participatory budgeting as a stimulant for the development

participatory budgeting as a stimulant for the development

PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING AS A STIMULANT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY
KOLEKTÍVNE ROZPOČTOVANIE AKO STIMULUJÚCI
FAKTOR ROZVOJA OBČIANSKEJ SPOLOČNOSTI
MARKOWSKA-BZDUCHA Ewa
Abstract (AJ)
The idea of civil society plays a crucial role in the European Union. Its significance is
emphasized by both the European authorities and the member states. Civil society is defined
as grass-roots activity of independent citizens acting for the optimum formation of public life
and sustainable development. The prospects for building civil society are marred by the low
confidence in public institutions, decreased even more in recent years due to the economic
and financial crisis. A tool that can help initiate grass-roots activity is participatory budgeting,
already used in many Western European countries, and recently becoming more and more
popular in Poland. The present paper outlines the essence, origin and procedures of
participatory budgeting as well as potential benefits of and obstacles to the implementation of
this solution.
Abstrakt (SJ)
Myšlienka občianskej spoločnosti zohráva v Európskej únii rozhodujúcu úlohu. Jej význam je
zdôrazňovaný predstaviteľmi Európskej únie ako i členskými štátmi. Občianska spoločnosť je
definovaná ako činnosť iniciovaná zo strany nezávislých občanov zainteresovaných do aktivít
týkajúcich sa verejného života a udržateľného rozvoja. Vyhliadky budovania občianskej
spoločnosti sú charakterizované nízkou dôverou voči verejným inštitúciám, ktorá bola v
súčasnosti ešte znížená v dôsledku ekonomickej a finančnej krízy. Nástrojom rastu iniciatívy
občianskej spoločnosti a aktivity občanov je kolektívne rozpočtovanie, ktoré sa už využíva v
mnohých západoeurópskych krajinách a v súčasnosti sa stáva stále viac populárnym v Poľsku.
Prezentovaný článok sa zaoberá podstatou, pôvodom a procesmi kolektívneho rozpočtovania
ako aj potenciálnymi prínosmi a prekážkami pri implementácii tohto typu rozpočtu.
INTRODUCTION
The economic and financial crisis of recent years has contributed to the deepening of the
erosion of democracy in Europe, which has been noted for quite some time.1 The
Eurobarometer survey results show that in many European countries confidence in national
public institutions – which was low even before 2008 – has dropped below the pre-crisis
level. In 2011, less than one in five Western Europeans trusted political parties and only one
1
More on the effects of the economic crisis in the European Union countries, see: A.Wolak-Tuzimek, I.WolakKozera, Polityka innowacyjna Unii Europejskiej w okresie kryzysu gospodarczego [in:] P. Misztal, W.
Rakowski (eds.), Przyszłość integracji europejskiej. Uwarunkowania rozwoju gospodarczego Unii Europejskiej,
CeDeWu, Warszawa 2012, p. 189-204. ISBN 978-83-7556-531-7.
1
in three had confidence in national governments and parliaments. The public confidence level
was even lower in Central and Eastern Europe (UE-12). Here, less than 10% of those polled
within the same time range declared trusting political parties and less than one fifth said they
trust their national governments and parliaments.2 These changes are especially harmful to
young democracies. New EU member states (except Czech Republic) are placed among those
countries where democracy is perceived as flawed.3 These countries have similar levels of
political and civil liberties as the EU-15 but lag behind in the area of political participation
and political culture. The low level of confidence in public institutions translates into low
participation in public life and in democratic procedures and hampers the development of civil
society, defined as “a society in which there are active citizens who have the community’s
interests in mind, political dependencies that are based on equality, and social relations that
consist in trust and cooperation.”4
The above circumstances, as well as the significant role that civil society has to play in
development processes, make the researchers turn their attention to seeking and implementing
solutions that encourage the inclusion of citizens and their institutions in public governance.5
Local government is of particular interest here as an entity that inspires citizens’ activity and
is key in shaping the social order based on social ties, on working together, on creativity and
inventiveness, and on initiatives of local communities.6
On the local level, one way to reverse the negative trends concerning the confidence in public
institutions and citizens’ passivity is participatory budgeting (also called civil budgeting)
which has recently been gaining popularity in Poland. It is a tool that enables citizens to
directly decide about their town’s budgetary spending. The aim of this paper is to present
participatory budgeting as an instrument that encourages the development of civil society
through fuller participation of citizens in socio-political life. The paper consists of four parts
preceded with an introduction and followed by a summary. The first part discusses the
essence of participatory budgeting. Part two presents its origin. The third part is dedicated to
Polish experiences and presents the participatory budgeting procedure using the example of
the town of Sopot. The fourth part of the paper discusses potential benefits resulting from the
2
Democracy index 2011. Democracy under stress. A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, December
2011, p. 18-19, retrieved April 13, 2013 (www.eiu.com).
3
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index reports (five editions: 2007, 2008, 2010,
2011, 2012), including the world’s 165 independent states, the overall Democracy index is based on five
categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation;
and political culture. Countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: full democracies; flawed
democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes.
4
See: Strategia wspierania rozwoju społeczeństwa obywatelskiego na lata 2007-2013, Ministerstwo Polityki
Społecznej, Warszawa 2005, p. 7. Retrieved from: www.mpips.gov.pl/spoleczenstwo-obywatelskie (April 17,
2013).
5
This concept is called governance or New Public Governance in English-language literature of the subject. See:
G. Stoker, Zarządzanie jako teoria: pięć propozycji, translated by B. Kozina, Zarządzanie Publiczne 2008/4, p.
111-120, ISSN 1898-3529 and S. P. Osborne, The New Public Governance? Public Management Review 2006/3,
p. 377-387. ISSN 1471-9037.
6
For more on the subject, see: A. Sekuła, Marketing terytorialny, [in:] Gospodarka regionalna i lokalna, Z.
Strzelecki (ed.), PWN, Warszawa 2008, p. 280. ISBN 978-83-01-15451-6; J. Borek, Infrastruktura społeczna (i
usługi) dla osób niepełnosprawnych w powiecie radomskim, Analizy i Opracowania 1/2012, WSNTiS w
Radomiu, Radom 2012, p. 169-201, ISSN 2084-0659; J. Borek, Aktywizacja zawodowa osób
niepełnosprawnych wyzwaniem dla lokalnej polityki społecznej, [in:] M. Gagacka, K. Głąbicka (eds.),
Współczesne wyzwania dla lokalnej polityki społecznej, PTPS i Politechnika Radomska, Radom 2009, p. 517527, ISBN 978-83-7351-311-2.
2
introduction of participatory budgeting. The summary indicates fundamental obstacles to
reaping those benefits.
1 THE ESSENCE OF PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
Participatory budgeting is an instrument enabling citizens to participate in the decisionmaking process concerning public spending. It is defined as “a mechanism (or process)
through which the population decides on, or contributes to decisions made on, the destination
of all or part of the available public resources.”7 The right to make these decisions goes to
citizens in general, not just to a group that has been elected by vote.8 The fact there are local
government bodies does not mean direct decisions cannot be made by the population on
matters important to the local community. On the contrary, it points to the need of
maintaining regular dialogue between local authorities and citizens. It is the local
government’s task, after all, to meet the needs of the given community and act for its greater
good9 . If there is no continuous dialogue with the citizens, it is hard to know their needs and
hence it becomes more difficult to meet those needs. Thus, participation gives local
authorities a possibility to gain useful knowledge about the community’s needs so they can
make informed and more accurate decisions. Participatory budgeting allows residents of a
municipality, city district, village or housing estate to participate in planning local public
spending. The authorities hand over a part of the budget to citizens who decide by themselves
how to allocate the money. To do this, they identify the most urgent spending needs, make
their own proposals and take a bigger role in controlling public spending. Unlike in the case
of public consultation, with participatory budgeting the decisions made by community
members are binding.10 The chosen solution is brought into effect. That is way civil budgeting
provides citizens with a possibility to make a real impact. There are numerous models of
creating a budget in this way. Each has a different scope of direct influence by community
members.11 Most importantly, though, every model of participatory budgeting enables citizens
to participate directly in passing the budget of the local government unit in the area where
they live.
2 THE HISTORY OF PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
Participatory budgeting was introduced for the first time in Porto Alegre in Brazil in
1989. The new method of public funding management resulted from the experiences of many
years of military dictatorship in Brazil. The effect of the military rule was a dramatically low
level of people’s confidence in politicians and budgetary spending was associated with
widespread money-wasting and corruption. Participatory budgeting was supposed to fix this
situation and restore citizens’ confidence in authorities. The city of Porto Alegre was divided
7
UN-HABITAT, 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting, Quito 2004, s. 20. ISBN 92-1131699-5.
8
Y. Sintomer, C. Herzberg, A. Rocke, Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2008/1, p. 164-178. ISSN 1468-2427.
9
On the recommended principles of budgeting in local government units see: G. Kozuń – Cieślak, Budżetowanie
w jednostkach samorządu terytorialnego - reorientacja z administrowania na zarządzanie, „Finanse Komunalne”
No. 9/2010, p. 5 – 17, ISSN 1232-0307.
10
Ł. Prykowski, Głos łodzian się liczy, Centrum Promocji i Rozwoju Inicjatyw Obywatelskich OPUS, Łódź
2012, s. 9-17, ISBN 978-83-926008-9-3.
11
For more on different models of participatory budgeting, see: Y. Sintomer, C. Herzberg, A. Rocke,
Participatory Budgeting in Europe…, op. cit., p. 164-178 and http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk
3
into 16 districts and smaller neighbourhoods. It is in the neighbourhoods where the entire
budgetary process began. The starting point was a discussion on the previous budget
implementation and the priorities for the next financial plan. The key part of these meetings
was electing delegates for district plenary assemblies where the proposals submitted by the
representatives of each neighbourhood were evaluated. Projects to be implemented were
selected out of the highest-evaluated proposals. Besides the 16 district plenary meetings there
were also specialist forums gathering representatives of all the districts and dedicated to such
areas as health care, education and housing issues. Technical and organizational support for
all the assemblies was provided by the city authorities.12
It is in South America where this budgeting model has been for many years subjected to the
most dynamic development.13 Nowadays, participatory budgeting is becoming more and more
popular in Europe as well. It is being introduced by local governments in many countries,
such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. In publications on
participatory budgeting, the following stages are distinguished in the development of this
budgeting model14:
1989 - 1997 – its “birth” in Porto Alegre and introduction in some other cities of South
America, such as Santo Andre (Brazil) and Montevideo (Urugway)
1997 - 2000 – the spreading of participatory budgeting in Brazil where it has been adopted,
in varied forms, in more than 130 municipalities.
2000 – present – further expansion and development of individual solutions in Latin
American and European countries. In Europe, participatory budgeting is introduced in
municipalities in Spain, Belgium, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Denmark, Switzerland,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. There have also been some successful attempts
at implementing participatory budgeting in African cities (e.g. in Cameroon) and in Asia
(e.g. in Sri Lanka).
Participatory budgeting is now estimated to be used in over 1200 places worldwide. These
include large cities (Seville), individual city districts (London, Paris, Berlin, Rome), mediumsized towns and small municipalities. Many of them prepare their own models of participatory
budgeting, adjusted to the local conditions. They differ mostly with respect to the size of the
part of the overall budget that is handed over to the citizens to decide about.15
3 PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING IN POLAND
In Poland, a survey on public confidence from early 2012 paints a picture that is slightly more
optimistic than the EU-12 average – almost two fifths of those polled declared their
confidence in the government (39%), a little over one fourth said they trusted the parliament
and trade unions (29% each). Poles, just as other Europeans, have the least confidence in
political parties – they are trusted only by 20% of those surveyed. The level of confidence in
12
More on the subject, see: D. Sześcidło, Uwarunkowania prawne budżetu partycypacyjnego w Polsce, “Finanse
Komunalne” 12/2012, p. 15-23. ISSN 1232-0307.
13
See e.g.: B. Wampler, The Diffusion of Brazil’s Participatory Budgeting: Should “Best Practices” be
Promoted?
Retrieved
April
14,
2013:
www.library.uniteddiversity.coop/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/AdoptingParticipatoryDemocracy.pdf
14
Participatory Budgeting in the UK – A toolkit, Second Edition, January 2010, p. 11. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/documents/Participatory%20Budgeting%20Toolkit.pdf
15
Y. Sintomer, C. Herzberg, A. Rocke, Participatory Budgeting in Europe…, op. cit., p. 164-178.
4
local authorities is much higher – 58%.16 Poland, like other countries, is looking for
instruments that would encourage citizens to participate more in public life and democratic
procedures. Attempts at using participatory budgeting are made in numerous local
government units, e.g. in big cities – such as Poznań and Łódź – and in medium-sized ones,
such as Toruń, Radom, Bydgoszcz, Sosnowiec, Płock, Zielona Góra, Elbląg, Rybnik,
Dąbrowa Górnicza, as well as in much smaller towns, such as Sopot and Świebodzice, and
very small ones such as Karpacz.17 This does not mean that participatory budgeting is yet
widely used in Poland, but since early 2013 there has been a flurry of activity in this area as
more and more cities and towns declare they will initiate the procedure of participatory, or
civil, budgeting. This allows residents to decide directly about the allocation of part of their
city’s budget. In rural areas, the function of participatory budgeting is partly performed by the
village fund.18
One of the first Polish towns to start using participatory budgeting is Sopot. Its experience can
be a good guide for others. This is because Sopot uses a method which is the most advanced
and most consistent with the definition of participatory budgeting.19 Sopot’s civil budgeting is
a grass-roots initiative which started with a local group of civil society leaders who formed
the Sopot Development Initiative (Sopocka Inicjatywa Rozwojowa). They gained support of
the town’s councillors and thus their idea could be carried out. As a result, Sopot’s budget for
2012 included projects submitted by the town dwellers using the civil budgeting procedure.
The budget process for 2013 also provided for allocating part of the spending according to
this procedure. The rules of the civil budgeting procedure are defined in the Sopot Town
Council resolution of May 11, 2012 on public consultation with residents concerning the
town’s budget for 2013. The resolution provides for a three-stage process by which citizens
submit, verify and select projects that are later included in the town’s budget proposal (figure
1).
SUBMITTING PROJECTS
Proposals for projects to be carried out within civil budgeting can be submitted by:
a) every resident of Sopot who has the active right to vote for the Sopot Town Council;
b) a non-governmental organization with headquarters or branch office located in Sopot or
performing public tasks in Sopot on the basis of the Public Benefit and Volunteer Work Act.
16
Zaufanie społeczne. Komunikat z badań, BS/33/2012, Centrum Badania Opinii Publicznej, Warszawa, March
2012, p. 14.
17
Information found on the website of Portal Samorządowy (Local Governments’ Website):
www.portalsamorzadowy.pl (retrieved April 12, 2013).
18
The village fund (fundusz sołecki) are resources derived from the municipality’s budget, guaranteed to be used
for project meant to improve the residents’ lives. Its legal basis is the Village Fund Act (Ustawa o funduszu
sołeckim) of February 20, 2009, which took effect on April 1, 2009. (Journal of Laws of 2009, no. 52, item 420
with further amendments). Residents of the given village decide about what the money should be spent on, by
voting at a village meeting. A draft motion on the village fund can be submitted by the village leader (sołtys),
village council (rada sołecka) or 15 adult residents of the village. A resolution of the village meeting concerning
the motion must be delivered to the municipality head (wójt) or town mayor until September 30 of the year
previous to the year in which the money is to be spent. In order for a project to be carried out within the village
fund, three conditions must be met: it has to improve residents’ lives, be within the scope of municipality’s tasks
and be consistent with municipality’s development strategy.
19
The case of Sopot is described based on the article by D. Sześcidło, Uwarunkowania prawne budżetu
partycypacyjnego w Polsce, op. cit., p. 19-20.
5
VERIFYING PROJECTS
Sopot Town Council’s Temporary Committee on Civil Budgeting in consultation with the mayor of
Sopot verifies the submitted projects with respect to cost efficiency and formal and legal requirements
(e.g. whether they are within the scope of municipality’s duties). The committee turns down projects with
simple majority vote. Positively verified projects are published on a website and put to citizens’ vote.
SELECTING PROJECTS
Voting takes place at the Sopot Town Council and at venues designated for voting. Ballots can also be
sent by email. Voting consists in awarding points on the scale of 1 to 5 to the projects that have been put
to the vote. The projects with the highest point average are to be carried out, as many of them as the
financial resources permit.
aż do wyczerpania środków finansowych.
Figure 1. The participatory budgeting procedure in Sopot
Source: D. Sześcidło, Uwarunkowania prawne budżetu partycypacyjnego w Polsce, Finanse Komunalne
12/2012, p. 21.
The aforementioned resolution also indicates that the funding for projects within civil
budgeting should not be less than 4 million zlotys which is about 1% of the town’s overall
spending. Moreover, it has been indicated that this financial support should not be limited to
projects concerning the town as a whole but should include local projects as well, i.e. ones
important to the residents of each of the four electoral districts of Sopot (the town is not
divided into residential districts). There are no limitations as to the thematic scope of the
submitted projects, they just should be within the catalogue of duties of the town of Sopot and
thus within the scope of local government activity at the level of municipality (gmina) and
county (powiat). The analysis of the projects selected by Sopot residents to be carried out in
2012 shows they are diversified, though with a prevalence of infrastructure projects such as
road repairs, land development for recreational purposes or building cycle paths. However,
there were different projects as well, such as support for housing cooperatives and for small
businesses from Sopot operating in town (concerning the obtaining of external funding,
promotion, trade fairs) or subsidies for bus transport between Sopot and Gdańsk.
The procedures introduced in other Polish towns and cities are very similar to the one used in
Sopot, mainly consisting of three stages. In Dąbrowa Górnicza the participatory budgeting
procedure comprises four stages. Here, projects submitted by residents of individual districts,
after having been approved by the proper unit of the Municipal Council, go to the District
Residents Forums (Dzielnicowe Fora Mieszkańców – DFM) whose objective is to discuss the
list of approved projects and come up with a final list of projects put to a vote for residents of
the given district.20
4 BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
Based on the sources used in this paper, discussing international experiences and examples of
Polish towns and cities, numerous benefits of participatory budgeting can be pointed out.
Better allocation of public funding is among the most important ones. As a result of an
20
For more information, see: Przygotowanie procedury Dąbrowskiego Modelu Budżetu Partycypacyjnego,
strony internetowe Ministerstwa Administracji i Cyfryzacji (Ministry of Administration and Digitalization’s
website), https://mac.gov.pl/dzialania/partycypacyjny-budzet/przygotowanie-procedury-dabrowskiego-modelubudzetu-partycypacyjnego/ (Retrieved April 21, 2013).
6
increased participation of citizens in decisions abut the town’s spending, local authorities can
have a better understanding of the citizens’ vital needs. Public resources are allocated to the
fulfillment of the real needs of the residents.
Additionally, such a broad format of public debate on the town’s budget improves the
transparency of local government finances and enhances the sense of fairness concerning the
allocation of funding. Participatory budgeting increases social control, thus lowering the risk
of corruption and clientelism.
Discussions in a public forum encourage dialogue among citizens, allow them to get to know
each other better and to get acquainted with the representatives of local government. This
possibility brings about another benefit: a rise in confidence of the local community in actions
taken by the authorities, and at the same time – an improvement of the authorities’ image.
When community members see that local authorities trust them, they often reciprocate the
trust and change their attitude towards representatives of the local government administration.
Also, a broad debate on the town’s finances affects civic education in this field, expanding
citizens’ knowledge about and raising awareness of the functioning of local governments, the
rules that apply to their finances and the resulting limitations. This can positively affect
citizens’ tax awareness, very low in many countries.
Participatory budgeting integrates local community. All the meetings and discussions
concerning the budget process bring people closer together not only metaphorically but also
in a literal sense. Voting, as the culmination of the procedure, could be used for the purposes
of social integration. It can be made a very attractive, colourful event, encouraging people to
go out and take part in the voting.
In many countries people’s indifference towards public space can be observed. Many perceive
this space as belonging to no one. They do not feel it is their property because they have no
direct effect on it. Participatory budgeting makes such an impact possible. Being able to
influence one’s surroundings and integrating with other members of local community builds
local identity. Community members identify with the projects that are the effects of their
decisions. This makes them more responsible for their “small homelands.”
To sum up, introducing participatory budgeting, also known as civil budgeting, in local
government units encourages the development of civil society by stimulating grass-roots
activity. Let us notice here that participatory budgeting does not require any special legal
regulations. It can be introduced as a social contract between the citizens and their
representatives in the local government (councillors). In such a case, the councillors declare
that the citizens’ ideas with the biggest social support and not exceeding a defined amount of
money will be included in the budget. This is how it works in many countries worldwide.
SUMMARY – OBSTACLES TO
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
THE
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
The basis of civil society is formed by the citizens, aware of their rights and duties, involved
in working for the common good, capable of taking personal responsibility for their fate and
the fate of the community at all levels of public life. Without them democracy becomes purely
formal procedures, while the state and its agencies, though more and more elaborate, are
7
becoming powerless and feel alien to the citizens.21 Researchers of the theory of civil society
believed that in order to participate fully in socio-political life citizens had to have an
adequate level of autonomy, knowledge about public phenomena and of the procedures valid
in democratic systems, and possibilities to make rational decisions and take actions. To fulfill
these terms, a sense of confidence in public institutions must be instilled in the political
system.22 Undoubtedly, such confidence is encouraged by the procedure of participatory
budgeting presented above. Since the beginning of 2013, there has clearly been a flurry of
activity in Poland in this area, with subsequent towns and cities implementing civil budgeting,
counting on reaping its benefits.
However, participatory budgeting is not an easy tool to use. Based on the sources cited in this
paper, concerning both international and Polish experiences, fundamental obstacles to
effective implementation of participatory budgeting can be pointed out. One is the necessity
to ensure widespread participation of local community, so that no social group is excluded
and public debate is not dominated by one or several such groups. In fact, participatory
budgeting is regarded as an instrument allowing excluded groups, e.g. the poorest, to enter
public debate.23
Participatory budgeting requires the involvement of local politicians, local government
officials and local community. Different perspectives of judgment and different levels of
knowledge about the financial capacity of local government units require negotiation skills as
well as goodwill of each of the parties involved.
Another obstacle is politicians’ fear of loosing their influence on the forming of the budget, a
fear stemming from their belief that they are thus losing their monopoly for budgetary
decision-making. Many local politicians – despite their duty to keep constantly in touch with
the local community – are reluctant to engage in dialogue with community members except
during an election campaign.
Drafting a civil budget must begin many months before the traditional budgeting procedure to
make sure there is time to prepare information for citizens, carry out public consultations, and
then select projects that will ultimately find their way into the budget of the local government
unit.
What may also be an obstacle to gaining expected benefits from participatory budgeting are
local community’s expectations inadequate to the capabilities of the local government unit.
Not fulfilling these expectations might backfire, i.e. result in lack of understanding,
disappointment and mistrust of the citizens towards authorities.
21
More broadly on this: Strategia wspierania rozwoju społeczeństwa obywatelskiego…, op. cit., p. 21-22.
S. Kubas, Samorząd terytorialny i wspólnoty lokalne a społeczeństwo obywatelskie, [in:] Samorząd
terytorialny i wspólnoty lokalne, Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna TWP, Warszawa 2007, p. 191. ISBN 83-8827888-6.
23
Empowerment
Case
Studies:
Participatory
Budgeting
in
Brazil,
www.siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEMPOWERMENT/Resources/14657_Partic-Budg-Brazil-web.pdf. And
Frances Moore Lappé, The City that Ended Hunger, Yes! Magazine (February 13, 2009) as quoted in:
Ł. Prykowski, Głos łodzian się liczy…, op. cit., p. 14.
22
8
The existing obstacles notwithstanding, participatory budgeting is now considered one of the
more effective instruments for raising citizens’ participation in the matters of local
community.24
Bibliography
1. Borek, J. 2009, Aktywizacja zawodowa osób niepełnosprawnych wyzwaniem dla lokalnej
polityki społecznej, [in:] M. Gagacka, K. Głąbicka (eds.), Współczesne wyzwania dla
lokalnej polityki społecznej, Radom: PTPS i Politechnika Radomska, 2009. ISBN 978-837351-311-2.
2. Borek, J. 2012, Infrastruktura społeczna (i usługi) dla osób niepełnosprawnych w powiecie
radomskim, Analizy i Opracowania 1/2012, Radom: WSNTiS w Radomiu, 2012, p. 169201. ISSN 2084-0659.
3. Democracy index 2011. Democracy under stress. A report from the Economist Intelligence
Unit, December 2011, p. 18-19. Retrieved April 13, 2013: www.eiu.com.
4. Kozuń – Cieślak, G. 2010, Budżetowanie w jednostkach samorządu terytorialnego reorientacja z administrowania na zarządzanie, „Finanse Komunalne” No. 9/2010, ISSN
1232-0307.
5. Kubas, S. 2007, Samorząd terytorialny i wspólnoty lokalne a społeczeństwo obywatelskie,
[in:] Samorząd terytorialny i wspólnoty lokalne, Warszawa: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna
TWP, 2007. ISBN 83-88278-88-6.
6. Osborne, S. P. 2006, The New Public Governance? Public Management Review 2006/3.
ISSN 1471-9037.
7. Participatory Budgeting in the UK – A toolkit, Second Edition, January 2010.
http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/documents/Participatory%20Budgeting%20Tool
kit.pdf (retrieved April 14, 2013).
8. Portal Samorządowy: www.portalsamorzadowy.pl (retrieved April 12, 2013).
9. Prykowski, Ł. 2012, Głos łodzian się liczy, Łódź: Centrum Promocji i Rozwoju Inicjatyw
Obywatelskich OPUS, 2012. ISBN 978-83-926008-9-3.
10. Przygotowanie procedury Dąbrowskiego Modelu Budżetu Partycypacyjnego, the
Ministry
of
Administration
and
Digitalization’s
website:
https://mac.gov.pl/dzialania/partycypacyjny-budzet/przygotowanie-procedurydabrowskiego-modelu-budzetu-partycypacyjnego/ (retrieved April 21, 2013).
11. Sekuła, A. 2008, Marketing terytorialny, [in:] Z. Strzelecki (ed.) Gospodarka regionalna i
lokalna, Warszawa: PWN, 2008. ISBN 978-83-01-15451-6.
12. Sintomer ,Y., Herzberg, C., Rocke, A. 2008, Participatory Budgeting in Europe:
Potentials and Challenges, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2008/1.
ISSN 1468-2427.
13. Stoker, G. 2008, Zarządzanie jako teoria: pięć propozycji, translated by B. Kozina,
Zarządzanie Publiczne 4/2008. ISSN 1898-3529.
14. Strategia wspierania rozwoju społeczeństwa obywatelskiego na lata 2007-2013,
Ministerstwo Polityki Społecznej (Ministry of Social Policy), Warszawa 2005, p. 7.
Retrieved from: http://www.mpips.gov.pl/spoleczenstwo-obywatelskie (April 17, 2013).
15. Sześcidło, D. 2012, Uwarunkowania prawne budżetu partycypacyjnego w Polsce,
Finanse Komunalne 12/2012. ISSN 1232-0307.
16. UN-HABITAT, 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting, Quito
2004. ISBN 92-1-131699-5.
24
Y. Sintomer, C. Herzberg, A. Rocke, Participatory Budgeting in Europe…., op. cit., s. 164-178.
9
17. Ustawa o funduszu sołeckim z 20 lutego 2009 roku, Dz. U. z 2009 r. Nr 52, poz. 420 z
późn. zm. (The Village Fund Act of February 20, 2009, Journal of Laws of 2009, No. 52,
item 420 with further amendments).
18. Wampler, B., The Diffusion of Brazil’s Participatory Budgeting: Should “Best Practices”
be
Promoted?
Retrieved
April
14,
2013:
www.library.uniteddiversity.coop/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/AdoptingParticipato
ryDemocracy.pdf
19. Wolak-Tuzimek, A., Wolak-Kozera, I. 2012, Polityka innowacyjna Unii Europejskiej w
okresie kryzysu gospodarczego [in:] P. Misztal, W. Rakowski (eds.), Przyszłość integracji
europejskiej. Uwarunkowania rozwoju gospodarczego Unii Europejskiej, Warszawa:
CeDeWu, 2012. ISBN 978-83-7556-531-7.
20. Zaufanie społeczne. Komunikat z badań, BS/33/2012, Warszawa: Centrum Badania
Opinii Publicznej, March 2012.
Contact details
Ewa Markowska-Bzducha, PhD
Kazimierz Pulaski
University of Technology and Humanities in Radom
Faculty of Economics
St. Chrobrego 31
26-600 Radom
Poland
[email protected]
10