Citizen-centred design of participatory budgeting : A transnational study in the Baltic Sea Region

Among the success factors of participatory budgeting (PB), Barbera et al. (2016b) discuss responsiveness, in terms of “continuous attention to citizens’ needs” and the capacity to address collective needs. To date, there are diverse PB cases, that follow a managerial, more technocratic (less focused on citizens) logic, whereas others target radical democratic change or good governance improvement (focused on linking citizens with the public administration and enhancing transparency) (Bartocci et al. 2019; Cabannes and Lipietz 2018). This paper aims to identify contingency factors, such as national, local and individual factors that influence the design of PB. Thus, a comparative approach is sought by analysing the needs of citizens in 17 municipalities in six European countries along the Baltic Sea region from originally 20,000 persons via a joint questionnaire. Relying on non-parametric tests, this analysis aims to identify links between citizens’ satisfaction, knowledge and expectations of their own involvement in the PB design and how it should be used from their perspective. The contribution of the paper is a critical rethinking of the respective stages and content of the PB creation processes from the citizens’ point of view by highlighting which contingency factors drive citizens’ views on PB design stages.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Panel data in sociology: the fixed effects paradigm and empirical practice in panel regression and event-history analysis

In der soziologischen Methodenforschung werden Paneldaten als Instrument diskutiert, welches eine fundiertere Überprüfung einer kausalen Hypothese als Querschnittsdaten ermöglicht. Zur Realisierung dieses Potenzials ist allerdings die Isolierung intraindividueller Zusammenhänge im Rahmen der Schätzprozedur notwendig. Bei multivariaten Regressionsanalysen leistet dies die Fixed Effects Regression, welche sich daher im methodologischen Diskurs als Standard zur Analyse von Paneldaten etabliert hat. In dieser Studie wird erstens dieser Standard aus verschiedenen Perspektiven begründet und zudem sein Äquivalent im ereignisanalytischen Kontext diskutiert. Zweitens stellen wir auf der Grundlage einer Vollerhebung von panelbasierten Studien in der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (KZfSS) und in der Zeitschrift für Soziologie (ZfS) fest, dass in der soziologischen Praxis weder die Kausalitätsannäherung als Motiv zur Verwendung von Paneldaten dominiert, noch der Fixed Effects-Schätzer konsequent eingesetzt wird. Diese Inkonsistenz wird als Ausdruck eines underusage von Paneldaten in der empirischen Praxis gedeutet. Gleichzeitig erkennen wir hierin ein Indiz dafür, dass Motive zur Nutzung von Paneldaten in der Soziologie vielfältiger sind, als es der methodologische Diskurs nahelegt. Abstract In sociology there is a growing body of literature discussing the ability of quantitative research methods to test causal inferences. This discourse introduces panel data as an important instrument to defend the interpretation of coefficients as effects: by focusing on what is going on within individuals, panel data allow for longitudinal empirical modelling, which reflects the inherent semantic of scientific hypotheses. As a consequence, unobserved heterogenity is absorbed and alternative explanations to the presumed causal mechanisms are largely ruled out. However, a within-, or rather Fixed Effects-estimator is needed to realize this potential of panel data. Consequently, such within-estimators are well established as standard in the methodological discourse on panel data. We explain this standard with references to the mechanics of within-estimators in panel-regression and event-history analysis. Finally, inspection of contributions to the two major German language journals for sociology shows that within-estimators are rarely used in empirical practice. We conclude that the potential of panel data to control for heterogeneity is largely underused in empirical practice. At the same time, our inspection of studies illustrates that the benefits of panel data are multidimensional and go beyond statistical virtues