Orçamento participativo e instituições participativas: aspectos para a avaliação de experiências e casos

This article is to discuss the evaluative perspectives from which it is possible and convenient evaluate the Participatory Budgets (PBs) and the participatory institutions (PIs) that are being experienced in Brazil since the last two decades of the last century. It is proposed an integrated perspective of evaluation of PBs and PIs, in order to avoid partial and biased conclusions, especially those which are based solely or primarily on quantitative methodologies. This discussion is necessary since, in the past five years, the criticism of these experiments has been increasing. Through critical and creative reflection, in essay form, and based on the recent literature on the topic, it is concluded by the need to adopt, in the empirical evaluation, an integrated approach of evaluation of the PBs and the PIs, such as it is proposed in this article. It is conclude also which is fundamental for the theoretical advancement on the subject dedicate special attention to the desirability or not of adopting the criterion of popular participation in government decisions under representative democracy, since it is refuted by public choice and defended by neo-republicanism.

Estudos sobre as instituições participativas: o debate sobre sua efetividade

The main purpose of this article is to introduce the debate on the effectiveness of the participatory institutions in Brazil. At first, it will bring the very early debate about participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Afterwards, the article will show how international literature impacts studies on the democratic transition in Brazil, trying to delineate the borders, limitations and advances of Brazilian literature about the theme. In the last part, the main topics of debate on the effectiveness of participatory institutions - methods and instruments of evaluation - will be pointed out

La democrazia deliberativa negli Stati Uniti: teoria e prassi

This dissertation aims to analyse the development of the deliberative model of democracy in the U.S., both in an empirical and theoretical levels, from its origins in the eighties of the last century until now. In the first part we study the political and historical elements that build the crisis of the Liberal political system in the seventies in the U.S. and its effects on the political behaviour of citizens. In the second part we discuss the origins and development of the deliberative theory of democracy, its main authors, approaches and elements. The key aspect of this model of democracy is to reverse the apathy and strength the political participation of citizens through public deliberation. In the last part we expose the practical level of the deliberative democracy: how this theory of has been put into practice in the American political domain. We describe the main projects of deliberative democracy rose from civil society from the eighties until today. Finally, we expose the James Fishkin’s proposal of deliberative poll. This is the link between the empirical and theoretical levels of the deliberative model of democracy.

La partecipazione popolare nell'esperienza dei referendum comunali

I Comuni incarnano idealmente delle piazze in cui il dibattito politico può svilupparsi in assenza di particolari filtri ed intermediazioni, con un rapporto diretto tra cittadini ed istituzioni. Essi costituiscono uno snodo di centrale importanza nell'esercizio della sovranità popolare e, al contempo, sono terreno fertile per la sperimentazione di modelli di partecipazione democratica. Prendendo come punto di vista l'esperienza dei Comuni italiani, si è scelto di focalizzare l'attenzione su uno degli strumenti “istituzionali” – nonché uno tra i più tradizionali – di partecipazione popolare, ovvero il referendum, nelle diverse forme ed accezioni che rientrano nel campo semantico di tale espressione. Questa è generalmente impiegata per indicare tutte quelle votazioni popolari non elettive su questioni politicamente rilevanti, formulate attraverso un quesito con due o più risposte alternative tra loro. L'analisi della disciplina legislativa degli istituti di partecipazione negli enti locali e lo studio delle disposizioni statutarie e regolamentari previste dai singoli Comuni, nonché le informazioni raccolte da alcuni casi di studio, rappresentano, in questo contesto, l'occasione per indagare le caratteristiche peculiari dell'istituto referendario, la sua effettività ed il suo impatto sulla forma di governo. In particolare, si è verificata positivamente la compatibilità del referendum, classificato dalla prevalente dottrina come istituto di democrazia diretta, con le forme attuali di democrazia rappresentativa. Si è tentato, altresì, un accostamento ai concetti di democrazia partecipativa e deliberativa, evidenziando come manchi del tutto, nel procedimento referendario (che pure è dotato di massima inclusività) un momento di confronto “deliberativo”. Il raffronto tra le esperienze riscontrate nei diversi Comuni ha consentito, inoltre, di ricercare le cause di alcuni aspetti critici (scarsa affluenza, mancata trasformazione del voto in decisioni politiche, aumento del conflitto) e, al contempo, di individuarne possibili soluzioni, tracciate sulla scorta delle migliori pratiche rilevate.

A discourse-theoretic approach to negotiated rulemaking

In 1996 and in 1997, Congress ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a process of negotiated rulemaking, which is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, on three separate rulemaking matters. Other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, have also made use of this procedure. As part of the program to reinvent government, President Clinton has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in some negotiated rulemaking procedures. I present an analytic, interpretative and critical approach to looking at the statutory and regulatory provisions for negotiated rulemaking as related to issues of democratic governance surrounding the problem of delegation of legislative power. The paradigm of law delineated by Jürgen Habermas, which sets law the task of achieving social or value integration as well as integration of systems, provides the background theory for a critique of such processes. My research questions are two. First, why should a citizen obey a regulation which is the result of negotiation by directly interested parties? Second, what is the potential effect of negotiated rulemaking on other institutions for deliberative democracy? For the internal critique I argue that the procedures for negotiated rulemaking will not produce among the participants the agreement and cooperation which is the legislative intent. For the external critique I argue that negotiated rulemaking will not result in democratically-legitimated regulation. In addition, the practice of negotiated rulemaking will further weaken the functioning of the public sphere, as Habermas theorizes it, as the central institution of deliberative democracy. The primary implication is the need to mitigate further development of administrative agencies as isolated, self-regulating systems, which have been loosened from the controls of democratic governance, through the development of a robust public sphere in which affected persons may achieve mutual understanding. ^

Procéduralisme épistémique et légitimité démocratique : une défense de l'égalité politique

Ce mémoire explore la relation qui lie démocratie et légitimité politique, dans une perspective épistémique. La démocratie, dans son acception la plus générale, confère à chacun la possibilité de faire valoir les intérêts qu'il estime être les siens et ceux de sa communauté, en particulier à l’occasion d’un scrutin. Cette procédure décisionnelle qu’est le vote consacre ainsi en quelque sorte la liberté et l’égalité dont profitent chacun des citoyens, et confère une certaine légitimité au processus décisionnel. Cela dit, si le vote n’est pas encadré par des considérations épistémiques, rien ne garantit que le résultat politique qui en découlera sera souhaitable tant pour les individus que pour la collectivité: il est tout à fait permis d’imaginer que des politiques discriminatoires, économiquement néfastes ou simplement inefficaces voient ainsi le jour, et prennent effet au détriment de tous. En réponse à ce problème, différentes théories démocratiques ont vu le jour et se sont succédé, afin de tenter de lier davantage le processus démocratique à l’atteinte d’objectifs politiques bénéfiques pour la collectivité. Au nombre d’entre elles, la démocratie délibérative a proposé de substituer la seule confrontation d’intérêts de la démocratie agrégative par une recherche collective du bien commun, canalisée autour de procédures délibératives appelées à légitimer sur des bases plus solides l’exercice démocratique. À sa suite, la démocratie épistémique s’est inspirée des instances délibératives en mettant davantage l’accent sur la qualité des résultats obtenus que sur les procédures elles-mêmes. Au final, un même dilemme hante chaque fois les différentes théories : est-il préférable de construire les instances décisionnelles en se concentrant prioritairement sur les critères procéduraux eux-mêmes, au risque de voir de mauvaises décisions filtrer malgré tout au travers du processus sans pouvoir rien y faire, ou devons-nous avoir d’entrée de jeu une conception plus substantielle de ce qui constitue une bonne décision, au risque cette fois de sacrifier la liberté de choix qui est supposé caractériser un régime démocratique? La thèse que nous défendrons dans ce mémoire est que le concept d’égalité politique peut servir à dénouer ce dilemme, en prenant aussi bien la forme d’un critère procédural que celle d’un objectif politique préétabli. L’égalité politique devient en ce sens une source normative forte de légitimité politique. En nous appuyant sur le procéduralisme épistémique de David Estlund, nous espérons avoir démontré au terme de ce mémoire que l’atteinte d’une égalité politique substantielle par le moyen de procédures égalitaires n’est pas une tautologie hermétique, mais plutôt un mécanisme réflexif améliorant tantôt la robustesse des procédures décisionnelles, tantôt l’atteinte d’une égalité tangible dans les rapports entre citoyens.

Aplicação da democracia deliberativa como mecanismo de efetivação do direito fundamental a uma administração pública proba

This study aims to analyze citizen participation in state policy decisions, as an essential element of legitimacy in the branches of government, especially in the sphere of the Executive, in the context of deliberative democracy. But, this study still has the desideratum to understand the citizen's role in public life, especially in the sphere of the Executive Branch, in order to effect the Fundamental Right to Public Administration proba, efficient and honest. Thus, to achieve this mister, the proposal is to expose the pesamento the classic contractualist, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau about the legitimacy of governments, through the statutes, and the question of the general will and majority rule as well how to present the comments of Thomas Jefferson on popular sovereignty and dialogical citizen participation in matters of local interest. After, it will be studied the theories of Fundamental Rights in order to demonstrate the need for the Civil Service should be veiled in a more specific custody rights, given the deep crisis in the Public Administrative practice due, especially, corruption. On the other side, the fundamentality of management also covers the aspect of the development of cities, which decisively affects the development of man, which, to join a deliberative governance program needs to be politicized, adopting full participation, dialogue, as duty citizen. Furthermore, taking as most heart, will be presented the doctrine of Jürgen Habermas, whose Discourse Theory element is to be followed for the implementation of a This study aims to analyze citizen participation in state policy decisions, as an essential element of legitimacy in the branches of the government, especially in the sphere of the Executive, in the context of deliberative democracy. But, this study also has the desideratum to understand the citizen's role in public life, especially in the sphere of the Executive Branch, in order to actualize the Fundamental Right to a just, efficient and honest Public Administration. Thus, to achieve this necessity, the proposal is to expose the thought of the classic contractualist thinkers, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau about the legitimacy of governments, through the statutes, and the question of the general will and majority rule as well as how to present the comments of Thomas Jefferson on popular sovereignty and dialogical citizen participation in matters of local interest. Later on, the theories of Fundamental Rights will be studied in order to demonstrate that the need for the Civil Service should be veiled in a more specific right custody, given the deep crisis in the Public Administrative practice due to, especially, the corruption. On the other hand, the fundamentality of management also covers the aspect of the development of cities, which decisively affects the development of man, who, to join a deliberative governance program, needs to be politicized, adopting full participation and dialogue as a citizen responsibility. Furthermore, taking as the major heart, it will be presented the doctrine of Jürgen Habermas whose Discourse Theory element is to be followed for the implementation of a broad deliberative and emancipatory democracy, with effective citizen participation. It will also be considered the Condorcet Constitution Project as a comparative link in the linking of the public deliberative will, and the Central Power, in the face of the Theory of “Sluice” Habermas. The proposal, based on communicative action, must allow a continuous flux and influx process of social interests towards the exercise of administrative power. The dialogical deal, brought to the center of the decisions, will allow discussions in the public scope, and may contribute to the legitimacy of government actions, inasmuch as it creates the feeling of politicization demanded by the man in a democratic state.

Procéduralisme épistémique et légitimité démocratique : une défense de l'égalité politique

Ce mémoire explore la relation qui lie démocratie et légitimité politique, dans une perspective épistémique. La démocratie, dans son acception la plus générale, confère à chacun la possibilité de faire valoir les intérêts qu'il estime être les siens et ceux de sa communauté, en particulier à l’occasion d’un scrutin. Cette procédure décisionnelle qu’est le vote consacre ainsi en quelque sorte la liberté et l’égalité dont profitent chacun des citoyens, et confère une certaine légitimité au processus décisionnel. Cela dit, si le vote n’est pas encadré par des considérations épistémiques, rien ne garantit que le résultat politique qui en découlera sera souhaitable tant pour les individus que pour la collectivité: il est tout à fait permis d’imaginer que des politiques discriminatoires, économiquement néfastes ou simplement inefficaces voient ainsi le jour, et prennent effet au détriment de tous. En réponse à ce problème, différentes théories démocratiques ont vu le jour et se sont succédé, afin de tenter de lier davantage le processus démocratique à l’atteinte d’objectifs politiques bénéfiques pour la collectivité. Au nombre d’entre elles, la démocratie délibérative a proposé de substituer la seule confrontation d’intérêts de la démocratie agrégative par une recherche collective du bien commun, canalisée autour de procédures délibératives appelées à légitimer sur des bases plus solides l’exercice démocratique. À sa suite, la démocratie épistémique s’est inspirée des instances délibératives en mettant davantage l’accent sur la qualité des résultats obtenus que sur les procédures elles-mêmes. Au final, un même dilemme hante chaque fois les différentes théories : est-il préférable de construire les instances décisionnelles en se concentrant prioritairement sur les critères procéduraux eux-mêmes, au risque de voir de mauvaises décisions filtrer malgré tout au travers du processus sans pouvoir rien y faire, ou devons-nous avoir d’entrée de jeu une conception plus substantielle de ce qui constitue une bonne décision, au risque cette fois de sacrifier la liberté de choix qui est supposé caractériser un régime démocratique? La thèse que nous défendrons dans ce mémoire est que le concept d’égalité politique peut servir à dénouer ce dilemme, en prenant aussi bien la forme d’un critère procédural que celle d’un objectif politique préétabli. L’égalité politique devient en ce sens une source normative forte de légitimité politique. En nous appuyant sur le procéduralisme épistémique de David Estlund, nous espérons avoir démontré au terme de ce mémoire que l’atteinte d’une égalité politique substantielle par le moyen de procédures égalitaires n’est pas une tautologie hermétique, mais plutôt un mécanisme réflexif améliorant tantôt la robustesse des procédures décisionnelles, tantôt l’atteinte d’une égalité tangible dans les rapports entre citoyens.

La objeción de la ignorancia pública

Las teorías deliberativas de la democracia han pasado de cuestionar en su totalidad los sistemas democráticos representativos y sus procedimientos de toma de decisiones a buscar su posibilidad de realización acomodándose a las instituciones liberales. Sin embargo, la deliberación democrática sigue suscitando oposición entre varios autores por varias razones, una de las cuales, especialmente conspicua, es la llamada objeción de la ignorancia pública, que afirma que el público por su ignorancia de los asuntos políticos está incapacitado para cumplir las exigentes requisitos que toda deliberación política presupone y por la que esta, a gran escala, deviene indeseable, cuando no imposible.

Do Institutional Participatory Projects Contribute to the Development of Political Capabilities?

Participation usually sets off from the bottom up, taking the form of more or less enduring forms of collective action with varying degrees of infl uence. However, a number of projects have been launched by political institutions in the last decades with a view to engaging citizens in public affairs and developing their democratic habits, as well as those of the administration. This paper analyses the political qualifying capacity of the said projects, i.e. whether participating in them qualifi es individuals to behave as active citizens; whether these projects foster greater orientation towards public matters, intensify (or create) political will, and provide the necessary skills and expertise to master this will. To answer these questions, data from the comparative analysis of fi ve participatory projects in France and Spain are used, shedding light on which features of these participatory projects contribute to the formation of political subjects and in which way. Finally, in order to better understand this formative dimension, the formative capacity of institutional projects is compared with the formative dimension of other forms of participation spontaneously developed by citizens.

Narrative Deliberation? On Storytelling as a Necessary Component of Public Deliberation

This paper deals with the place of narrative, that is, storytelling, in public deliberation. A distinction is made between weak and strong conceptions of narrative. According to the weak one, storytelling is but one rhetorical device among others with which social actors produce and convey meaning. In contrast, the strong conception holds that narrative is necessary to communicate, and argue, about topics such as the human experience of time, collective identities and the moral and ethical validity of values. The upshot of this idea is that storytelling should be a necessary component of any ideal of public deliberation. Contrary to recent work by deliberative theorists, who tend to adopt the weak conception of narrative, the author argues for embracing the strong one. The main contention of this article is that stories not only have a legitimate place in deliberation, but are even necessary to formulate certain arguments in the fi rst place; for instance, arguments drawing on historical experience. This claim, namely that narrative is constitutive of certain arguments, in the sense that, without it, said reasons cannot be articulated, is illustrated by deliberative theory’s own narrative underpinnings. Finally, certain possible objections against the strong conception of narrative are dispelled.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.

Planning across differences: collaborative planning processes for the California Central Valley's future

This dissertation examines the intersections between difference, participation, and planning processes. Rooted in scholarly conversations about deliberative democracy, collaborative planning, and nonprofit organizations in civil society, this research considers how planning practitioners can better plan across difference. Through case study research, this dissertation examines a collaborative planning process conducted by a nonprofit organization. Unlike more conventional participatory planning processes, the organization utilized scenario planning. Exercising their position in civil society, participation in the process was not open to all community members and the organization carefully selected a diverse set of participants. Findings from this research project indicate that this process, by moving away from a strict definition of rational discourse, focusing on multiple futures as opposed to a single, utopian future, and deliberately bringing together a broad cross-section of community members allowed for participants to speak freely and learn from one another’s perspectives and experiences. Experiences of process participants also demonstrate the degree to which cultural backgrounds shape participation in and expectations of planning processes. While there remains no clear answer in how to represent and respond to cultural differences in planning processes, the experiences of the organization, program staff, and community participants help scholars and practitioners move closer to planning across differences.

¿Es la democracia deliberativa una moralización de la política?

En el presente artículo intentaremos realizar un análisis crítico de las interpretaciones que ven a la democracia deliberativa como una moralización de la política. No sólo intentaremos contestar a esta lectura, sino que además nos ocuparemos de mostrar la manera en la que la perspectiva deliberativa capta la moralidad en política, la cual no consiste en proponer una concepción ética densa para el espacio político.

¿Es la democracia deliberativa una moralización de la política?

En el presente artículo intentaremos realizar un análisis crítico de las interpretaciones que ven a la democracia deliberativa como una moralización de la política. No sólo intentaremos contestar a esta lectura, sino que además nos ocuparemos de mostrar la manera en la que la perspectiva deliberativa capta la moralidad en política, la cual no consiste en proponer una concepción ética densa para el espacio político.