Citizens and the city: the case for participatory budgeting in the City of Zagreb

Švaljek, Sandra; Rašić Bakarić, Ivana; Sumpor, Marijana

doi:10.3326/pse.43.1.4.

3758
Views

1255
Downloads

Citizens and the city: the case for participatory budgeting in the City of Zagreb**

Sandra Švaljek*

Ivana Rašić Bakarić*

Marijana Sumpor*

Download citation

https://doi.org/10.3326/pse.43.1.4

FULL ARTICLE

FIGURES & DATA

REFERENCES

CROSSMARK POLICY

METRICS

LICENCING

PDF

Table 1
Individual, household and community characteristics

	Average	Female	Male	City	Periphery
Personal characteristics
Age	48.4	48.3	48.6	49.3	40.7*
Number of years with residence in Zagreb:	39.52	39.7	39.4	40.1	34.3*
Without school	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00
Primary school	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01
Secondary school	0.44	0.48	0.39***	0.43	0.49
Collage, BA, MA, MS, PHD	0.53	0.49	0.57***	0.53	0.50
No answer	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00
Risk attitude, 0-10 scale	4.8	4.6	5.0	4.8	4.9
Labour market status
Employed	0.52	0.48	0.57**	0.51	0.60*
Unemployed	0.07	0.09	0.05**	0.07	0.12
Retired	0.30	0.32	0.28**	0.32	0.14*
Housekeeper	0.02	0.02	0.00**	0.01	0.05*
Inactive (student)	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.07	0.08
Trust, in scale from 1-4
Trust in people in community	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.61	2.59
Trust in local government	1.8	1.9	1.8***	1.84	1.93
Trust in central government	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.73	1.65
Trust in police	2.8	2.9	2.6***	2.76	2.77
Political attitudes (proportion of respondents “Yes”)
Supports current political system (state level)	0.25	0.27	0.23	0.26	0.16
Supports current local political system	0.25	0.28	0.22**	0.26	0.25
Is going to vote in last parliamentary elections	0.87	0.86	0.88	0.88	0.81
Is going to vote in local elections (yes)	0.85	0.83	0.87	0.86	0.81
Household demographics
Household size, people	2.99	2.99	2,99	2.9	3.9*
Household income, '000 kuna/month	5.3	5.09	5,53	5.2	5.8
Household size
Live alone	0.13	0.15	0.11	0.15	0.0*
2 members	0.27	0.26	0.28	0.29	0.11*
3 members	0.26	0.24	0.28	0.25	0.32
4 members	0.19	0.19	0.19	0.18	0.27
5 members	0.09	0.09	0.10	0.09	0.15
more than 5	0.05	0.06	0.04	0.04	0.15*
Household income per member (in kuna)
2,000 kuna and less	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
2,001-3,500	0.05	0.07	0.02**	0.05	0.01
3,501-5,000	0.10	0.11	0.10	0.11	0.05
5,001-6,500	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12
6,501-8,000	0.12	0.12	0.12	0.12	0.11
8,001-10,000	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.13	0.17
More than 10,000	0.30	0.27	0.35**	0.29	0.41

Note: the mean differences for female/male, city/periphery are tested using t-test (for quantitative variables) and using Chi-square test for qualitative variables. Significant differences are indicated by *p<0.01, **p<0.05,***p<0.1.

Source: authors’ calculation.

Table 3
Awareness about and interest in local budget processes

Indicator (in ratio, if not indicated otherwise)	Informed about the city budget		Interested in how the city budget is spent		Knows that the local government should inform citizens about the budget		A citizen can influence the budgetary process in Zagreb
	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Personal characteristics
Age, years	49.4	47.0***	53.7	47.4*	47.9	48.9	49.5	45.7**
Female	0.57	0.50**	0.59	0.53	0.59	0.49*	0.53	0.58
Periphery	0.56	0.44	0.08	0.92**	0.62	0.38	0.73	0.27
Centre	0.59	0.41	0.17	0.83**	0.52	0.48	0.72	0.28
Risk attitude, 0-10 scale	4.7	5.0***	4.1	4.9*	4.7	4.9	4.8	4.8
Number of years with residence in Zagreb	39.5	39.5	41.0	39.2	39.3	39.8	40.8	36.1*
Education level
without school	0.05	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01
primary school	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.04
secondary school	0.45	0.43	0.51	0.43	0.51	0.37*	0.44	0.47
college, BA, MA, MS, PHD	0.53	0.54	0.44	0.55**	0.47	0.60*	0.55	0.49
Labour market status
Employed	0.51	0.55	0.48	0.53	0.48	0.57	0.54	0.49
Unemployed	0.07	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.09	0.07	0.07	0.08
Retired	0.32	0.29	0.40	0.29***	0.33	0.28	0.32	0.28
Housekeeper	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.04*
Inactive (student)	0.08	0.07	0.03	0.09***	0.08	0.07	0.06	0.11*
Trust, in scale from 1-4
Trust in people in community (Yes)	2.56	2.58	2.48	2.58	2.59	2.54	2.5	2.8*
Trust in local government (Yes)	1.82	1.84	1.97	1.81	1.83	1.82	1.7	2.1*
Trust in central government (Yes)	1.72	1.70	1.77	1.7	1.73	1.70	1.6	2.0*
Trust in police (Yes)	2.78	2.72	2.87	2.73	2.71	2.79	2.7	2.8***
Political attitudes (proportion of respondents answered YES)
Supports current political system (state level)	0.26	0.24	0.31	0.24***	0.27	0.22	0.22	0.32**
Supports current local political system	0.26	0.24	0.33	0.24**	0.26	0.25	0.22	0.35*
Is going to vote in last parliamentary elections	0.85	0.91*	0.75	0.95*	0.84	0.91*	0.86	0.90
Is going to vote in local elections	0.82	0.90*	0.72	0.88*	0.81	0.89*	0.84	0.87
Household demographics
Household size, people	2.96	3.03	2.9	3.0	2.9	3.1	2.98	3.02
Household income, '000 kuna/month, N=578	5.26	5.34	4.9	5.4*	5.11	5.5	5.32	5.22
2,000 kn and less	0.01	0.02	0.00	0.02***	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.03
2,001-3,500 kn	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.06***	0.07	0.05	0.06	0.06
3,501-5,000 kn	0.14	0.11	0.23	0.10***	0.15	0.10	0.13	0.11
5,001-6,500 kn	0.11	0.14	0.17	0.11***	0.13	0.11	0.11	0.14
6,501-8,000 kn	0.15	0.13	0.13	0.15***	0.14	0.15	0.15	0.13
8,001-10,000 kn	0.19	0.14	0.13	0.17***	0.17	0.16	0.17	0.16
More than 10,000 kn	0.34	0.40	0.28	0.39***	0.32	0.42	0.37	0.37

Note: the mean differences for female/male, City/Periphery are tested using T-test (for quantitative variables) and using Chi- square test for qualitative variables. Significant differences are indicated by *p<0.01, **p<0.05,***p<0.1.

Source: authors’ calculation.

Table 4
Interest in participation in local budget decision-making

Indicator (in ratio, if not indicated otherwise)	Have you or members of your household tried to influence the budgetary process in the city of Zagreb in last 12 months?		The Government of the City of Zagreb should allow the participation of citizens in drafting the city Budget?		Would you participate in public hearing on the Budget of the city of Zagreb
	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Age, years	49.4	48.3	50.1	48.2	50.6	47.4**
Female	0.55	0.46	0.53	0.55	0.67	0.49*
Periphery	0.88	0.12	0.12	0.88	0.27	0.73
Centre	0.90	0.10	0.12	0.88	0.32	0.68
Risk attitude, 0-10 scale	5.0	4.8	4.7	4.8	4.4	4.9*
Number of years with residence in Zagreb	40.9	39.4	39.2	39.6	40.2	39.2
Without school	0.002	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Primary school	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02
Secondary school	0.45	0.37	0.37	0.46	0.48	0.43
College, BA, MA, MS, PHD	0.53	0.59	0.61	0.52	0.48	0.55
Employed	0.52	0.54	0.56	0.52	0.50	0.54
Unemployed	0.08	0.05	0.05	0.08	0.05	0.09***
Retired	0.31	0.31	0.33	0.30	0.37	0.28***
Housekeeper	0.01	0.02	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.02
Inactive (student)	0.07	0.08	0.06	0.08	0.07	0.08
Trust, in scale from 1-4
Trust in people in community (Yes)	2.54	2.76***	2.76	2.54**	2.58	2.55
Trust in local government (Yes)	1.83	1.79	2.06	1.79*	1.92	1.78**
Trust in central government (Yes)	1.69	1.72	1.97	1.68*	1.82	1.67**
Trust in police (Yes)	2.78	2.41*	2.94	2.73**	2.90	2.69*
Supports current political system (state level)	0.25	0.25	0.47	0.22*	0.30	0.23**
Supports current local political system	0.25	0.26	0.43	0.23*	0.30	0.23**
Is going to vote in parliamentary elections	0.87	0.92	0.91	0.88	0.84	0.91*
Is going to vote in local elections	0.85	0.89	0.91	0.87*	0.81	0.87*
Household demographics
Household size, people	3.0	3.1	3.0	3.3***	3.0	3.0
Household income, 000 kuna/month	5.26	5.34	5.3	5.3	5.06	5.4**
2,000 kn and less	0.02	0.02	0.00	0.02**	0.02	0.01
2,001-3,500 kn	0.06	0.10	0.04	0.06**	0.07	0.06
3,501-5,000 kn	0.13	0.08	0.23	0.11**	0.16	0.11
5,001-6,500 kn	0.12	0.16	0.05	0.13**	0.15	0.11
6,501-8,000 kn	0.15	0.12	0.08	0.15**	0.12	0.15
8,001-10,000 kn	0.17	0.16	0.14	0.17**	0.29	0.40
More than 10,000 kn	0.37	0.37	0.45	0.36**	0.02	0.01

Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), pp. 216-224.

Beckett, J. and King, C. S., 2002. The challenge to improve citizen participation in public budgeting: a discussion. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 14(3), pp. 463-485 [CrossRef]

Berman, S. 1997. Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, 49, pp. 401-429.

Birskyte, L., 2013. Involving citizens in public decision making: the case of participatory budgeting in Lithuania. Financial Theory and Practice, 37(4), pp. 383-402 [CrossRef]

Borghans, L. B. [et al.], 2009. Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), pp. 649-658 [CrossRef]

Callahan, K., 2002. The utilization and effectiveness of citizen advisory committees in the budget process of local governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 14(2), pp. 295-319 [CrossRef]

Carr, G., 2015. Stakeholder and public participation in river basin management - An introduction. Wires Water, 2(4), pp. 393–405 [CrossRef]

Carreira, V., Machado, J. R. and Vasconcelos, L. 2016. Legal citizen knowledge and public participation on environmental and spatial planning policies: A case study in Portugal. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 2, pp. 28–33.

Conway, M. M., 1999. Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Croson, R. and Gneezy, U., 2009. Gender Differences in Preference. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), pp. 1-27 [CrossRef]

Curtin, R., Presser, S. and Singer, E., 2000. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(4), pp. 413-428 [CrossRef]

De Cremer, D. and Van Vugt, M., 1999. Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, pp. 871-893 [CrossRef]

Delli Carpini, M. and Keeter, S., 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L. and Jacobs, L. R., 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, pp. 315-344 [CrossRef]

Dias, N., 2015. 25 years of Participatory Budgets in the world: a new social and political movement In: N. Dias, ed. Hope for democracy – 25 years of participatory budgeting worldwide, pp. 21-28.

Džinić, J., Svidroňová, M. M. and Markowscka-Bzducha, E., 2016. Participatory Budgeting: A Comparative Study of Croatia, Poland and Slovakia. The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 9(1), pp. 31-56 [CrossRef]

Easton, D., 1967. A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Ebdon, C., 2002. Beyond the public hearing: citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 14(2), pp. 273-294 [CrossRef]

Enshassi, A. and Kullab, A. S., 2014. Community participation in local governments: public consulting and transparency in Gaza strip, Palestine. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 5(1), pp. 9-21.

Esenaliev, D. and Kisunko, G., 2015. Local Budget Transparency and Participation, Evidence from the Kyrgyz Republic. World Bank Policy Research Paper, No. 7154.

Franklin, A. and Ebdon, C. 2004. Aligning priorities in local budgeting processes. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 16(2), pp. 210-227 [CrossRef]

Fung, A., 2015. Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), pp. 513-522 [CrossRef]

Galligan, Y., 2012. The contextual and individual determinants of women’s civic engagement and political participation. Unpublished paper, Work Package 3, The PIDOP Project.

Gamson, W. A., 1971. Political trust and its ramifications. In G. Abcarian and J. W. Soule, eds. Social psychology and political behaviour. Columbus, OH, USA: Charles E. Merrill, pp. 41-55.

Hart, D. and Atkins, R. 2002. Civic development in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), pp. 227–236 [CrossRef]

Hart, D., Atkins, R. and Ford, D., 1998. Urban America as a context for the development of moral identity in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), pp. 513–530 [CrossRef]

He, J., 2012. Public Participation in Municipal Budget Decision Process, City of Toronto’s 2011 Core Service Review. MPA Research Report. Submitted to The Local Government Program, Department of Political Science. The University of Western Ontario.

Im, T. [et al.], 2014. Citizen Preference and Resource Allocation: The Case for Participatory Budgeting in Seoul. Local Government Studies, 40(1), pp. 102-120 [CrossRef]

Ingelhart, R. and Baker, W. E., 2000. Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), pp. 19–51.

Inglehart, R. and Norris, P., 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [CrossRef]

Inglehart, R. F., Welzel, C. and Klingemann, H. D. 2003. The Theory of Human Development. European Journal of Political Research, 42(2), pp. 341-80.

Inglehart, R., Norris, P. and Welzel, C., 2002. Gender equality and democracy. Comparative Sociology, 1(3-4), pp. 321-345 [CrossRef]

Irvin, R. A. and Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), pp. 55-65 [CrossRef]

Jennings, M. K. and Niemi, R. G., 1974. The political character of adolescence: The influence of families and schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Keeter, S. [et al.], 2000. Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a Large National Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(1), pp. 25–48.

Kim, S. and Schachter, H. L., 2013. Citizen Participation in the Budget Process and Local Government Accountability. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(3), pp. 456-471 [CrossRef]

Kosecik, N. and Sagnasos, A., 2004. Public Attitudes to Local Government in Turkey: Research on knowledge, satisfaction and complaints. Local Government studies, 30(3), pp. 360-383 [CrossRef]

Kweit, M. B. and Kweit, R. W., 1981. Implementing citizen participation in a bureau-cratic society: A contingency approach. New York: Praeger.

Lopes, P. N. [et al.], 2004. Emotional Intelligence and Social Interaction. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(8), pp. 1018–34 [CrossRef]

Lopez, M. and Marcelo, K. 2008. The civic engagement of immigrant youth: new evidence from the 2006 civic and political health of the nation survey. Applied Development Science, 12 (2), pp. 66–73 [CrossRef]

Mckenna, D., 2011. UK Local Government and Public Participation: Using Conjectures to Explain the Relationship. Public Administration, 89(3), pp. 1182–1200 [CrossRef]

Michels, A. and De Graaf, L., 2010. Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and Democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), pp. 477-491 [CrossRef]

Niemi, R. G. and Junn, J. 1998. Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Norris, P., 1999. Introduction In: P. Norris, ed. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9-10 [CrossRef]

Ott, K. [et al.], 2018. Budget transparency in Croatian counties, cities and municipalities (November 2017 – March 2018). Newsletter, No. 115 [CrossRef]

Ott, K. and Bronić, M. 2015. Public Participation in Fiscal Policy and Budget Processes in Croatia, Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency.

Piotrowski, S. J. and Van Ryzin, G. G., 2007. Citizen Attitudes Toward Transparency in Local Government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), pp. 306-323 [CrossRef]

Powell, M. and Ansic, D., 1997. Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), pp. 605-628 [CrossRef]

Rishi, P., 2003. Joint forest management in India: An attitudinal analysis of stakeholders. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 51(2), pp. 345-354 [CrossRef]

Rousseau, D. M. [et al.], 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, pp. 393–404.

Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science Technology Human Values, 25(1), pp. 3–29 [CrossRef]

Schulz, W. [et al.], 2010. Initial findings from the IEA international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C. and Röcke, A. 2015. Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting In: N. Dias, ed. Hope for democracy – 25 years of participatory budgeting worldwide, pp. 28-47.

Stevenson, L., 2007. Public Attitudes to Local Government in Scotland: A Literature Review.

Struić, G. and Bratić, V. 2018. Public participation in the budgetary process in the Republic of Croatia. Public Sector Economics, 41(1), pp. 67-92 [CrossRef]

Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P. and Smith, H., 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), pp. 913-930 [CrossRef]

Van Zomeren, M. and Spears, R., 2009. Metaphors of protest: A classification of motivations for collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), pp. 661-679 [CrossRef]

Wang, X. and Berman, E., 2001. Hypotheses about Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), pp. 403-428 [CrossRef]

Zhang, Y. and Yang, K. 2009. Citizen participation in the budget process: the effect of city managers. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 21(2), pp. 289-317 [CrossRef]

Zukin, C. [et al.], 2006. A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

March, 2019
I/2019

Katarina Ott, Dubravko Mihaljek
Introduction to the Public Sector Economics 2018 Conference – Fiscal Openness: Transparency, Participation and Accountability in Fiscal Policies

James E. Alt
Twenty years of transparency research

Francisco José Bastida Albaladejo
Transparency and government trust

Sandra Švaljek, Ivana Rašić Bakarić, Marijana Sumpor
Citizens and the city: the case for participatory budgeting in the City of Zagreb

Lobna M. Abdellatif, Mohamed Zaky, Mohamed Ramadan, Jad Mazahreh, Ibrahim Elghandour
Transparency of law making and fiscal democracy in the Middle East

Ana Ostrovidov Jakšić, Ivan Jakšić
How to prolong labour market participation in the Republic of Croatia?

Predrag Bejaković
Metagovernance for Sustainability: A Framework for Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals