Making Space for Marginalized Voices: Deliberative Activism in Participatory Budgeting

Abstract

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a directly democratic, structured process in which community members propose, deliberate, and decide how to allocate a portion of a municipal or public budget. PB was created in Brazil to involve oppressed community members in funding public projects addressing their social justice needs. However, as PB spread around the world, the globalized version no longer emphasizes that goal. Severing that tie, coupled with the limited number of U.S. PB processes implemented and studied, has raised questions about PB’s ability to advance social justice in that country. Additionally, although (quantitative) studies have explored inclusion of oppressed community members and PB participation effects on political engagement, few studies have explored participants’ deliberative communicative behavior (and, specifically, its social justice characteristics) or perceptions of PB’s social justice capabilities. To fill those gaps, this applied, community-based, ethnographic study (employing participant observation, interviews, questionnaires, and document/artifact analysis) investigated whether (and how) two Denver, CO, grassroots PB processes (Auraria PB and Cole Has a Soul): (a) were characterized by socially just participant representation and deliberative communicative practices, (b) participants perceived PB as advancing social justice, and (c) PB affected participants’ political engagement and community connection. Results showed that a representative number of oppressed community members participated, facilitators’ communication about the Auraria PB process emphasized their inclusion and equitable treatment, and participants communicated explicitly about inclusion, equity, and empowerment, as well as about using PB to challenge unjust power systems. Additionally, Cole Has a Soul participants perceived PB as advancing social justice, and they formed durable relationships, but they demonstrated only minor changes in public participation, whereas Auraria PB participants did not form that perception or relationships but showed major changes toward justice-oriented citizenship. Discussion of the findings focuses on socially just PB practices (e.g., diverse participation and communication during deliberations); oppressed community members’ preference for relational, rather than instrumental, deliberation; PB’s limited utility as a form of deliberative activism, and PB’s grassroots origins engendering communication values that can advance social justice. Recommendations are offered for engaging oppressed community members in and using this collective decision-making process to advance social justice.