New Municipalism governments in Madrid and Barcelona (2015 − 2019) promoted a new agenda which included participatory budgeting, e-initiatives, and randomly selected forums. Both cities implemented deep modifications in their Advisory Councils’ (AC) systems while the ‘New Municipalism movement’ (radical-left candidacies) was in government for first time. In this article we reflect on how these municipal administrations faced the different strategies for reform across their ecosystem of ACs. For this purpose, our analysis relies on six dimensions (drivers, inclusiveness, deliberation, communication, policy-making capacity and connectedness) which are identified in the literature and are empirically applied through a comparative case study (thirty-one interviews). Despite the common agenda, the cases show dissimilarities which are connected to alternative reform strategies: one case was characterized by experimentation (Madrid), the other by slight improvement (Barcelona). Path dependency contributes to understanding these alternative logics, even when a common agenda was at play.
AnsellChrisGashAlison. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” JPART18 (4): 543–71. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032.
2.
ArnsteinSherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners35 (4): 216–24. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
3.
BaiocchiGianpaoloHellerPatrickSilvaMarcelo. 2011. Bootstrapping Democracy. Stanford University Press.
4.
BarnesMarianKnopsAndrewNewmanJanetSullivanHelen. 2004. “Recent Research: The Micro-Politics of Deliberation: Case Studies in Public Participation.” Contemporary Politics10 (2): 93–110. doi:10.1080/1356977042000278756.
5.
BarrosSamuel ARSampaioRafael C.. 2016. “Do Citizens Trust Electronic Participatory Budgeting? Public Expression in Online Forums as an Evaluation Method in Belo Horizonte.” Policy & Internet8 (3): 292–312. doi:10.1002/poi3.125.
6.
BhererLaurenceFernández-MartínezJosé LuisEspínPatricia GarcíaSánchezManuel Jiménez. 2016. “The Promise for Democratic Deepening: The Effects of Participatory Processes in the Interaction Between Civil Society and Local Governments.” Journal of Civil Society26 (3): 344–63. doi:10.1080/17448689.2016.1215957.
7.
BlancoIsmael. 2009. “Las Consecuencias de la Participación: Evaluación del Consejo Municipal de Bienestar Social de Barcelona”. In Participación y Calidad Democrática: Evaluando Nuevas Formas de Democracia Participativa, by MarcParés, 367–98. Barcelona: Ariel.
8.
BlancoIsmaelGomàRicardSubiratsJoan. 2018. “El Nuevo Municipalismo: Derecho a la Ciudad y Comunes Urbanos.” Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas20: 14–28. doi:10.24965/gapp.v0i20.10491.
9.
BlancoIsmaelSalazarYunailisBianchiIolanda. 2020. “Urban Governance and Political Change Under a Radical Left Government: The Case of Barcelona.”Journal of Urban Affairs42 (1): 18–38. doi:10.1080/07352166.2018.1559648.
BruguéQuimVallèsJosep Maria. 2005. “New-Style Councils, new-Style Councillors: From Local Government to Local Governance.” Governance18 (2): 197–226. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00273.x.
12.
BuaAdrianBussuSonia. 2021. “Between Governance-Driven Democratisation and Democracy-Driven Governance: Explaining Changes in Participatory Governance in the Case of Barcelona.” EJPR60: 716–37. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12421.
13.
BurawoyMichael. 1998. “The Extended Case Method.” Sociological Theory16 (1): 4–33. doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00040.
14.
Caballero FerrándizJavier. 2020. “Cierre Deliberativo y Miedo al Desborde en la Participación Ciudadana de los Foros Locales del Ayuntamiento de Madrid.” Encrucijadas: Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales19.
15.
CamposJose Edgardo LGonzalezJoaquin L.. 1999. “Deliberation Councils, Government-Business-Citizen Partnerships, and Public Policy-Making: Cases from Singapore, Malaysia, and Canada.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management16 (3): 429–48..
16.
CharnockGreigMarchHugRibera-FumazRamon. 2021. “From Smart to Rebel City? Worlding, Provincialising and the Barcelona Model.” Urban Studies58 (3): 581–600.
17.
CoelhoSchattanVeraP. 2006. “Democratization of Brazilian Health Councils: The Paradox of Bringing the Other side into the Tent.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research30 (3): 656–71. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00684.x.
18.
CollerXavier. 2000. Estudio de Casos. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
19.
CooperTerry L.MussoJuliet A.. 1999. “The Potential for Neighborhood Council Involvement in American Metropolitan Governance.” IJOTB2: 199–232.
20.
CornwallAndrea. 2008. “Deliberating Democracy: Scenes from a Brazilian Municipal Health Council.” Politics & Society36 (4): 508–31.
21.
DaneseGaia. 2001. “Participation Beyond Citizenship: Migrants’ Associations in Italy and Spain.” Patterns of Prejudice35 (1): 69–89.
22.
EizaguirreSantiagoPradel-MiquelMarcGarcíaMarisol. 2017. “Citizenship Practices and Democratic Governance: ‘Barcelona en Comú as an Urban Citizenship Confluence Promoting a new Policy Agenda.” Citizenship Studies21 (4): 425–39.
FagottoElenaFungArchon. 2006. “Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program.” IJURR30 (3): 638–55. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2006.00685.x
25.
FobéEllenBransMarleenVancoppenolleDiederikVan DammeJan. 2013. “Institutionalized Advisory Systems: An Analysis of Member Satisfaction of Advice Production and use Across 9 Strategic Advisory Councils in Flanders (Belgium)”. Policy and Society32 (3): 225–40. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.07.004.
26.
FontJoan. 2017. “Nuevos Mecanismos Participativos: Un Concepto, Distintas Realidades.” Recerca: Revista de Pensament I Anàlisi (21): 131–36.
27.
FontJoanGalaisCarolina. 2011. “The Qualities of Local Participation: The Explanatory Role of Ideology, External Support and Civil Society as Organizer.” IJURR35 (5): 932–48.
28.
FontJoanPasadasSara. 2021. “Participatory Motivations in Advisory Councils: Exploring Different Reasons to Participate.” Representation57 (2): 225–243.
29.
ForewakerJoe. 1990. La Democracia Española. Los Verdaderos Artífices de la Democracia en España. Madrid: Arias Montano.
30.
FunesMaría Jesús. 1995. “El Asociacionismo y Redefinición de los Espacios Políticos.” Revista de Estudios Políticos (89): 299–311.
31.
FungArchon. 2001. “Accountable Autonomy: Toward Empowered Deliberation in Chicago Schools and Policing.” Politics & Society29 (1): 73–103.
32.
FungArchon. 2003. “Associations and Democracy: Between Theories, Hopes, and Realities.” Annual Review of Sociology29 (1): 515–39.
33.
FungArchonWrightErik Olin. 2003. “Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance.” The Real Utopias Project IV. London, New York: Verso.
34.
GalaisCarolFernández‐MartínezJoséluisFontJoanSmithGraham. 2021. “Testing the Input‐Process‐Output Model of Public Participation.” European Journal of Political Research60 (4): 807–28. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12427.
35.
GallegoCallejoJavierManuelVallejosAntonio Félix. 1996. “Enfoque Dialógico del Grupo de Discusión: Diálogo e Investigación Social.” In Diálogo y Retórica, edited by CastellanosAntonio RuizSánchezAntonia Viñez, 141–4. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz.
36.
GanuzaErnestoMenéndez-BlancoMaria. 2019. “Did you win? Sortition comes to the Politics of Madrid.” Recerca. Revista de Pensament I Anàlisi25 (1): 95–110.
37.
GanuzaErnestoNezHéloïseMoralesErnesto. 2014. “The Struggle for a Voice: Tensions Between Associations and Citizens in Participatory Budgeting.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38 (6): 2274–91. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12059.
38.
HansonE. MarkUlrichCarolyn. 1994. “Democracy, Decentralization and School-Based Management in Spain.” ERIC, Institute of Education Sciences.
39.
HendriksCarolyn M. 2016. “Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The Role of Institutional Design.” EJPR55 (1): 43–60. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12123.
40.
HendriksCarolyn M.BolithoAnnieFoulkesChad. 2013. “Localism and the Paradox of Devolution: Delegated Citizen Committees in Victoria, Australia.” Policy Studies34 (5–6): 575–91. Localism and the Paradox of Devolution: Delegated Citizen Committees in Victoria, Australia.
41.
HendriksCarolyn M.KayAdrian. 2019. “From ‘Opening up’ to Democratic Renewal: Deepening Public Engagement in Legislative Committees.” Government and Opposition54 (1): 25–51.
42.
JanoschkaMichaelMotaFabiola. 2021.”New Municipalism in Action or Urban Neoliberalisation Reloaded? An Analysis of Governance Change, Stability and Path Dependence in Madrid (2015–2019).”Urban Studies58 (13): 2814–30.
43.
Jiménez-SánchezManuel. 2005. El Impacto Político de los Movimientos Sociales: Un Estudio de la Protesta Ambiental en España. Madrid: CIS.
44.
JohnsonCarolinaGastilJohn. 2015. “Variations of Institutional Design for Empowered Deliberation.” Journal of Public Deliberation11 (1): 1–32.
45.
LimaValesca. 2019. “The Limits of Participatory Democracy and the Inclusion of Social Movements in Local Government.” Social Movement Studies18 (6): 667–81.
46.
MansillaJosé A. 2017. “Los Nuevos Municipalismos y el fin de la Historia. 2017.” Quaderns-e de L’Institut Català D’Antropologia22 (1): 1–4.
47.
Martínez-PalaciosJone. 2021. “La Burocratización Neoliberal de la Participación Ciudadana en España” Revista Internacional de Sociología79 (2): e184.
48.
MatthewsHugh. 2001.”Citizenship, Youth Councils and Young People’s Participation.” Journal of Youth Studies4 (3): 299–318.
49.
Medina-GarcíaClarade la FuenteRosaVan den BroeckPieter. 2021. “Exploring the Emergence of Innovative Multi-Actor Collaborations Toward a Progressive Urban Regime in Madrid (2015–2019).” Sustainability13 (1): 415.
50.
MontambeaultFrançoiseGoirandCamille. 2016. “Between Collective Action and Individual Appropriation: The Informal Dimensions of Participatory Budgeting in Recife, Brazil.” Politics & Society44 (1): 143–71.
51.
MoulaertFrank., MartinelliFlaviaGonzálezSaraSwyngedouwErik. 2007. “Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development Between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation.” EURS14 (3): 195–209.
52.
NabatchiTinaGastilJohnLeighningerMattWeiksnerG. Michael, eds. 2012. Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
NavarroClemente. 1997. “El Nuevo Localismo Democrático: Análisis Descriptivo de Algunas Tendencias.” Gestión y Análisis de Políticas públicas9: 95–104.
54.
NavarroClemente. 1999. El Sesgo Participativo: Innovación Democrática en Municipios del Sur de Europa (1960–1995). Madrid: CSIC.
55.
NavarroClemente. 2001. “Límites y Contingencia de la Democracia Asociativa. Gobierno Municipal y Asociaciones Cívicas en Italia y España (1960–1995).” In Ciudadanos y Decisiones Públicas, by FontJoan. Barcelona: Ariel.
56.
NavarroClementeCuestaMaríaFontJoan. 2009. ¿Municipios Participativos? Participación Política y Ciudadana en Ciudades Medias Españolas. Madrid: CIS.
57.
NavarroClementeFontJoan. 2013. “The Biased Inclusiveness of Local Democratic Innovations: Vehicles or Obstacles for Political Equality?” In Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe. by GeißelBrigitte. Marko Joas: Barbara Budrich Plublishers, 95–122.
58.
NezHéloïse. 2016. “Does Participation Mean Reciprocal Learning? The Relationships Between Diverse Stakeholders During Participatory Budgeting in Paris.” Journal of Civil Society12 (3): 266–81.
59.
NezHéloïse. 2019. “La Démocratie Participative à Madrid (2015–2019). Entre Héritages des Mouvements Sociaux et Influences Internationales.” Pôle Sud2: 23–41.
60.
NezHéloïseGanuzaErnesto. 2020. “Del 15M a las Instituciones: Las Políticas Participativas de Ahora Madrid (2015–2019).” Encrucijadas: Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales19: a1901.
61.
PawłowskaAgnieszkaKołomycewAnna. 2021. “Local Advisory Councils in Deliberative Decision-Making. Findings from Research in Polish Cities.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies: 1–18.
62.
PiperLaurenceVon LieresBettina. 2008. “Inviting Failure: Public Participation and Local Governance in South Africa.” Participation and Governance1 (1): 22–42.
63.
SarasaSebastiánGuiuJordi. 2001. “El Consejo Municipal de Bienestar Social de Barcelona.” In Ciudadanos y Decisiones Públicas, by FontJoan. L’Hospitalet: Ariel, 125–37.
64.
SchneiderCeciliaWelpYanina. 2015. “Diseños Institucionales y (des) Equilibrios de Poder: Las Instituciones de Participación Ciudadana en Disputa.” Revista mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales60 (224): 15–43.
65.
SerdültUweWelpYanina. 2015. “How Sustainable is Democratic Innovation? Tracking Neighborhood Councils in Montevideo.” Journal of Politics in Latin America7 (2): 131–48.
66.
SintomerYvesDel PinoEloisa. 2014. “The National and Regional Contexts of Participatory Experiences.” In Participatory Processes in Southern Europe: Causes, Processes and Consequences, by FontJoan, et al. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 21–36.
67.
SintomerYvesDe MaillardJaques. 2007. “The Limits to Local Participation and Deliberation in the French ‘Politique de la Ville’.” EJPR46 (4): 503–29. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00698.x.
68.
SmithGraham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge University Press.
69.
SpadaPaoloAllegrettiGiovanni. 2017. “Integrating Multiple Channels of Engagement in Democratic Innovations: Opportunities and Challenges.” In Handbook of Research on Citizen Engagement and Public Participation in the era of new media, by AdriaMarcoMaoYuping. IGIGlobal, 20–37.
70.
VillasanteTomás R. 1995. Las Democracias Participativas. Madrid: HOAC.
WollmannHellmut. 2004. “Local Government Reforms in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany and France: Between Multi-Function and Single-Purpose Organisations.” Local Government Studies30 (4): 639–65.
73.
YanowDvora. 2000. Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Sage University Papers Series on Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 47.
74.
ZarembergGiselaGuarneros-MezaValeriaLavalleAdrián Gurza. 2017. Intermediation and Representation in Latin America: Actors and Roles Beyond Elections. Cham: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
