In Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation, Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Ernesto Ganuza examine contemporary forms of participatory governance by tracing the origins and development of participatory budgeting (PB) from its roots in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to its adoption in two cases, Cordoba, Spain and Chicago, USA. While acknowledging that PB has been seen as being too easily co-opted by neoliberalism, the book's ..

Bua, Adrian

LSE Research Online

Book	Review:	Popular	Democracy:	The	Paradox	ofParticipation	by	Gianpaolo	Baiocchi	and	ErnestoGanuzaIn	Popular	Democracy:	The	Paradox	of	Participation,	Gianpaolo	Baiocchi	and	Ernesto	Ganuza	examinecontemporary	forms	of	participatory	governance	by	tracing	the	origins	and	development	of	participatory	budgeting(PB)	from	its	roots	in	Porto	Alegre,	Brazil,	to	its	adoption	in	two	cases,	Cordoba,	Spain	and	Chicago,	USA.	Whileacknowledging	that	PB	has	been	seen	as	being	too	easily	co-opted	by	neoliberalism,	the	book’s	critical	yethopeful	perspective	nonetheless	illuminates	the	democratic	potential	of	participatory	instruments,	writes	AdrianBua.	For	a	debate	with	Gianpaolo	Baiocchi	and	Ernesto	Ganuza	on	the	argument	developed	in	Popular	Democracy,visit	the	Book	Debates	section	of	the	Centre	for	Urban	Research	on	Austerity’s	blog.Popular	Democracy:	The	Paradox	of	Participation.	Gianpaolo	Baiocchi	and	Ernesto	Ganuza.	StanfordUniversity	Press.	2016.Find	this	book:	Popular	Democracy:	The	Paradox	of	Participation,	written	by	Gianpaolo	Baiocchi	andErnesto	Ganuza,	analyses	contemporary	forms	of	participatory	governance	by	tracingthe	genesis	and	expansion	of	the	now-famous	mechanism	of	participatory	budgeting(PB).	Originating	in	the	Southern	Brazilian	city	of	Porto	Alegre	and	from	the	alliancebetween	social	movements	and	leftist	political	parties	that	rejected	vanguardiststrategy,	the	PB	process	sought	to	challenge	the	influence	of	clientelist	networks	overresource	allocation,	and	to	realise	redistributive	justice	by	devolving	decisions	overthe	city	budget	to	a	process	of	direct	citizen	participation.Tracing	its	globalisation	from	Porto	Alegre	to	the	USA	and	to	Europe	(the	‘return	ofthe	caravels’,	as	one	scholar	puts	it),	Baiocchi	and	Ganuza	cast	a	hopeful	yet	criticaleye	over	the	potentialities	of	this	democratic	institution.	Both	authors	are	academicresearchers	that	have	had	a	deep	practical	involvement	in	the	two	main	case	studiesof	the	book:	namely,	participatory	budgeting	in	Chicago,	USA,	and	in	Cordoba,	Spain.Their	experience	adds	depth	to	their	political	ethnographies	and	produces	insightsinto	the	development	of	PB	that	are	contextualised	with	historical	analysis	of	theemergence	of	PB	in	Porto	Alegre,	its	globalisation	as	well	as	broader	developments	in	the	interface	of	the	theoryand	practice	of	democracy	and	public	administration.The	central	question	that	the	book	aims	to	answer	–	alluded	to	in	its	subtitle	as	the	‘paradox	of	participation’	–stems	from	the	fact	that	these	new	institutions	open	up	possibilities	for	democratic	participation	at	a	time	whenthe	space	for	democracy	is	being	constrained	by	encroaching	technocracy	and	the	perceived	need	to	appeasemarkets.	What	opportunities	do	democratic	innovations	offer	in	the	context	of	this	paradox?	Do	they	broadenpossibilities	to	advance	democracy	and	social	justice,	or	do	they	narrow	them	by	foreclosing	alternative,	moreagonistic,	forms	of	action	that	can	challenge	neoliberalism?	In	answering	these	questions,	the	authors	carve	opena	space	between	sanguine	advocates	who	celebrate	the	mainstreaming	of	democratic	innovation	and	scepticalcritics	who	identify	and	condemn	their	co-option	by	and	perpetuation	of	neoliberalism.Popular	Democracy	explores	these	issues	by	telling	a	series	of	interrelated	stories.	First,	the	book	offers	anhistorical	account	of	changes	in	democratic	and	public	administration	theory	and	practice.	Second,	it	traces	thegenesis	and	worldwide	dissemination	of	the	Porto	Alegre	Participatory	Budget.	This	produces	insights	that	theauthors	then	bring	their	empirical	research	to	bear	upon,	drawing	on	ethnographic	research	in	two	cases	of	PBthat	represent	the	first	attempts	to	institutionalise	it	within	Europe	(Cordoba,	Spain)	and	the	USA	(Chicago).USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation by Gianpaolo Baiocchi and ErnestoGanuzaPage 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-01Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/10/01/book-review-popular-democracy-the-paradox-of-participation-by-gianpaolo-baiocchi-and-ernesto-ganuza/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/Image	Credit:	(Daniel	X.	O’Neil	CC	BY	2.0)The	book	shows	how,	in	travelling	the	globe,	PB	became	de-coupled	from	(a)	an	explicit	focus	on	social	justicethrough	the	administration	of	large	budgets;	and	(b)	a	set	of	institutional	reforms	that	were	concomitant	in	PortoAlegre	and	which	reduced	other	channels	for	influence	that	could	circumvent	the	participatory	process.	The	resultwas	that	upon	the	‘return	of	the	caravels’,	what	disembarked	was	a	softer	engagement	tool	–	a	complement	forexisting	administrative	systems	that	handled	smaller	budgets	and	lost	a	focus	on	social	justice.	The	impressivesuccess	of	Porto	Alegre	did	not	therefore	accompany	the	globalisation	of	PB.	Instead,	PB	became	anideologically	malleable	instrument,	explaining	its	present	popularity	in	World	Bank	reports	as	well	as	in	WorldSocial	Forum	ambitions	for	social	justice	and	emancipation.So	far,	the	story	told	is	one	of	co-option	and	transformation	into	a	neoliberal	governance	technology.	But	the	storydoes	not	stop	there.	Three	points	are	made	in	the	book	that	give	reason	for	hope	and	support	of	participatorygovernance.	They	are	here	presented	in	order	of	the	importance	I	interpret	them	to	have	for	the	argumentdeveloped	in	the	book.	First,	the	co-option	story	can	be	inverted.	The	neoliberalisation	of	participatorygovernance	can	be	read	as	a	success	in	introducing	logics	of	political	participation	into	institutions	that	are	tightlyfocused	on	capitalist	efficiency.	This	‘success’	is,	however,	stinted	by	the	fact	that	here	participation	becomes	acomponent	of	‘good	governance’	conditions	for	capital	accumulation	–	something	that	the	authors	accept.Second,	Popular	Democracy	shows	that	institutional	design	matters.	One	of	the	questions	that	arises	from	theanalysis	of	the	spread	of	PB	is	why	was	the	success	of	Porto	Alegre	not	achieved	elsewhere?	The	answer	is	two-fold.	The	design	of	the	process	in	Porto	Alegre	combined	a	‘communicative	dimension’,	whereby	citizensdeliberate	to	set	priorities	and	investment	agendas,	with	a	‘sovereignty	dimension’,	where	participants	shareddecision-making	power	with	politicians	and	officials	and	used	their	ownership	of	the	process	to	inscribe	socialjustice	criteria	in	deliberation	and	decision-making	rules.	In	the	transfer	to	Europe	and	the	USA,	it	was	mainly	thecommunicative	dimension	that	held,	leaving	PB	a	de-politicised,	malleable	instrument	that	left	participantsthinking	about	trivial	issues.Related	to	this,	PB	was	also	de-coupled	from	a	series	of	concomitant	institutional	reforms	characterised	as‘political	centralisation	with	administrative	decentralisation’	(60-61).	Administrative	decentralisation	through	PBmade	the	city	administration	more	porous	to	citizen	demands,	and	this	was	coupled	with	‘political	centralisation’	–a	foreclosing	of	other	channels	for	political	influence.	This	combination	of	centralised	planning	and	decentralisedinformation	gathering	made	PB	the	privileged,	and	perhaps	only,	channel	for	influencing	the	city	budget,	making	itharder	for	city	officials	to	deflect	demands	through	other	channels	and	for	other	organised	interests	to	circumventthe	PB	process.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation by Gianpaolo Baiocchi and ErnestoGanuzaPage 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-01Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/10/01/book-review-popular-democracy-the-paradox-of-participation-by-gianpaolo-baiocchi-and-ernesto-ganuza/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/Ganuza	and	Baiocchi	argue	that	the	main	reason	for	this	was	that	PB	travelled	a	path	of	least	resistance,adopting	designs	and	handling	budget	scopes	that	did	not	present	danger	to	powerful	interests.	They	also	arguethat	rather	than	a	story	of	neoliberal	co-option,	this	is	one	of	institutional	de-linking.	The	authors	accept	that	thisindeed	entailed	important	limits	to	the	democratisation	capacity	of	the	process.	However,	as	the	ethnographicresearch	in	Cordoba	and	Chicago	shows,	it	kept	open	spaces	for	new	political	subjects	to	come	together	–	whichbrings	us	to	the	third,	most	substantive,	point	of	the	book.In	the	three	discrete	cases	that	the	authors	analyse	of	the	institutionalisation	of	PB,	a	common	story	of	politicalcontestation	between	established	and	new	political	subjects	is	told.	All	three	generated	tension	between	theindividual	citizens	that	PB	prioritises	and	social	movements	supportive	of	PB	on	the	one	hand,	and	of	citytechnocrats	and	established	associations	(‘privileged	interlocutors’)	on	the	other.	The	latter	resisted	PB	by	makingclaims	to	legitimate	authority	based	on	expertise	and	knowledge	of	the	‘common	good’	versus	the	political	actorsthat	PB	sought	to	bring	centre	stage,	who	were	seen	as	inexperienced	and	self-interested.	Established	interestsalso	worried	that	PB	would	raise	civic	expectations	beyond	the	limits	of	what	can	be	delivered	within	the	politicalauthority	of	the	city.At	first	sight,	these	tensions	highlight	problems	in	the	institutionalisation	of	PB	processes	and	can	be	seen	asimportant	limits	to	its	potential.	Indeed,	they	led	to	conflict	over	the	rules	and	institutional	design	of	the	process,the	outcomes	of	which	were	instrumental	in	the	success	of	Porto	Alegre	and	relative	failure	in	Cordoba	andChicago.	However,	the	authors	argue	that	they	were	also	generative	of	new	democratic	subjects	who	widenedthe	scope	of	possibilities	by	making	new	demands.	As	the	authors	explain	in	the	conclusion:participants	often	interacted	as	if	they	ran	city	government,	as	if	they	really	had	power	over	technicalrules,	as	if	they	really	could	control	(and	not	just	discuss)	the	outcomes	of	decisions	that	impactedthem.Baiocchi	and	Ganuza’s	wager	is	that	this	experience	is	valuable	in	itself,	because	it	enables	collectivities	to	formthat	can	imagine	new	futures	and	develop	new	forms	of	self-regulation	and	democratic	organisation.Thus,	in	conclusion,	Baiocchi	and	Ganuza	have	considerable	sympathy	for	the	critical	view	that	institutionalinnovations	are	easily	co-opted	into	neoliberal	governance	instruments.	But	they	argue	that	this	perspectiveneeds	qualifying.	Innovations	also	have	value	because	they	provide	spaces	for	interactions	that	open	newpossibilities	by	raising	questions	that	they	cannot	answer	within	their	own	parameters.	The	prominence	andinfluence	of	PB	on	the	political	agendas	and	imaginaries	advanced	by	social	movements	such	as	the	‘indignados’or	the	‘Next	Systems	Project’,	where	participatory	instruments	are	afforded	massive	regulatory	powers,	are	citedas	evidence	of	this	(160).	The	question	and	challenge	that	the	book	leaves	for	activists,	practitioners	andengaged	scholars	is	how	to	make	the	most	of	the	critical	energies	they	summon.This	review	originally	appeared	at	the	LSE	Review	of	Books.Please	read	our	comments	policy	before	commenting.Note:	This	article	gives	the	views	of	the	authors,	and	not	the	position	of	USAPP–	American	Politics	and	Policy,nor	of	the	London	School	of	Economics.Shortened	URL	for	this	post:	http://bit.ly/2k7Av3g——————————————–About	the	reviewerAdrian	Bua	–	New	Economics	FoundationAdrian	Bua	is	a	researcher	at	the	Centre	for	Urban	Research	on	Austerity	and	at	the	New	Economics	Foundation.USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog: Book Review: Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation by Gianpaolo Baiocchi and ErnestoGanuzaPage 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2017-10-01Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/10/01/book-review-popular-democracy-the-paradox-of-participation-by-gianpaolo-baiocchi-and-ernesto-ganuza/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/

Book review: popular democracy: the paradox of participation by Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Ernesto Ganuza

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online