Top

Political Behavior

Published in:

25-02-2021 | Original Paper

Testing the Participation Hypothesis: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting

Authors: Carolina Johnson, H. Jacob Carlson, Sonya Reynolds

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 1/2023

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of local participatory democracy initiatives on individual voter turnout in ordinary elections, using the example of participatory budgeting (PB). Such initiatives often aspire to create more activated citizens, but there is still limited empirical research validating these claims. We link participants in New York City’s participatory budgeting process to their state voter file records to test whether PB increases participants’ likelihood of voting in regular elections. We use coarsened exact matching to identify similar voters from council districts where PB was not implemented. Comparing PB voters to similar individuals who were not exposed to PB, we find that engaging with participatory budgeting increased individuals’ probability of voting by an average of 8.4 percentage points. In addition, we find that these effects are greater for those who often have lower probabilities of voting—young people, lower educated and lower income voters, black voters, and people who are the minority race of their neighborhood.

previous article Priorities and Process for PB March Issue

next article Congressional Approval and Responsible Party Government: The Role of Partisanship and Ideology in Citizen Assessments of the Contemporary U.S. Congress

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

These goals were explicitly stated in the official rule books for PB in each of these cities (City of Vallejo 2013 and PBNYC 2013). These goals have not been not idle words hidden in formal documents; themes of political transformation and democratic renewal have pervaded the outreach materials, framing of meetings and public events, and the explicit hopes for PB shared between observers and practitioners in the field.

See up to date info on where PB is happening in North America here: https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/case-studies/ (Accessed 12/21/2020).

For more information on participatory budgeting in New York City, particularly in the earlier years of its implementation, see the accounts in Gilman (2013), Johnson (2017), Community Development Project (2015), and Su (2017).

With the exception of one district, only capital projects are eligible for PB funding, not operations funding.

In New York City the “delegates,” who develop and deliberate on the proposed projects, represent on average 2% of the total voting body in a District.

Political efficacy is generally an outcome of interest because it is available as a self-reported characteristic, and, importantly, is seen as being an important predictor of further political participation (Gastil and Xenos 2010; Abramson and Aldritch 1982; Finkel 1985a, b).

Replication code and instructions to access data are available at https://github.com/csjohns/pb-voter-turnout. Individual level data was provided in partnership with New York Civic Engagement Table who retain the data but will make it freely available to researchers wishing to replicate the work upon request. Please follow contact instructions in the GitHub repository.

We use the 5-year 2011–2015 American Community Survey estimates, accessed directly from R using the acs package.

Two different cycles of Freedom of Information Act requests failed to elicit machine readable election results or results at the election district (the equivalent of precinct in most other jurisdictions).

In addition, a small subset of voters whose votes were recorded in 2012 in centrally held records, but who were not definitely assigned to a PB district are also included, as the first PB votes in the city occurred in 2012 and thus we are confident of recording these voters’ initial experience with PB.

See Online Appendix for detail on demographic balance of PB and non-PB voters before and after matching.

An extensive literature on statistical matching methods exists. For a good review of different methods, see King et al. 2011; Iacus et al. 2012; or Stuart 2010.

With many more controls than PB voters, we randomly sample one matching control individual for every PB voter in each strata. An alternative would be to allow many matches from the control population and then use appropriate weights in the subsequent regressions. With our relatively large treatment case sample size, one-to-many matching with weights actually provides a larger sample than is necessary to fit reliable and informative models, while significantly increasing complexity and computation time.

See the Online Appendix for comparisons across match specifications.

See Angrist and Pischke (2008) for a introduction to difference-in difference models of increasing complexity.

8.4% (95% CI 7.8–9%) is the marginal effect of the post-treatment variable in the best-fitting difference-in-difference model, without including any interactions of the post-treatment indicator with other covariates, calculated with the R margins package.

Model selection processes used in-sample percent correctly predicted and AIC/BIC criteria to identify and exclude appropriate transformations and redundant variables, such as a census-tract flag for majority white population (this variable was not informative once race and flag for majority race membership was included).

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this ‘placebo’ framing of a non-PB comparison group.

Note, it is not entirely clear what the causal story behind the small district-level effect of PB may be. It could be that the effect of PB has has absorbed district characteristics correlated with the introduction of PB or it could be that the assorted effects of PB on community networks and civil society produce spillover effects that mean even non-voters are more activated in subsequent election cycles.

See the online appendix for more detail on the balance of in- and out-of-sample PB voters

Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76, 502--521. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963728.CrossRef

Adman, P. (2008). Does workplace experience enhance political participation? A critical test of a venerable hypothesis. Political Behavior, 30(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9040-y.CrossRef

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2012). Validation: What big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis, 20(4), 437–459. 23359641.CrossRef

Baiocchi, G. (2003). Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in participatory governance. American Sociological Review, 52–74, 3088902.

Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2014). Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics & Society, 42(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329213512978.CrossRef

Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. K. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford University Press.

Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barreto, M. A., Segura, G. M., & Woods, N. D. (2004). The mobilizing effect of majority–minority districts on Latino turnout. The American Political Science Review, 98(1), 65–75.CrossRef

Blais, A., & Achen, C. H. (2018). Civic duty and voter turnout. Political Behavior, 18, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9459-3.CrossRef

Boulianne, S., Chen, K., & Kahane, D. (2020). Mobilizing mini-publics: The causal impact of deliberation on civic engagement using panel data. Politics, 40(4), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720902982.CrossRef

Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 20.CrossRef

Cancela, J., & Geys, B. (2016). Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and subnational elections. Electoral Studies, 42, 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.03.005.CrossRef

Community Development Project. (2012). A people’s budget: A research and evaluation report on the pilot year of participatory budgeting in New York City. Tech. rep., Urban Justice Center, New York, NY.

Community Development Project. (2013). A people’s budget: A research and evaluation report on participatory budgeting in New York City: Cycle 2. Tech. rep., Urban Justice Center, New York, NY.

Community Development Project. (2014). A people’s budget: A research and evaluation report on participatory budgeting in New York City: Cycle 3. Tech. rep., Urban Justice Center, New York, NY.

Community Development Project. (2015). A People’s Budget: A Research and Evaluation Report on Participatory Budgeting in New York City - Cycle 4. Tech. rep., Urban Justice Center.

Cox, G. W., & Munger, M. C. (1989). Closeness, expenditures, and turnout in the 1982 us house elections. American Political Science Review, 83(1), 217–231.CrossRef

Crum, T., Salinas, E., & Weber, R. (2013). Building a People’s Budget: Research and Evaluation Report on the 2012-2013 Participatory Budgeting Process in Chicago. Tech. rep., Great Cities Institute: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2009). Does voting history matter? Analysing persistence in turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 17–35.CrossRef

Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Finkel, S. E. (1985a). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 891. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111186.CrossRef

Finkel, S. E. (1985b). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 871.CrossRef

Fowler, J. H. (2006). Habitual voting and behavioral turnout. The Journal of Politics, 68(2), 335–344.CrossRef

Fraga, B. L. (2016a). Candidates or districts? Reevaluating the role of race in voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 97–122. 24583053.CrossRef

Fraga, B. L. (2016b). Redistricting and the causal impact of race on voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/683601.CrossRef

Franklin, M. N. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking About Empowered Participatory Governance. In A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, no. 4 in The Real Utopias Project, Verso (pp. 3–44).

Gastil, J., & Dillard, J. P. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198749.CrossRef

Gastil, J., & Xenos, M. (2010). Of attitudes and engagement: Clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 318–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x.CrossRef

Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P., & Meade, J. (2008). Jury service and electoral participation: A test of the participation hypothesis. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080353.CrossRef

Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: how jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550.CrossRef

Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(01), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540808009X.CrossRef

Geys, B. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 637–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.09.002.CrossRef

Gilman, H. (2013). The Participatory Turn: Participatory Budgeting Comes to America. (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., Harvard University.

Gilman, H. R. (2016). Democracy reinvented: Participatory budgeting and civic innovation in America. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Gonçalves, S. (2014). The effects of participatory budgeting on municipal expenditures and infant mortality in Brazil. World Development, 53, 94–110.CrossRef

Grillos, T. (2014). Youth Lead the Change: The City of Boston’s Youth-Focused Participatory Budgeting Process. Pilot year evaluation, Harvard University.

Hagelskamp, C., Rinehart, C., Silliman, R., & Schleifer, D. (2016). Public Spending, By the People: Participatory Budgeting in the United States and Canada in 2014–15. Tech. rep., Public Agenda.

Hersh, E. D., & Nall, C. (2016). The primacy of race in the geography of income-based voting: New evidence from public voting records. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 289--303. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12179.CrossRef

Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013.CrossRef

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.CrossRef

Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Johnson, C. (2017). Engaging democracy: An institutional theory of participatory budgeting. PhD thesis, University of Washington.

Jovanovic, S., & Russell, V. (2016). Greensboro Participatory Budgeting 2015–2016 Research and Evaluation Report. Tech. rep., University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Kam, C. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2008). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 612–631. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080651.CrossRef

King, G., Nielsen, R., Coberley, C., & Pope, J.E. (2011). Comparative effectiveness of matching methods for causal inference. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from, https://j.mp/2nydGlv

Lerner, J., & Schugurensky, D. (2007). Who learns what in participatory democracy: Participatory budgeting in Rosario, Argentina. Democratic Practices as Learning Opportunities

Macedo, S. (2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation and what we can do about it. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Mansbridge, J. (1995). Does participation make better citizens? The Good Society, 5(2), 4–7.

Mansbridge, J. (1999). On the idea that participation makes better citizens. In: Stephen L. Elkin & K. E. Sołtan (Eds.), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Matsusaka, J. G., & Palda, F. (1993). The downsian voter meets the ecological fallacy. Public Choice, 77(4), 855–878.CrossRef

Mayer, A. K. (2011). Does education increase political participation? The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161100034X.CrossRef

Morrell, M. E. (2005). Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behavior, 27(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-3076-7.CrossRef

Myers, C. D., Gordon, H. G., Kim, H. M., Rowe, Z., & Goold, S. D. (2018). Does group deliberation mobilize? The effect of public deliberation on willingness to participate in politics. Political Behavior, 42, 557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9507-z.CrossRef

Nabatchi, T. (2010a). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40, 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009356467.CrossRef

Nabatchi, T. (2010b). Deliberative democracy and citizenship: In search of the efficacy effect. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2), 1–9.

Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 63S–88S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013519702.CrossRef

Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRef

Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on. Politics, 10(01), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877.CrossRef

Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming an habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.CrossRef

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.CrossRef

Sondheimer, R. M., & Green, D. P. (2010). Using experiments to estimate the effects of education on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00425.x.CrossRef

Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science : A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313.CrossRef

Su, C. (2017). From Porto Alegre to New York City: Participatory budgeting and democracy. New Political Science, 39(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2017.1278854.CrossRef

Talpin, J. (2011). Schools of democracy: How ordinary citizens (sometimes) become competent in participatory budgeting institutions. Bergen: ECPR Press.

Tenn, S. (2007). The Effect of Education on Voter Turnout. Political Analysis, 15(04), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm012.CrossRef

Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 47(10), 1442–1469.CrossRef

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61–81. 20434105.CrossRef

Wampler, B. (2012). Entering the state: civil society activism and participatory governance in Brazil. Political Studies, 60, 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00912.x.CrossRef

Wampler, B., McNulty, S., & Touchton, M. (2018). Participatory Budgeting: Spreading Across the Globe. Tech. rep., Transparency and Accountability Initiative.

World Bank (2008) Toward a more inclusive and effective participatory budget in Porto Alegre: Main report. Tech. Rep. 40144-BR, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Title: Testing the Participation Hypothesis: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting
Authors: Carolina Johnson
H. Jacob Carlson
Sonya Reynolds
Publication date: 25-02-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Political Behavior / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09679-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

You’re Not From Here!: The Consequences of Urban and Rural Identities

The Electoral Costs and Benefits of Feminism in Contemporary American Politics

Economic Self-Interest and Americans’ Redistributive, Class, and Racial Attitudes: The Case of Economic Insecurity

The Gender Backlash in the Vote for Brexit

When are Explicit Racial Appeals Accepted? Examining the Role of Racial Status Threat

Does Radical-Right Success Make the Political Debate More Negative? Evidence from Emotional Rhetoric in German State Parliaments