PolicyDiffusionattheLocalLevel:ParticipatoryBudgetinginEstonia

JelizavetaKrenjovaRagnarNurkse DepartmentonInnovationandGovernance

TallinnUniversityofTechnology,Estonia

UNU-EGOVseminar,Guimarães27.03.2017

Aboutmyself

• RagnarNurkse DepartmentonInnovationandGovernanceTallinnUniversityofTechnology,Estonia

• e-GovernanceAcademyFoundation,Estonia• thinktankandconsultancyorganisationfoundedforthecreationandtransferofknowledgeandbestpracticeconcerninge-governance

Background I

• Participatorybudgeting(PB)aprocessofparticipationthatenablesnonelectedcitizenstomakedecisionsaboutbudgetallocations• PortoAlegre,Brazil,1980s,cameaboutastheresultofamilitarydictatorship• Partofaleftistideologicalagenda• 1.5millionresidents• 20%ofthecity’sannualbudget

Figure1:PBcycleinPortoAlegre,BrazilSource:deSousaSantos,1998.Adjustedbytheauthor

Figure2.GlobalDiffusionofPBSource:Herzberg,C.,Sintomer,Y.,Allegretti,G.(2010)

Background II

BackgroundIII

• Becomesamodelofdevelopmentoftenimplementedwiththehelpofanexternalorganization(WB,UN)• ThehugeheterogeneityinPBexperiments• Noone-size-fits-all• Theprocessisrapidlyexpandingandchangingallthetime• PBusedas• amanagerial/technocratictool;• agoodgovernanceinstrument;• a politicalinstrumenttoradicallydemocratizedemocracy.(Cabannes,Lipietz 2015)

PBmodels inEurope:

PortoAlegre adapted for Europe- Spain?

Proximity participation- France?

Consultations onpublic finance- Germany?

Community PB- UK?

Multi-stakeholder participation- Poland?

Consultations

Co-financing;organised interests

Source:Herzberg,C.,Sintomer,Y.,Allegretti,G.(2010)

BackgroundIV

• LocalGovernmentinEstoniabeforeamalgamationreform• 2/3lessthan3000inh.• 38outof213under1000inh.• Only3citiesabove50000inh.(Narva,Tartu,Tallinn)• Thelargest– thecapital,Tallinn• Thesmallest- Piirissaare ruralmunicipality(104people)• Ownindependentbudget,butmostoftherevenues– theshareofthepersonalincometax(11,6%)andgrantsfromthecentralgovernment–>weakfinancialautonomy• Localtaxes(appr.1%oftherevenues)

BackgroundV

IntroductionIKrenjova,J.andRaudla,R.,2017.PolicyDiffusionattheLocalLevel:ParticipatoryBudgetinginEstonia. UrbanAffairsReview,pp.1-29,SAGEpublications

• ↑researchdescribingtheimplementationofPBandresults• But! Onlylimitedattentionto• thediffusionprocess• factors =>theadoption

• GiventherisingimportanceofPB=>usefultounderstandwhatmechanisms driveitsadoption.

IntroductionII• Structureofthepaper• Theoretical discussiononpolicydiffusion(mechanisms,actors,factors)• Empiricalstudy:thespreadofPBacross 14Estonianlocal governments

• WhyEstoniais ausefulcasetolookat?• A“new” democracy&limitedLGtraditionsofusingparticipatorytools:

• SpreadofPBin“unfavourable”conditions• Veryrecent adoptionsofPB(2013-2015)

Research questions1. Whatmechanisms havedriventhediffusionofPBamongEstonian

localgovernments?• learning,imitation,competition,coercion?• shift overtime?

2. WhichfactorsandactorshavestimulatedthespreadofPB?• e.g.the roleof“go-betweens”?• the roleofITsolutionsavailableforlocalgovernments?

Theoretical framework I

• Policydiffusionoccurswhen“onegovernment’sdecisionaboutwhetherto adoptapolicyinnovationisinfluencedbythechoicesmadebyothergovernments” (Grahametal.,2013,p.675).

• Importantfocusofpolicydiffusionliterature:diffusion mechanisms• Learning• Imitation• Competition• Coercion

Theoretical framework II1. Learning:takesplacewhenpolicyactorsupdatetheirbeliefsabout

theeffectivenessofapolicybasedontheexperienceofotherjurisdictions

2. Imitation:adoptiondrivenbylegitimacyseeking/todemonstratethejurisdictionisactingina“proper”manner

3. Competition:theadoptionof1jurisdictioncreates policyexternalities thathavetobetakenintoaccountbyotherjurisdictions

4. Coercion:coerciveactor=>usingsticks/carrots

Theoretical framework III• Characteristics ofapolicy =>policy diffusion

• Salience &complexity• High salience /low complexity =>diffuse more rapidly.

• Reputation ofthe initial adopter

• Shift intheimportanceofthepredominantmechanismovertime?• Theimportanceofimitation↑overtime.

• Earlyadopters:moredrivenbylearning• Lateradopters:moredrivenby imitation

• Theimportanceoflearningshould↑overtime<=moreevidenceabouttheeffectsofpolicyinnovation

TheoreticaldiscussionIV

• Different actors inthe macro environment• internal actors• external actors• go-betweens (top-down andepistemic)

• Theroleof“go-betweens”:• Especially“epistemic”go-betweens:canfacilitatelearning

• disseminatingknowledgeandevidenceaboutapolicyinnovation.

• ”Policy entrepreneurs”

Methodology• Semi-structured face-to-face andtelephone interviews• from January to April 2016• with LGofficials from 13municipalities (out of14)• 9with elected officials,the restwith civil servants

• Request to conduct the interview with the person having mostinformation about PBprocess inthe city/parish• Legalacts,publicwebsites,communicationovere-mail,statisticaldata• Allows for asocial normativity bias ,but guaranteed anonymity =>many frankanswers

ThespreadofPBinEstonia(January2017)

2011:PBintroduced toLGs by eGA

2013:PBadopted byTartu

2014:5additional LGs2015:7additional LGs2016:7 additional LGs

Jan2017– 20cases

Source: (Krenjova, Raudla, 2017), Google, my maps

Findings I(updated)

DecisiononPBbudget

Submissionofideas

Expertanalysis,forums

Residents’voting

CityCouncildecision&implem.

FindingsII

LocalvariationsconcerntheamountofmoneyforPB,thevotingprocedure(open/closed,numberofvotesperparticipant,usedplatform)anddurationoftheprocess.

FindingsIII

FindingsIV

• LGshopedthatPBwouldhelp• tosolveaproblemoflimitedcitizenparticipation• toactivatethecitizenry.

• Buttheywerealso• followingtheemergingtrendofPB,• tryingtobeperceivedasinnovativelocalauthorities

“Othersarealreadydoingit,sowewanttodoitaswell.”

“UsingPBallowsustocreatetheimageofbeingprogressiveandinnovative.”

“WehopedthatPBwouldactivatetheinhabitantsandalsoallowustocollectinformationabouttheirpreferencesregardinginvestments...PBwouldhelptodeveloptheattitudethat“whoisactive”willgettheirpreferencesimplemented.”

FindingsV“Thecitizenshavebecomeincreasinglyalienatedfromwhatthecitygovernmentdoesandlostthesenseofcommunity.Theirinterestincityplanning,forexample,isverylow.ThehopewasthatPBwouldhelptobringthecitygovernmentclosertothecitizens… andalsotomakecitizensthinkwhatisneededinthecity.”

“Itisapedagogicaltooltoteachcitizensabouttheuseofpublicresources—howitshouldbetransparent,understandableandifyouproposeanideayouareresponsibleforitaswell… Itisnotsothatyoucanjustproposeitandthenrunaway… Italsohelpstoteachthecitizensthatinordertoachieveyourgoal,youneedtocooperate.”

• Competition– notapredominanttriggerbehindtheadoptiondecision• Coercionnotmentioned• Inseveralcases• Learningandmotivation– inthesameinterview• Theprimarytrigger– imitation,butthisledtoacknowledgementofproblems

• Acombinationoflearningandimitation• Theimportanceofimitationincreasingovertime• Lateradopters– legitimacyseekingandnorm-following

FindingsVI

• Lowcomplexityandhighsalience• extensivemediacoverage• an“easy”toolforengagement• doesnotcauseanydrasticincreasesintheworkload

• Thereputationofthefirstadopter(Tartu)• thecityknownforitsinnovativeness,the“intellectualcapital”ofEstonia

• “Detached”fromtheinternationaldevelopments• MostoftheLGslookedatTartu

Findings VII

• Internalactorsinitiatingtheprocess• theheadorthememberofthelocalcouncil,parishelder,oramemberofthelocalgovernment

• Epistemicgo-between– e-GovernanceAcademy• apolicyentrepreneurandfacilitatoroflearning• disseminatedtheknowledgeabouttheconcept• advocatedtheintroductionoftheideaofPB

• Externalactor– Tartu• areferencecase;legitimizedthemodel

• Availabilityofelectronicplatforms

FindingsVIII

FindingsIX• VOLIS- Estonianacronymfor“informationsystemforlocalcouncils”• enablesthemtoconductmeetingsandsessionsonline• specialPBfunctionality• moreexpensivethanKOVTP• ca25clients

• KOVTP- Estonianacronymfor“serviceportalforalocalgovernment”• offersawebsitesolutionwithaspecificlayoutofinformationandaninterfacewithmanyapplications• ca150LG

• DevelopedbyaprivatecompanywithEUsupport• Bothofthesystemshave

• aseparatefunctionality(module)forpublicvotingviaIDcard• thefunctiontoautomaticallychecktheresidencyofthevoteraccordingtothepopulationregister

• VOLIS- specificfunctionalityforPB(fundedbyTartu)• KOVTP- votingforpublicpollsonly->doesnotpreventdoublevoting• A comfortablewayoforganizingPBvotingandenhancingtransparencyoftheprocedure• Oneoftheinterviewees:thelimitedaccessibilityofVOLIS

• purchasingthewholesystemnotreasonable

FindingsX

• Smallsumsofmoney->a“non-threatening”wayforlocalauthoritiestostartexperimenting• Enhancinglegitimacy+servingeducationalpurposesforbothsides–citizensandauthorities• ICTsolutionscanfacilitatethespreadoftheprocessandlowerthecostsofimplementation• however,iftooexpensive- limitationsonfurtherdiffusion

• Thekick-startbyanexemplarycity• Epistemicgo-betweenscansignificantlyfacilitatelearning aboutPBandaidLGstoadoptandimprovetheirPBpractices.

Lessonslearnt

Futureperspectives

• Themajorityoftheofficialswereinclinedtocontinue• AmalgamationreforminEstonia

• evenmoreneed?Thegreaterdistancebetweenelectedofficialsandcitizensinlargermunicipalities• thecombinedfinancialresources• theadoptionofPB- apoliticaldecision• expensesrelatedtotheICTtoolsforimplementingPB.

Thankyou!JelizavetaKrenjova

+37253306868Jelizaveta.krenjova@ega.ee

Jelizaveta.krenjova@gmail.com

ThispresentationissupportedbyEUEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund