This paper examines the issue of empowerment in participatory budgeting (PB). We position empowerment as part of the generally agreed theory of change in PB yet acknowledge the limits of an individual construction of empowerment that neglect sufficient attention to dynamic relations of power in participatory spaces and surrounding social contexts. Using the three forms of power theorized by Lukes (1974) and Gaventa (1980), we examine the ways in which these forms of power constrain individual and collective agency and transformative outcomes in participatory projects. We shift the gaze from empowerment to the concept of community power to suggest that getting beyond small adjustments to local services and resource allocations to substantive changes in relations of power may depend on ordinary citizens coming together in sites of radical possibility to define themselves, deliberate, and then act.
AllegrettiG.AntunesS. (2014). The Lisbon participatory budget: Results and perspectives on an experience in slow but continuous transformation. Field Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions. (Special Issue 11).
BatliwalaS. (1994). The meaning of women’s empowerment: New concepts from action. In SenG.ChenL.GermainA. (Eds.), Population policies reconsidered: Health, empowerment, and rights (pp. 127–138). Harvard University Press.
9.
BrodskyA. E.CattaneoL. B. (2013). A transconceptual model of empowerment and resilience: Divergence, convergence and interactions in kindred community concepts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3–4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9599-x
10.
CélérierL.Cuenca BoteyL. E. (2015). Participatory budgeting at a community level in Porto Alegre: A bourdieusian interpretation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 739–772. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2013-1245
11.
ChristensB. D. (2019). Community power and empowerment. Oxford University Press.
12.
ChristensB.SpeerP. W. (2006). Review essay: Tyranny/transformation: Power and paradox in participatory development. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.2.91.
13.
CookeB.KothariU. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? (4th ed.). Zed Books.
14.
CornwallA. (2004). Spaces for transformation? Reflections on power and difference in participation in development. In HickeyS.MohanG. (Eds.), Participation, from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 75–91). ZED Books.
15.
CornwallA. (2008). Unpacking “participation”: Models, meanings, and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
16.
EinsteinK. L.PalmerM.GlickD. M. (2019). Who participates in local government? Evidence from meeting minutes. Perspectives on Politics, 17(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271800213X
17.
FraserN. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Social Text (Vol. 25/26, pp. 56–80). https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
18.
FreireP. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin.
19.
GaventaJ. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. Clarendon Press.
20.
GaventaJ. (1995). Citizen knowledge, citizen competence and democracy building. The Good Society, 5(3), 28–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20710704.
21.
GaventaJ. (2005). Reflections on the uses of the “power cube” approach for analyzing the spaces, places, and dynamics of civic society participation and engagement (No. 4; CFP Evaluation Series 2003-2006). Institute of Development Studies.
HellerP. (2001). Moving the state: The politics of democratic decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics & Society, 29(1), 131–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001006
26.
HetlandG. (2015). Emergent socialist hegemony in Bolivian Venezuela: The role of the party. In SpronkS.WebberJ. R. (Eds.), Crisis and contradiction: Marxist perspectives on Latin America in the global political economy (pp. 120–137). Brill.
27.
HickeyS.MohanG. (Eds.). (2004). Participation, from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. ZED Books.
MarquettiA.Schonerwald Da SilvaC. E.CampbellA. (2012). Participatory economic democracy in action participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989–2004. Review Radical Political Economics, 44(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613411418055
35.
MatonK. I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1–2), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6
36.
McAleveyJ. (2016). No shortcuts: Organizing for power in the new gilded age. Oxford University Press.
OttC.KitemeB. (2016). Concepts and practices for the democratisation of knowledge generation in research partnerships for sustainable development. Evidence Policy, 12(3), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416x14700793045951
39.
PereiraL.KarpouzoglouT.DoshiS.FrantzeskakiN. (2015). Organising a safe space for navigating social-ecological transformations to sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6027–6044. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606027
40.
RappaportJ. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275
41.
RennóL.SouzaA. (2012). A metamorfose do orçamento participativo: Mudança de governo e seus efeitos em Porto Alegre. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 20(41), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782012000100014.
42.
RigerS. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00941504
43.
RyanM. (2021). Why citizen participation succeeds or fails. Bristol University Press.
44.
SantosB. D. S. (2005). Democratizing democracy: Beyond the liberal democratic canon. Verso.
45.
SmithG. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizenship participation. Cambridge University Press.
46.
TurnhoutE.MetzeT.WybornC.KlenkN.LouderE. (2020). The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
47.
VeneKlasenL.MillerV. (2002). A new weave of power, people & politics: The action guide for advocacy and citizen participation. World Neighbors.
48.
WalshE.WilsonB. B. (2020). Learning from Arnstein, Meadows, Boggs, and Lorde: Propositions on building collective power for climate justice and resilience. In LauriaM.SlotterbackC. (Eds.), Learning from Arnstein’s ladder: From citizen participation to public engagement (pp. 168–188). Routledge.
49.
WamplerB. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability. Pennsylvania State University Press.
50.
WamplerB. (2020). Participatory budgeting: Core principles and key impacts. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 8(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.138
51.
WamplerB.AvritzerL. (2004). Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil. Comparative Politics, 36(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150132
52.
WamplerB.McNultyS.TouchtonM. (2018). The global spread and transformation of participatory budgeting. In DiasN. (Ed.), Hope for democracy: 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide (pp. 55–72). Oficina.
53.
WamplerB.TouchtonM. (2017). Participatory budgeting: Adoption and transformation (making all voices count research briefing) (p. 16). [Research Briefing]. The Institute of Development Studies.
ZimmermanM. A. (2000). Empowerment theory. In RappaportJ.SeidmanE. (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2
