Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article conducts a scoping review to explore the key determinants of political legitimacy in participatory budgeting. The scoping review employs a comprehensive search of Scopus to select relevant studies. Three main sources of legitimacy emerge from this analysis: (1) institutions, (2) citizen participation, and (3) deliberation. The findings reveal that participatory budgeting can significantly affect political legitimacy through these mechanisms. In addition, the study highlights the relevance of legitimacy, as it relates to participatory budgeting, in both democratic and non-democratic contexts, with particular attention to participatory budgeting practices in China.

Keywords

legitimacy democratic innovations literature review participation

Introduction

Legitimacy is a critical element for the stability and effectiveness of political systems, with beliefs in legitimacy considered to form a basis for state authority (Habermas, 1973; Hurd, 1999; Schoon, 2022; Weber, 1968). While research has varied in its understanding of legitimacy’s constituent elements, in its broadest sense, it can be understood as the acceptance and justification of political authority by the governed (Hurd, 1999; Weber, 1968). There have been several specific definitions of legitimacy that have been proposed within the literature, which emphasize different elements such as communicative processes (Habermas, 1973), legal frameworks (Habermas, 1996; Weber, 1968), and normative understandings (Hurd, 1999). While emphasis varies, it has been demonstrated that research shares some common definitions of legitimacy: an object or authority that is being evaluated for its legitimacy, a population that assesses and ultimately bestows legitimacy upon the object or authority, and a set of shared expectations or norms about how the object or authority should operate or behave to be considered legitimate (Schoon, 2022).

In today’s crisis of representative democracies, there have been attempts to restore legitimacy by relying on novel forms of participation (Pogrebinschi and Ryan, 2018), with Participatory Budgeting (PB) standing out for its widespread use. PB is a process by which a governing authority involves the citizenry in budgeting decisions, typically allocating a portion of the budget for the citizenry to distribute through a vote. In relation to legitimacy, PB has often focused on inclusion and the transparency of the decision-making process, with the aim of increasing legitimacy in both governance and the allocation of public funding (Baiocchi, 2005; Fung, 2004; Wampler, 2012), as well as ensuring that public spending aligns with community needs and priorities, thereby encouraging trust and accountability (Health, 2020; Powered, 2020). PB complements representative democracy by facilitating direct interaction between citizens and policymakers, thereby addressing democratic deficits. Moreover, in non-democratic regimes, PB offers a controlled avenue for citizen participation, serving as a strategic tool increase legitimacy without challenging existing power structures (He, 2011).

The worldwide adoption of PB, compounded by a lack of systematic approach in its design, has led to a wide set of PB models and research. As such, literature has taken steps to offer a systematic overview, bringing together a broad body of knowledge on PB. For example, Bartocci et al. (2023) undertake a systematic literature review to offer an overview of PB applications and outcomes, and Campbell et al. (2018) undertake a scoping review to demonstrate the impact of PB on health and well-being. While both papers offer a general overview of PB research, they lack an empirical focus on the specific mechanisms through which PB affects legitimacy. This lack of focus raises questions that our research seeks to address, bringing together findings relating to the determinants of legitimacy within PB.

To capture the broadest range of relevant studies, our research adopts a flexible approach to defining legitimacy, suitable for the comprehensive nature of this scoping review. This is also beneficial due to the fact that PB has been conducted across diverse contexts, which (as we will come to demonstrate) is reflected within the diversity of literature. In doing so, three main determinants of legitimacy emerge from this empirical analysis: institutions, participation, and deliberation. In addition to this result, it is found that the issue of legitimacy is far from being limited to liberal democracies. Indeed, the sources of legitimacy seem to be of interest in non-democratic contexts, above all in relation to participatory experiences that were implemented at the local level of the People’s Republic of China under the guidance of the Communist Party (Yan and Xin, 2016).

To address this research, we propose the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the main themes in the literature regarding the impact of participatory budgeting on political legitimacy?

RQ2: How is the existing literature distributed in terms of political system, and how may we explain this distribution?

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: section “Selection of Articles” describes the procedure for the selection of articles that are used for this literature review. Section “Results” presents the results of the analysis by focusing on the main sources of legitimacy. Section “Conclusion” summarizes and discusses the findings.

Selection of Articles

The aim of this scoping review is to provide an analytical overview of existing research on the sources of legitimacy in participatory politics. To that end, the selection of articles relied on Scopus, Elsevier’s citation, and abstract database. Specifically, the following search query was applied:

ALL ((“participatory budget*” AND (“vote” OR “voting” OR “election” OR “ballot”) AND (“case study” OR “pilot”)))

Given that PB has become increasingly salient in academic literature addressing participatory innovations (Bartocci et al., 2023), it was decided that a pre-selected article needed to contain “participatory budget*.” In addition, the articles were required to exhibit at least one of four electoral terms (i.e. vote, voting, election, and ballot) and to exhibit case study terms (i.e. case study and pilot). This is due to the fact that the scope of this analysis lies within the voting experiences of participatory politics that were made in empirical case studies.

This research follows PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018), which is guidance to ensure thorough and transparent reporting when undertaking a scoping review. Figure 1 demonstrates the process by which the article selection was undertaken. Altogether, 464 articles met these conditions by matching the keywords. The removal of duplicates, books, and articles written in other languages than English resulted in a stock of 339 articles. After collecting the corresponding PDF documents, only those 177 articles that contained PB as well as an electoral term and a case study term in the main texts were included.

Figure 1.

Article Selection Flow Diagram.

From these 177 articles, a further selection was made based on the relevance and depth of discussion on legitimacy. Articles were coded on a scale ranging from 0 (“no mention”) to 5 (“main focus”) for their mention of legitimacy. This step identified 103 articles that mentioned legitimacy at least once, as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1.

Salience of Legitimacy in the Selected Articles.

	Frequency	Share
Main focus (5)	5	3%
Of great importance (4)	6	3%
Of some importance (3)	16	9%
Brief mention (2)	34	19%
Very brief mention (1)	42	23%
No mention (0)	74	42%
	177	100%

Out of these 103 articles, a subset of 80 was selected for detailed analysis (the specifics of which are outlined in Appendix 1). This subset was chosen based on their detailed coverage of PB processes and the empirical data they provided on the sources of legitimacy. The remaining 23 articles were excluded from the detailed analysis due to insufficient data or relevance.

Article Specifics

When looking at the types of articles, it becomes obvious that this selection is dominated by rather recent empirical analyses in general and qualitative case studies in particular. As to the main purpose of the 177 articles at hand, 78% refer to empirical analyses. Next in line are literature reviews (10%), methodological contributions (6%), theoretical work (3%), and others (3%). When accounting for the articles that at least partially rely on empirical analyses, the share reaches 90%. In addition, around three-quarters of the selected articles adopt at least, to some extent, a case study approach (81%). Note that since the search query used within this article required the presence of case study terms, this high proportion is to be expected. In addition, the qualitative contributions represent roughly two-thirds of the selected articles (68%), whereas 24% prove to be quantitative and 8% mixed in nature. Finally, the publication years range between 2001 and 2022. The more recent contributions are clearly overrepresented in our sample, which corresponds with the findings of (Bartocci et al., 2023). As a matter of fact, the median article was published in 2017.

Regarding the context of the studies, scholars generally focus on an individual country (81%), while only 19% are comparative. Eighty-nine percent focus on the local level of politics, rather than the national level. In addition, as is highlighted in Figure 2, scholars focus on both developed and developing countries. Moreover, it appears that scholars overwhelmingly focus their research on Europe (33%), Asia (25%), North America (12%), and South America (21%). By contrast, Africa (10%), Oceania (2%), as well as intercontinental studies (7%) play a rather marginal role.

Figure 2.

Frequency of Studies Distributed by Country.

The high share of Eastern Asia is above all attributable to work on China, which makes up for 20% of the selected articles. This needs to be highlighted in light of the non-democratic orientation of the People’s Republic of China. Yet the distinction between electoral and non-electoral regimes shows a clear overall picture. Sixty-three percent of the selected analyses refer to electoral democracies, and only 29% refer to non-electoral regimes, with 8% resorting to comparisons across political regimes. This finding is significant, as it was thought that understanding of participation in non-democratic countries is not as well developed as their democratic counterparts (Yan and Xin, 2016).

Finally, the classification according to human development highlights a domination of very high (52%) and high (26%) developed countries. Comparative contributions (17%) and especially those interested in medium (4%) and low (2%) developed countries are much less frequent. The over-representation of high HDI countries may be a reflection that PB is not necessarily associated with a Human Development Index (HDI) improvement (Boulding and Wampler, 2010).

Content Analysis of Legitimacy

Subsequently, a content analysis of the salience of legitimacy was performed on the 177 full-text articles, using a scale ranging from 0 (“no mention”) to 5 (“main focus”). In doing so, we found that 103 articles mentioned legitimacy at least once, with 74 making no mention of legitimacy. To understand the role of legitimacy in PB, we compared the sub-sample of 103 articles that mention legitimacy at least once to the sub-sample of 74 articles that did not mention legitimacy (with the specifics outlined in Table 1).

The results indicated no systematic differences between the two groups with regard to theoretical characteristics. However, a notable exception emerged in relation to the context in which legitimacy was discussed.

Contributions that dealt with non-electoral regimes were found to be overrepresented in the sub-sample of articles that received 1–5 coding scores, indicating that articles mentioning legitimacy were more likely to focus on countries that have non-electoral regimes. Conversely, articles that did not mention legitimacy were less likely to deal with non-electoral regimes.

To further explore the relationship between mentioning legitimacy and the type of government, a chi-square test was conducted. The results revealed a statistically significant association between these two variables (χ² = 9.91, p < 0.05), suggesting that mentioning legitimacy is related to the model of governance. The observed values were significantly different from what would be expected under the null hypothesis of no association, as indicated by the expected frequencies.

A closer look reveals that this bias is above all attributable to contributions that study participatory experiences implemented at the local level of the People’s Republic of China under the guidance of the Communist Party. The emergence of democratic innovations in such authoritarian contexts can be considered an intriguing feature in the field of participatory politics. With this in mind, future research may wish to expand on current understandings of participation in relation to democratic systems. As it stands, it is understood that authoritarian contexts are more likely to opt to promote limited participation in low-risk policy areas to pacify local tensions, reign in corruption, and/or strengthen political legitimacy (Yan and Xin, 2016). However, there is a need to expand on current knowledge within authoritarian contexts, with a specific emphasis on the use of legitimacy in relation to participation.

Results

As previously mentioned, out of the 103 articles that mention legitimacy, a subset of 80 was selected for detailed analysis. This subset was chosen based on their detailed coverage of PB processes and the empirical data they provided on the sources of legitimacy. The remaining 23 articles were excluded from the detailed analysis due to insufficient data or relevance. An overview is presented in Table 2. When the coded determinants are inductively regrouped into major categories in an ad hoc manner, it turns out that 59% of these articles mention institutions as drivers of legitimacy. Twenty-one percent more specifically make reference to the aspect of citizen participation, while 19% put forward the aspect of deliberation.

Table 2.

The Main Determinants of Legitimacy.

	Frequency	Share
Institutions	47	59%
Participation	17	21%
Deliberation	15	19%
Others	21	24%
	80	123%

The content analysis allows for several codes per article due to the non-exclusionary nature of the determinants.

Table 3.

Distribution Within the Peoples Republic of China.

	Frequency	Share
Institutions	11	58%
Participation	1	5%
Deliberation	5	26%
Others	3	16%
	20	105%

As with Table 2, content analysis allows for several codes per article due to the non-exclusionary nature of the determinants.

Interestingly, when the determinants of legitimacy are filtered by papers focusing on the People’s Republic of China, as is outlined in Table 3, there is a decrease in papers focusing on participation, standing at 5%. There is an increase in papers that focus on deliberation, standing at 26%. Papers that focus on institutions correspond with the overall corpus, standing at 58%.

Institutions

When it comes to institutions (which is the most frequent source of legitimacy), a very positive view prevails among scholars. Democratic institutions in general, and specific participatory devices, are considered promising tools in order to increase or restore legitimacy. They are explored under various banners such as democratic institutions, democratic innovations, participatory mechanisms, as well as collaborative, democratic, and participative governance.

There is a wide range of institutions in the sub-sample. In non-democratic contexts (that, for instance, are characterized by one-party rule), the simple fact that local-level elections are held is considered to foster legitimacy—even though the much-studied Chinese case presents some ambivalence due to the strong control exercised by the ruling Communist Party (e.g. Qin and He, 2022; Wu and Wang, 2012). In representative democracies, it is the inclusion of direct democratic elements that is generally expected to lead to higher levels of legitimacy. Other frequently mentioned devices include, above all, PB, but also mini-publics and more informal institutions such as roundtables. In countries with lower levels of development, the decentralization of political decision-making is sometimes expected and shown to exert some desired effects (Hanif et al., 2020; Talitha et al., 2020).

In addition, it shall be noted that the aspect of e-participation proves to be of some importance, since a couple of articles more specifically revolve around institutions of digital participation. The contributions by Aichholzer and Strauss (2016), Prosser (2012), and Quental and Gouveia (2018) illustrate that the discussion on the role played by e-democracy on legitimacy in advanced democracies has established itself in the literature.

Finally, it needs to be mentioned that scholars have not addressed the design of the decision-making process in general, and voting mechanisms in particular, as institutional drivers of legitimacy, even though these factors may be of importance from a theoretical point of view (Hänggli et al., 2021; Pournaras, 2020). It thus appears that there is a research gap in the field.

Participation

Let us now turn to the group of determinants related to citizen participation. The theoretical considerations and empirical findings are characterized by a high degree of coherence. The basic contention that unites these contributions is that the involvement of a large number of people increases legitimacy.

This is often discussed in political contexts of declining participation, most notably declining turnout levels due to voter apathy, and more generally, to the current crisis of representative democracies. While the problems are often considered to be wide-ranging, most empirical studies focus very narrowly on project and problem-specific questions, as is illustrated by the work by Halvorsen (2019) on urban issues in Buenos Aires and by Hakala (2021) on dwellers in two Finnish cities. In relation to authoritarian states, as argued by Weldon and Dalton (2014) and He (2011), participation is often a symbolic experience, used as a key resource to strengthen the regime’s claim to legitimacy (Von Soest and Grauvogel, 2017).

Deliberation

As we mention in the introduction, deliberative democracy is an important element of legitimacy, where dialogue and critical discourse are seen as constituent elements of legitimate authority. Deliberative democracy emphasizes that legitimate outcomes go beyond simply the act of voting, instead engaging citizens in debate that promotes consensus and mutual understanding (Habermas, 1973, 1996). We found that, within the literature review, deliberation is widely acknowledged as an important element of enhancing legitimacy within PB. Given that the idea of deliberation is regarded as being universal, it seems consistent that scholars have studied a wide range of contexts. In democratic contexts, deliberation in PB is often characterized by its focus on transparency, inclusivity, and participation of citizens in shaping outcomes (Holdo, 2016). This deliberative approach helps to bridge the gap between citizens and authorities, promoting transparency and accountability.

It is noteworthy that scholarly contributions also include deliberation in non-democratic settings (e.g. Ma and Hsu, 2018; Qin and He, 2018) and sometimes additionally in the non-public realm (He, 2021). In non-democratic settings, such as China, deliberation plays a unique role. Here, deliberation often involves structured interactions between government authorities, like the People’s Congress, and citizens’ assembly. These deliberative processes are designed to enhance governmental responsiveness and efficiency without challenging the centralized power structure (He, 2011; Ma and Hsu, 2018; Qin and He, 2018). This use of deliberation serves as a mechanism for the government to maintain social stability and reinforce state authority, demonstrating the strategic adaptation of deliberative practices in authoritarian regimes (Wu and Wang, 2012). The way in which deliberation is implemented in China may offer an understanding of why deliberation is overrepresented in the Chinese context.

Other Determinants

Regarding the remaining determinants of legitimacy, a distinction between three levels appears to be indicated: political system, elites, and citizens. As to the former, corruption, patronage, and low economic development appear as the main factors that reduce legitimacy. At the level of elites, this primarily applies to poor accountability and government performance. With respect to citizens, inequalities and low levels of education are considered to negatively affect legitimacy. Apart from that, the meso level seems to be of some importance, as groups from civil society are sometimes viewed as a force to increase legitimacy (e.g. Sheely, 2015). While it is not obvious how to unite these factors to a coherent underlying concept, it nevertheless appears that they are in a rather fragmented way ultimately connected with poor government performance—which undoubtedly affects legitimacy in a negative manner.

Conclusion

This literature review systematically examines the existing body of research on PB and its impact on political legitimacy. By analyzing 80 studies, the review identifies 3 primary determinants of legitimacy: institutions, participation, and deliberation. The methodological approach involved a comprehensive search and analysis using the Scopus database, ensuring a broad analysis of relevant academic work. This allowed for an in-depth understanding of the role of legitimacy within PB across different political contexts. The studies included in the review were selected based on their focus on PB and its implications for legitimacy, allowing for a detailed examination of both theoretical and empirical contributions. This approach enabled the identification of key themes in the literature, highlighting the varying impacts of PB on legitimacy depending on the political and cultural context.

Output of Literature Review

When considering the specifics of the literature review, the study demonstrates a significant emphasis on democratic institutions, which are the most frequently cited source of legitimacy, present in 59% of the studies. Institutions are generally viewed positively, demonstrating their ability to increase or restore legitimacy.

Participation, highlighted in 21% of the studies, emphasizes the importance of involving citizens to increase legitimacy. This aspect plays a crucial role in addressing the challenges posed by declining voter turnout and engagement in established democracies. By directly involving citizens in decision-making processes, PB can address democratic deficits and enhance political legitimacy.

Deliberation, identified in 19% of the studies, is recognized as an essential element of legitimacy within PB. However, its role varies depending on the political context. In non-democratic regimes, deliberation often serves strategic purposes. This highlights the need for further research to understand the applications of deliberation in enhancing political legitimacy across different systems of governance within the context of PB.

The review’s findings suggest that the issue of legitimacy in participatory politics plays an important role outside liberal democracies, which is particularly interesting. This is evident at the local level in the People’s Republic of China, where PB has been used strategically to enhance legitimacy without challenging centralized power. In light of recent developments, especially the restrictive approach by the Communist Party in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond, scholars are encouraged to continue critically studying this case. However, academics should consider the quality and reliability of data gathered from non-electoral regimes, as there is potential response bias regarding political attitudes due to repressive limitations on freedom of expression.

Limitations

This literature review has at least three notable limitations. Perhaps most importantly, academic search systems (in our case it was Scopus) are not 100% precise or do not necessarily represent a representative sample. In addition, the selection of the articles that address the issue of legitimacy relies on a literal approach. Future research may treat this semantic challenge by broadening the selection procedure. Apart from that, scholars may want to narrow their scoping reviews to specific types of democratic innovations such as PB. Even though this contribution required the latter to be part of the selected articles, the sample was in fact rather heterogeneous, thus containing various forms of participatory politics. Finally, this literature review has included both theoretical and empirical considerations on legitimacy. For the sake of coherence and depending on the research interest in question, a focus on either theoretical or empirical work may be indicated.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Table A1.

Overview of the 80 Analyzed Articles That Mention at Least a Source of Legitimacy (in Chronological Order Within Decreasing Rating Score Groups).

Article	Rating	Institutions	Participation	Deliberation	Others
Morrison and Singer (2007)	5	No	No	No	Yes
Wu and Wang (2012)	5	Yes	No	No	No
Yan (2018)	5	Yes	No	Yes	No
Ma and Hsu (2018)	5	Yes	No	Yes	No
de Sousa et al. (2021)	5	No	No	No	Yes
Fung (2006)	4	Yes	No	No	No
He and Warren (2011)	4	No	No	Yes	No
Michels (2011)	4	No	Yes	Yes	No
Geissel (2012)	4	Yes	No	No	No
Maeroe et al. (2021)	4	No	No	No	Yes
Rangoni et al. (2021)	4	Yes	No	No	No
Muhlberger et al. (2011)	3	No	No	Yes	No
Schaap et al. (2015)	3	Yes	Yes	No	No
Serdült and Welp (2015)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Aichholzer and Strauss (2016)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Qin and He (2018)	3	No	No	Yes	No
Frenkiel and Lama-Rewal (2019)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Schneider and Busse (2019)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Waddington et al. (2019)	3	No	Yes	No	No
Woo and Kübler (2020)	3	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Forde (2020)	3	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Frenkiel (2021)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Shi and Frenkiel (2021)	3	No	No	No	Yes
Chang et al. (2021)	3	Yes	No	No	No
Bloch-Wehba (2021)	3	No	No	No	Yes
Rose-Ackerman (2010)	2	No	No	No	Yes
Bherer (2010)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Prosser (2012)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Gollagher and Hartz-Karp (2013)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Jilke (2013)	2	No	No	No	Yes
Rosenblatt et al. (2015)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Ravazzi (2017)	2	No	No	Yes	No
Coutinho et al. (2017)	2	No	Yes	No	No
Longo (2017)	2	Yes	No	No	No
de Abreu and Correa Gomes (2018)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Font et al. (2018)	2	No	Yes	No	No
Bednarska-Olejniczak et al. (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Hensengerth and Lu (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Karner et al. (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Madej (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Elstub and Escobar (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	Yes
Pape and Lim (2019)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Kariuki (2020)	2	No	No	No	Yes
Leśniewska-N and Napierala (2020)	2	No	Yes	No	No
Castro (2020)	2	No	No	Yes	No
Kübler et al. (2020)	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Pereira and Roder Figueira (2021)	2	Yes	No	No	Yes
Qin and He (2022)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Gastil and Broghammer (2021)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Strandberg et al. (2021)	2	Yes	No	No	No
Gherghina and Tap (2021)	2	No	No	No	Yes
Saradin et al. (2022)	2	No	Yes	No	No
Bardhan (2002)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Crot (2010)	1	No	Yes	No	No
Newton (2012)	1	Yes	No	No	No
McCourt (2012)	1	No	No	No	Yes
Speer (2012)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Ryan and Smith (2012)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Staiou and Gouscos (2012)	1	Yes	Yes	No	No
He (2014)	1	Yes	No	Yes	No
Zhuang (2014)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Jaramillo and Wright (2015)	1	No	Yes	No	No
Sheely (2015)	1	No	No	No	Yes
Su (2017)	1	No	No	No	Yes
Jabola-Carolus (2017)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Nagpal and Rose (2017)	1	No	No	No	Yes
Haltofova (2018)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Quental and Gouveia (2018)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Ye (2018)	1	No	No	No	Yes
Su (2018)	1	No	Yes	No	No
Santini and Carvalho (2019)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Halvorsen (2019)	1	No	Yes	No	No
Spada (2019)	1	No	No	Yes	No
Mogues and Erman (2020)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Kanyane et al. (2020)	1	Yes	No	No	No
De Blasio et al. (2020)	1	Yes	No	No	No
Ferris et al. (2020)	1	Yes	Yes	No	No
Hakala (2021)	1	No	Yes	No	No
Shybalkina (2021)	1	No	No	No	Yes
He (2021)	1	No	No	Yes	No

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Thomas Wellings

Author Biographies

Dr. Laurent Bernhard is a political scientist at the Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (ZDA) at the University of Zurich. His research focuses on direct democracy, political communication, populism and Swiss politics. Dr. Bernhard’s work emphasizes the intersection of political science and communication, exploring how democratic processes function and evolve within Switzerland and broader European contexts. He brings an interdisciplinary approach to his research, contributing valuable insights into the dynamics of public opinion, political participation and democratic governance.

Regula Hänggli Fricker is professor in political communication at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland). Her work deals with (digital) democracy, public debates, opinion formation and the origin of dialogue. Before she came to Fribourg, she was a professor at Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR). She was also member of a temporary federal expert group addressing the digital transformation of our society. Hänggli holds a Ph.D. and an M.A. in Political Science (major subject) and Economics (minor subject) from the University of Bern. Her research interests include political communication in a comparative perspective, institutional reforms and (digital) democracy.

Dr. Thomas Wellings is a postdoctoral researcher at the Trustworthy Distributed Intelligence Lab within the School of Computer Science at the University of Leeds. He brings interdisciplinary expertise, having contributed to research in areas such as water quality, participatory budgeting and online communication. Dr. Wellings earned his Ph.D. from the University of Leeds, in the School of Media and Communication, and has since expanded his research experience with postdoctoral work at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.

Dr. Evangelos Pournaras is Professor of Trustworthy Distributed Intelligence in the School of Computer Science at University of Leeds and a UKRI Future Leaders Fellow. Evangelos has more than 5 years of research experience at ETH Zurich after having completed his Ph.D. studies at Delft University of Technology, including industry experience at IBM T.J. Watson Research Center. Evangelos has published more than 120 peer-reviewed papers in high impact journals and conferences and has received several best paper awards and honours including the listing of two of his project within UNESCO IRCAI Global Top-100 as ‘outstanding’ and ‘promising’.

References

Aichholzer

Strauss

(2016) Electronic Participation in Europe. In Lindner

Aichholzer

Hennen

(eds) Electronic Democracy in Europe. Cham: Springer, pp.55–132.

Baiocchi

(2005) Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bartocci

Grossi

Mauro

, et al. (2023) The Journey of Participatory Budgeting: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions. International Review of Administrative Sciences 89 (3): 757–774.

Boulding

Wampler

(2010) Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory Democracy on Well-Being. World Development 38 (1): 125–135.

Campbell

Escobar

Fenton

, et al. (2018) The Impact of Participatory Budgeting on Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review of Evaluations. BMC Public Health 18: 1–11.

Fung

(2004) Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Habermas

(1973) Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Habermas

(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hakala

(2021) The Voice of Dwellers: Developing a Place Brand by Listening to Residents. Journal of Place Management and Development 14 (3): 277–300.

10.

Halvorsen

(2019) The Political Opportunities of Urban Decentralisation: Mobilising Local Governance in Buenos Aires. Political Geography 74: 102038.

11.

Hänggli

Pournars

Helbing

(2021) Human-Centered Democratic Innovations with Digital and Participatory Elements. In: 22nd Annual International Conferences on Digital Government Research, Omaha, NE, 9–11 June, pp.227–233. New York: ACM.

12.

Hanif

Wallace

Gago-de-Santos

(2020) Economic Growth by Means of Fiscal Decentralization: An Empirical Study for Federal Developing Countries. SAGE Open 10 (4): 2158244020968088.

13.

(2011) Civic Engagement Through Participatory Budgeting in China: Three Different Logics at Work. Public Administration and Development 31 (2): 122–133.

14.

(2021) Industrial Citizenship, Workplace Deliberation and Participatory Management in China: The Deliberative Polling Experiment in a Private Firm. Journal of Chinese Governance 7 (3): 438–465.

15.

Health

(2020) The Impact of Participatory Budgeting on Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review of Evaluations. BMC Public Health. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-5735-8 (accessed April 2024).

16.

Holdo

(2016) Deliberative Capital: Recognition in Participatory Budgeting. Critical Policy Studies 10 (4): 391–409.

17.

Hurd

(1999) Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. International Organization 53 (2): 379–408.

18.

Hsu

(2018) The Political Consequence of Deliberative Democracy and Electoral Democracy in China: An Empirical Comparative Analysis from Four Counties. China Review 18 (2): 1–32.

19.

Pogrebinschi

Ryan

(2018) Moving beyond Input Legitimacy: When Do Democratic Innovations Affect Policy Making? European Journal of Political Research 57 (1): 135–152.

20.

Pournaras

(2020) Proof of Witness Presence: Blockchain Consensus for Augmented Democracy in Smart Cities. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 145: 160–175.

21.

Powered

(2020) How Participatory Budgeting Can Improve Governance Well-Being. People Powered. Available at: https://www.peoplepowered.org/news-content/how-participatory-budgeting-can-improve-governance-well-being (accessed April 2024).

22.

Prosser

(2012) E-Participation: Did We Deliver What We Promised? In: Prosser

Kö

Leitner

, et al. (eds) Advancing Democracy, Government and Governance. Berlin: Springer, pp.10–18.

23.

Qin

(2018) Deliberation, Demobilization, and Limited Empowerment: A Survey Study on Participatory Pricing in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19 (4): 694–708.

24.

Qin

(2022) The Politics of Authoritarian Empowerment: Participatory Pricing in China. International Political Science Review 43: 613–628.

25.

Quental

Gouveia

(2018) Participation Sphere: A Model and a Framework for Fostering Participation in Organizations. In: Chhabra

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Civic Engagement and Social Change in Contemporary Society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp.16–39.

26.

Schoon

(2022) Operationalizing Legitimacy. American Sociological Review 87 (3): 478–503.

27.

Sheely

(2015) Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya. World Development 67: 251–266.

28.

Talitha

Firman

Hudalah

(2020) Welcoming Two Decades of Decentralization in Indonesia: A Regional Development Perspective. Territory, Politics, Governance 8 (5): 690–708.

29.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169 (7): 467–473.

30.

Von Soest

Grauvogel

(2017) Identity, Procedures and Performance: How Authoritarian Regimes Legitimize Their Rule. Contemporary Politics 23 (3): 287–305.

31.

Wampler

(2012) Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Available at: https://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03252-8.html (accessed April 2024).

32.

Weber

(1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, vol. 1. New York: Bedminster Press.

33.

Weldon

Dalton

(2014) Democratic Structures and Democratic Participation: The Limits of Consensualism Theory. In: Thomassen

(ed.) Elections and Democracy: Representation and Accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.113–131.

34.

Wang

(2012) Does Participatory Budgeting Improve the Legitimacy of the Local Government? A Comparative Case Study of Two Cities in China. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 71 (2): 122–135.

35.

Yan

Xin

(2016) Participatory Policy Making Under Authoritarianism: The Pathways of Local Budgetary Reform in the People’s Republic of China. Policy & Politics 44 (2): 215–234.

Sources of Legitimacy in Participatory Budgeting: A Scoping Review