Revisiting the democratic promise of participatory budgeting in light of competing political, good governance and technocratic logics

Participatory budgeting (PB) has been a major innovation in participatory governance worldwide, with more than 3,000 experiences listed across 40 countries. PB has diversified over its 30 years, with many contemporary experiments (referred to as PBs) only tangentially related to the original project to "radically democratize democracy”. We propose a taxonomy to distinguish the logics currently underpinning PB in practice: political (for radical democratic change), good governance (to improve links between the public and citizens’ spheres), and technocratic (to optimize the use and transparency of public resources for citizens’ benefit). Illustrating these competing rationales through contemporary experiences, we reflect on the contributions of the good governance and technocratic frameworks to managerial and state modernization. These help explain PB’s growing attraction for proponents of the good governance agenda. Rekindling PB’s promise for democratic deepening, we argue, requires refocusing on its deliberative quality. We draw attention to civic education and empowerment of participants. These are key to PBs’ intent to open pathways towards alternative political systems – indeed, of materializing Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the city”

Revisitando las promesas democráticas del presupuesto participativo, a la luz de lógicas antagónicas de radicalización política, de buena gobernanza y tecnocrática

El presupuesto participativo (PP) ha sido una innovación democrática de suma importancia a nivel mundial, con más de 6000 experiencias identificadas en por lo menos 40 países en 2018. El PP se ha diversificado durante sus 30 años de existencia, con numerosos experimentos, también denominados PP, solo tangencialmente relacionados con el proyecto original de “democratizar radicalmente la democracia”. Proponemos una taxonomía para distinguir las lógicas que respaldan actualmente los PsPs en la práctica: radicalización política (apuntando hacia un cambio democrático radical), de buena gobernanza (para mejorar las relaciones entre la esfera pública y los ciudadanos) y tecnocrática (para optimizar el uso y transparencia de los recursos públicos para el beneficio de los ciudadanos). Al ilustrar estas lógicas antagónicas a través de experiencias contemporáneas, reflejamos sobre las contribuciones de la buena gobernanza y de los marcos tecnocráticos a la modernización del estado y de la gestión urbana. Sin duda alguna, estas dos lógicas ayudan a explicar la creciente atracción de los PP a partidarios de la agenda de la buena gobernanza. Sin embargo, sostenemos que, para reavivar la promesa de los PsPs como instrumento de profundización de la democracia, se requiere volver a priorizar su calidad deliberativa. Resaltamos la educación cívica y el empoderamiento de los participantes como componentes clave de los PsPs para abrir caminos hacia sistemas políticos alternativos, materializando de esta forma los ideales del Derecho a la Ciudad, propuestos por Henri Lefebvre hace 50 años

Displacement and the public interest in Nigeria: contesting developmental rationales for displacement

The displacement of urban households and livelihoods by state institutions is typically justified on the basis of the developmental purposes of land clearance, purportedly in the public interest. However, conflicts around such displacement highlight both the contested nature of the “public interest” and the unequal position that different urban actors are into shape consensus about what this should constitute. This article draws on research into the relationship between urban infrastructure development and displacement in Nigeria, to explore how actors negotiate their positions vis-a-vis displacement and contest its developmental rationale

Urbanisation-induced displacements in peri-urban areas: Clashes between customary tenure and statutory practices in Ugbo-Okonkwo Community in Enugu, Nigeria

Rapid urbanisation is precipitating wide-ranging and often irreversible changes in cities and at the shifting peri-urban areas around the world. As a significant factor of change in the 21st Century, urbanisation is irreversibly transforming everything on its path―air, land, water, and ecology, including institutions, customs, and lifestyles. The subject scope of urbanisation research is therefore quite wide and diverse. Yet, urbanisation-induced attritions and substitutions of customary tenure practices, coupled with the associated politics and resistances, remain utterly overlooked. Using a mixed method approach (involving desktop research, remote sensing data and stakeholder interviews), this paper examines the clashes between customary tenure regime and statutory practices dictated by urban laws, and how different stakeholders are appropriating them both to promote and resist displacement or eviction. Amidst growing encroachment pressures on peri-urban communities in Nigerian cities, a new imperative for enhanced tenure security and integrated planning approach are proposed

Original dataset on urban infrastructure related displacements in Nigeria: Insights from national and sub-national levels

The data presented here is related to the research article titled "Evicting the poor in the 'overriding public interest': Crisis of rights and interests, and contestations in Nigerian cities" [1]. This data brief presents relevant national and sub-national data on patterns, trends, and impacts of reported urban infrastructure-related displacements in Nigeria between 2010 and 2016. The data of reported cases of displacements in Nigeria are presented in tabular matrix. On the horizontal side are nested rows designated as the six geopolitical zones (South East, South South, South West, North Central, North East, and North West), 36 States of the country, and Abuja Federal Capital Territory. It was also necessary to identify particular local government areas where displacements occurred or were imminent (case locations). On the vertical side, 14 columns itemized diverse variables such as type of infrastructure project, as well as the mode/type, status, and mechanisms of displacement. Other columns include reasons given for displacement, project funder/initiator, number of project affected persons (PAPs), reported social characteristics of PAPs, response of PAPs, actions/outcomes, information sources and link, date(s) of reported displacement in addition to a section for notes. Besides chronicling urban infrastructure-related displacement cases in the period under review, this brief might equally serve as a benchmark for a prospective national displacement register. It will also function as a useful information resource not only for facilitating advocacy and research in built environment disciplines and civil rights campaigns, but also serve to conscientize policy makers and development practitioners on the cumulative cost implications of displacement. Further interpretive insights could be achieved through data mining and cross-tabulation

Just Space: Building a community-based voice for London planning

Just Space is a London-wide network of voluntary and community groups operating at the regional, borough and neighbourhood levels. It came together in an attempt to influence the strategic (spatial) plan for Greater London-the London Plan-and counter the domination of the planning process by developers and public bodies, the latter often heavily influenced by development interests. What crystallised Just Space participation was the requirement for an Examination in Public of the London Plan, at which Just Space supported the involvement of a wide range of community groups through the sharing of information, research and resources. This interview is an edited version of two conversations with Richard Lee (RL), coordinator of Just Space, and Sharon Hayward (SH), coordinator of London Tenants Federation (a Just Space member organisation). The conversation reflected on some of the challenges linked to bringing community voices to the table on strategic, citywide, planning; the strength in combining academic argument with practical, solid evidence from the grass roots; and the opportunities and challenges of sustaining a horizontal type of organisation across the different scales of the planning system. The conversations took place on 11 March and 30 May 2013 at the Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL, London. © 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis

Knowledge co-production for urban equality

This working paper serves as the basis for a critical examination of the notion of knowledge co-production. The paper examines how the idea of knowledge co-production has emerged in relation to the parallel but distinct concept of service co-production and the participatory development planning tradition. It also examines the variety of processes of knowledge co-production that may take place in the context of academic research. In doing so, the working paper highlights the centrality of knowledge co-production in the Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality (KNOW) project’s research strategy, with a focus on actionable knowledge that may support transformative trajectories towards urban equality. Such an approach is based on the view that knowledge production underpins the process, ethics, and outcomes of any urban development intervention