Can participatory budgeting improve local governance outcomes?

Does participatory budgeting actually reduce government debt and improve spending?

Yes, multiple large-scale studies find that participatory budgeting (PB) strengthens fiscal discipline. A study of 242 Chinese cities from 2013 to 2022 found that adopting PB moderately reduced local government debt levels [1]. The mechanism works through two channels: first, PB increases budget transparency, which lets citizens scrutinize spending and discourages reckless borrowing; second, it shifts public money toward welfare sectors like education and health, crowding out large, debt-financed infrastructure projects [1]. These findings are echoed in a cross-national analysis of 83 countries, which showed that government debt risk is markedly lower in places with PB—a result significant at the 1% level [3]. The effect was even stronger in countries using accrual-based accounting (which tracks obligations more accurately) compared to cash-based accounting [3]. Similarly, a study of Korean local governments over seven fiscal years found strong evidence that PB is positively associated with better fiscal balance, especially when the quality of participation and deliberation is high [4].

However, PB is not a magic bullet. In Mangwe District, Zimbabwe, despite adopting PB, local councils still struggled to achieve positive financial outcomes because of limited citizen empowerment and weak accountability [8]. The key takeaway: PB can improve fiscal health, but only when it is backed by genuine transparency and enforcement mechanisms.

Does participatory budgeting actually help poor and marginalized communities?

The evidence is mixed. On the positive side, a comparative analysis of ten U.S. communities found that when PB is designed with equity in mind, it can promote access, fairness, and quality for marginalized groups—leading to outcomes like support for homeownership, increased civic participation, and additional funding for education [2]. In Porto Alegre, Brazil—the birthplace of PB—the process led to pronounced improvements in government responsiveness to underserved communities and strengthened civil society organizations [11]. A case study in Yakassé-Attobrou, Côte d'Ivoire, showed that PB helped align municipal investments with actual community needs, avoiding the gap between what officials thought was needed and what residents wanted [9].

But PB can also fail the poor. In Sumedang, Indonesia, PB improved net junior secondary school enrollment for the overall population compared to a control group, but it did not improve access for the poor in any of the areas studied—sanitation, water, or education [5]. The researchers attribute this to elite dominance in agenda-setting, a lack of strategies to target poverty, and low participation rates among the poor [5]. A systematic review of 92 studies confirms that PB's success depends on enabling conditions: strong political commitment, administrative capacity, legal frameworks, and an active civil society [6]. Without these, PB can be captured by local elites, as seen in Sri Lanka, where politicians used PB to build political strength while marginalizing citizen input [7].

What makes participatory budgeting succeed or fail in practice?

The single most important factor is political will. In Côte d'Ivoire, PB's effectiveness depended on the willingness of elected officials to engage in transparent and inclusive decision-making [9]. In Nigeria, PB remains largely a theoretical concept because local governments have not adopted it in practice, meaning community priorities are ignored [12]. Even where PB is adopted, it can be undermined by administrative resistance. In Lahti, Finland, researchers found that institutionalizing PB required organizational innovation capacity and adequate resourcing—not just a few motivated individuals [10]. Without managerial support and sustained commitment, PB processes fizzle out.

The design of the voting and decision-making process also matters. A large-scale analysis of 345 real-world PB votes found that different voting algorithms produce different outcomes: the 'equal shares' rule, which aims for proportional representation, tends to favor welfare, education, and culture projects but can underfund large infrastructure projects [13]. This means that even well-intentioned PB can produce biased results if the voting method is not carefully chosen. Finally, digital PB platforms can expand access, but they risk excluding people without internet or digital skills—the so-called digital divide [6]. The bottom line: PB is a tool, not a solution. It works when leaders commit to it, design it inclusively, and back it with resources and accountability.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions