-person for those who lack internet access. Doubly strange is the writer’s supposed concern about the “digital divide” given his previous op-ed opposing municipal broadband.
And in the end, the funding in question is a mere fraction of a percent of the overall city budget, not enough to warrant this kind of hand-wringing about resource allocation or diversion of resources from critical needs.
Phil Sego is right, the Participatory Budget is a great place for interest groups to get pet projects funded through internet crowdsourcing.
My concern is that the PB also seems to be becoming a clever place to try to fund things already in city project budgets. In the current PB menu of items I see 4 projects that were presented as part of the CSO’s new project on Mass Ave between Linnean and Waterhouse Streets.
PB should not be for substitutional funding of existing city projects. Also they are proposing funding of solar garbage cans, which should be part of DPW’s budget, Portland Loo’s which again should be DPW or CDD as part of their neighborhood action plans.
Cambridge Needs Budget Transparency, PB is not contributing to that!
In answer to questions:
There are approximately 72,000 registered voters in Cambridge. Participatory Budget voting extends the right to vote to any resident, 12 and older. Using a conservative approximation of 82,000 people eligible to vote, in PB8:
7441 people voted, or only 9% of those eligible
The top vote-getter received 3635 votes, or 4.4% of those eligible
The least-voted winner received 1890 votes, or 2.3% of those eligible
The highest voted LOSER received 1842 votes, just 48 votes fewer than the one above. or 0.06% of those eligible.
I know that there has been some effort on the part of the City to get more people involved. I’ve received numerous emails and snail-mails about this. But with such low interest, I would call this a troubling failure which needs to be properly addressed.
Funny math there Phil.
By your (flawed) logic we should also get rid of Ranked Choice voting since current Mayor Simmons only got 2334 votes out of the 72,000 register votes or 3.2% of the vote and the top vote getter only got 4.7%.
Luckily PB’s popularity has been growing and so has its budget. You should get involved in a cycle and really see how it does work.
I’m not sure how anyone who is familiar with IRV can equate this impressively democratic electoral system with an internet-driven plebiscite. You may want to read Robert Winters website on this subject.
I simply used your flawed formula on RV to illustrate how it’s not a fair analysis.
Both PB and RV are highly democratic systems that engage a wide range of residents needs and diverse concerns.
At least go talk to the Youth Centers and listen to what our kids think of PB.
@phil siego: “ You may want to read Robert Winters website on this subject.”
I personally don’t care at all that a racist, trans and queer antagonistic, islamophobe doesn’t like participatory budgeting, or place a particularly high value on what he thinks is democratic or not.
@Vicky Bestor: “ the Participatory Budget is a great place for interest groups to get pet projects funded through internet crowdsourcing.”
You are just mad your automobile centered interest group is shown to be as unpopular as it is through these processes and that the people consistently demonstrate they want more of the things you claim are deeply unpopular.
The analogy you’re using illustrates a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent.” It’s commonly used in logic and critical thinking courses to demonstrate flawed reasoning.
E.g.
All dogs have noses. (Premise)
I have a nose. (Premise)
Therefore, I must be a dog. (Incorrect conclusion)
The flaw in the reasoning is that having a nose is not a trait exclusive to dogs; many other animals (including humans) also have noses. Therefore, the presence of a nose does not logically lead to the conclusion of being a dog. This analogy serves to highlight the importance of careful reasoning and avoiding logical fallacies.
Condescending explanations of logical fallacies = a clear signal to disengage from any internet debate. However, I wanted to circle back to this op-ed in light of the PB10 results being announced yesterday.
10,522 votes were cast this cycle, amounting to nearly half of the 23,339 votes counted last November for the City Council race. The turnout is even more impressive considering that PB outreach was likely nowhere near as well-resourced as the campaign activities for the Council election, where around $700,000 was spent between the various candidates and IEPACs (not to mention all the volunteer hours).
However, since the writer seems to think the internet being involved somehow renders those votes less valid, despite there also being non-online outreach and voting options as @kdolan described above, here’s a different point of comparison: how many members of the public normally participate in the budget process outside of PB?
At the recent finance committee meeting on Council budget priorities for the coming year, plus last year’s budget season public hearings, a total of around a dozen people showed up to give public comment, most of whom were already highly-engaged individuals who frequent city meetings year-round. And there were a few dozen written comments submitted, many of them template letters prompted by a handful of single-issue groups. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with targeted advocacy campaigns or public comment “regulars”; my point is that only a very small and narrow subset of Cambridge residents chime in on budget matters, and usually quite briefly at that.
Contrast that with the over 70 volunteer budget delegates who worked over several months to evaluate ideas and develop PB proposals, in the process learning more about government operations as they consulted with city staff. This seems quite successful from an engagement perspective.
Now, could the city explore additional avenues of outreach around the budget? Sure! But why single out Participatory Budgeting, calling it flawed and undemocratic, holding it to unfair standards (with comparisons to the total number/100% of eligible voters when even municipal election turnout typically hovers around just 33% of registered voters), and discrediting the hard work of PB volunteers by insinuating that the process has somehow been co-opted by city agencies pushing an agenda? And just to reiterate, all this hand-wringing is over less than 1% of the city budget.
Really seems like the writer took his personal opinion of the ballot ideas and extrapolated from there to come to the sweeping conclusion that Participatory Budgeting is somehow a bad thing.