Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Participatory Governance

Item

Title

Participatory Governance

Author

McNulty, Stephanie L.

Wampler, Brian

Research Area

Social Institutions

Topic

Government Systems

Abstract

Efforts to engage new actors in political decision‐making through innovative participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years. This trend, called participatory governance, involves state‐sanctioned institutional processes that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that produce real changes in citizens' lives. Billions of dollars are spent supporting these efforts around the world. The concept, which harks back to theorists such as Jean‐Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, has only recently become prominent in theories about democracy. After presenting the foundational research on participatory governance, the essay notes that newer research on this issues falls into three areas: (i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new forms of engagement, with a focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and diffusion. The essay concludes with a research agenda for future work on this topic.

Related Essays

Domestic Politics of Trade Policy (Political Science), Michaël Aklin et al.

Party Organizations' Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H. Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski

Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy Hellwig

The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science), Sarah F. Anzia

Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J. D'Amico

Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J. D'Amico

Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler

Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder

Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon and Woo Chang Kang

Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless

Civic Engagement (Sociology), Peter Levine

Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo

Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler

Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner et al.

Constitutionalism (Political Science), Keith E. Whittington

Identifier

etrds0248

extracted text

Participatory Governance
STEPHANIE L. McNULTY and BRIAN WAMPLER

Abstract
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years. This trend,
called participatory governance, involves state-sanctioned institutional processes
that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that produce
real changes in citizens’ lives. Billions of dollars are spent supporting these efforts
around the world. The concept, which harks back to theorists such as Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, has only recently become prominent in theories
about democracy. After presenting the foundational research on participatory
governance, the essay notes that newer research on this issues falls into three areas:
(i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new forms of engagement, with a
focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and
diffusion. The essay concludes with a research agenda for future work on this topic.

INTRODUCTION
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative
participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years.
From participatory budgeting to citizen councils, ordinary citizens are now
able to participate in an array of decisions that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. This trend, called participatory governance, involves
state-sanctioned institutional processes that allow citizens to exercise voice
and vote in public policy decisions that produce tangible changes in citizens’
lives. These processes engage citizens in public venues throughout the year,
thereby allowing them to be involved in policy formation and selection as
well as oversight.
A broad number of examples fall under the rubric of participatory
governance—from the “Right to Information” campaigns initiated in
Northern India to Indonesia’s World Bank-sponsored Community Driven
Development Program to Uganda’s participatory constitution-making
process to Brazil’s participatory budgeting. A common thread among
these forums is that citizens and/or civil society organizations are actively
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

engaged in state-sanctioned policymaking arenas in which actual decisions
regarding authority and resources are made.
How does participatory governance differ from more well-known alternatives of direct democracy or deliberative democracy? Direct democracy in the
context of the United States is mostly associated with state-level recalls and
referendums, which allow citizens to express a binary choice with very little
opportunity to engage their voice in an ongoing way (Bowler & Donovan,
2002). Modern forms of direct democracy in the United States were crafted
to limit the power of party elites and to increase access of excluded groups
(Pateman, 2012). They were not designed to allow people to be involved
in ongoing policymaking processes. Deliberative institutions, such as deliberative polling, allow citizens to exercise voice but do not necessarily link
participants’ vote to binding decisions that require government officials to
act in specific ways (Fishkin, 1993). Participatory governance institutions, on
the other hand, are specifically designed to give interested citizens the right
to reshape local policy outcomes in ongoing ways.
Why have these experiments become so prevalent around the world?
The explosion of participatory governance is closely linked to what Samuel
Huntington called the third wave of democratization. The third wave was
accompanied by policies of decentralization in many parts of the world.
Both decentralization and the emphasis on participation became an integral
part of this third wave, as countries around Latin America, Asia, Africa,
and Eastern Europe began to hold regular and free elections. Over time,
however, many began to note that institutions associated with representative democracy at the subnational levels were not working as well as
initially hoped. Many countries, such as those in Central Asia, seemed to
“backslide,” or become less democratic. Other countries, such as Nigeria,
Bolivia, and Honduras seemed stuck in the same patterns of corruption,
clientelism, and elite rule that had dominated politics for decades. As a
result, political philosophers, politicians, and activists began to promote the
idea of participatory democracy, hoping that these new institutions could
solve a myriad of problems.
The adoption of participatory governance is often based on the perception
that representative democracy is unable to improve the quality of state performance, educate and empower citizens, and make reasonably good use of
scarce public resources (Fung & Wright, 2003; Pateman, 1970). However, participatory governance does not necessarily reflect a rejection of representative
democracy; rather, it represents an effort to redesign institutions and improve
the quality of democracy, social well-being, and the state.
One of the most interesting developments in participatory governance has
been the dissemination of these experiments from the developing world,
where they first began to emerge, to the developed world. This has been

Participatory Governance

3

especially true with the case of the participatory budget, which began in
Porto Alegre, Brazil in the late 1980s. This form of budgeting spread around
Latin America first and then took hold in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. It is estimated that over 1500 participaotry
budgeting processes take place around the world.1
As the next section demonstrates, ideas about participatory governance are
not new. They are rooted in debates about the nature of democracy and participation that have been taking place for centuries.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Thinking about the nature of participation harks back to theorists such as
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, both of whom argued that
active citizen participation is essential for the success of the polity. However,
arguments about the importance of broad participation in democratic
regimes never dominated mainstream theories. Instead, the predominant
theories stressed participation through electoral means, such as voting.
Some of this emphasis is linked to an inherent fear of the masses as a
potentially destabilizing force in democratization processes. As a result,
more contemporary theorists of democracy (e.g., Joseph Shumpeter and
Robert Dahl) stress formal and electoral participation and competition.
In the 1960s, activists and scholars began to advocate for a different conceptualization of democracy, based on widespread and direct participation as
opposed to the more formal representative channels. New social movements
in the United States and Europe demanded entry into the political system.
Theorists such as Carole Pateman (1970), Jane Mansbridge (1983), and Ben
Barber (1984) began to argue for more participatory forms of democracy.
These scholars also demonstrated that these forms could work. Pateman’s
work documented a successful example of participatory governance in the
workplace and Mansbridge’s research focused on effective deliberation in
town hall meetings. Academic research began to show that democratic systems must find ways to engage its citizens beyond the voting booth to deepen
the quality of democracy.
When democratic reforms began sweeping the world during the third
wave, these ideas gained prominence in scholarly and practical debates.
As noted above, as elections and voting began to take place on a regular
basis in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, citizens increasingly expressed
disillusionment with the idea and practice of representative democratic
channels. Legislative bodies were not always responsive to citizens and
elected heads of state were still corrupt. Critics argued that the stress on
1. For more information see http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

representative institutions and elections had failed the average citizen in
many of these countries. For some, participatory forms of government
emerged as a complement to what are now commonly called “democratic
deficits.”
The most well-known experience with participatory governance began
in the late 1980s in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Officials from the Workers’ Party
worked closely with citizens and neighborhood groups to set up participatory budgeting, a policy-making process that would debate and decide local
budget priorities. An institutionalized participatory budget process was
born. Inspired by this experience, as well as similar innovations in India,
Mexico, and the United States, scholars began to focus on the emergence
and success of participatory governance in some contexts.
Two books stand out for providing a framework for understanding this
concept. Leonardo Avritzer’s Democracy and the Public Sphere in Latin America explores the experience of participatory budgeting in Brazil and direct
citizen participation in Mexico as a way to promote what he calls “participatory publics.” Focusing on Latin America, Avritzer (2002, p. 9) argues that
“democratization can be broadened if public arenas that have given rise to
political renewal are transformed into forms of public deliberation.”
In Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory
Government, Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright put forth a framework
for understanding experiments meant to engage citizens in political
decision-making. Coining a term that is now regularly employed, they
document forms and explore the implementation of Empowered Participatory Governance. This specific form of participatory governance brings
together three principles: (i) a focus on specific, tangible problems; (ii)
bottom-up participation which involves ordinary people; and (iii) the use of
deliberation in solving problems (Fung & Wright, 2003).
As new experiences with participatory governance emerged around
the developing world, scholars continued to document their origins and
implementation. Much of the early empirical research documented case
studies, including participatory budgeting, citizen councils, and participatory development planning. Many of these case studies focused on
participatory budgeting in Brazil (Abers, 2000; Avritzer, 2009; Baiocchi, 2005;
Gret and Sintomer, 2005; Heller 2001; Nylen, 2003; Wampler, 2007, 2008).
As institutions of participatory governance expanded around the world,
scholars began exploring examples in other parts of the world, such as
India (Heller, 2001; Isaac & Heller, 2003), Peru (McNulty, 2011), and Bolivia
(Faguet, 2012).
As scholarship and experiences grew, researchers began to adopt a comparative design to explore why some participatory institutions worked better than others. For example, Donna Van Cott’s (2008) work on institutional

Participatory Governance

5

innovation in local governments in Bolivia and Ecuador documents higher
levels of success when the design is flexible and locally driven. She finds that
leadership and the party system also help explain different degrees of success. Brian Wampler (2007) researches the spread of participatory budgeting
around Brazil to better understand the factors that determine successful outcomes. He finds that mayors’ support explain variation in outcomes in Brazil,
and the local configuration of civil society can lead to more or less success
with participatory budgeting. Wampler (2007, p. 5) writes that “citizens must
be able to negotiate among themselves and vis-à-vis the government over the
distribution of scarce resources while also being willing to publicly pressure
government officials over the government’s actions or inactions related to
participatory budgeting.”
Stephanie McNulty’s (2011) work on Peruvian participatory institutions
echoes Wampler and Van Cott’s emphasis on the importance of committed
leadership and a collaborative civil society sector. In Peru, as part of a 2002
decentralization reform several participatory institutions were designed
at the national level and implemented around the country. McNulty’s
within case comparison signals that in many cases, elected officials ignored
or manipulated the mandate. If there was no civil society sector pushing
the reform, these institutions did not take hold. Only in cases where both
political leaders and civil society organizations worked together in what
McNulty calls a “virtuous cycle of participation” did the institution succeed.
Thus, the later wave of empirical research focuses on explaining how well
these institutions function in different contexts. A consensus has emerged
that several factors help us understand varied levels of success with participatory governance. They are: (i) the role of political parties; (ii) the role of civil
society organizations; (iii) intergovernmental relations; (iv) rules and design
of the participatory institution; (v) resources; and (vi) leadership and political
will (Wampler & McNulty, 2011). This research has improved these processes
in several places around the world.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
As these institutions and programs proliferate across the globe, researchers
have an incredible opportunity to expand the sites, topics, and methodological approaches used to analyze the internal processes associated with participatory governance as well as the impacts generated. The diversity of sites
is astounding. Chicago, Albania, Sevilla, rural Indonesia, Porto Alegre, the
Philippines, China, India, are among the many places where participatory
governance programs are being implemented. Much of the newer research
falls into three areas: (i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

forms of engagement, with a focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and diffusion.
BROADER IMPACT
Under the context of scarce resources, researchers are leading efforts to help
policy makers and political activists better understand if the allocation of
precious time, expertise, and money to support participatory democracy is
worthwhile. Scholars are now beginning to answer the question: what is
the broader impact of participatory governance? For example, the Institute
of Development Studies conducted research for more than 20 years on
participatory programs across the globe. This allowed John Gaventa and
a research team to conduct a systematic analysis of their impact. Their
evaluation focuses on four areas: the “construction of citizenship, strengthened practices of participation, the building of responsive and accountable
states, or more inclusive and cohesive societies” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010).
They find: “(o)f almost 830 outcomes in 100 cases studied, some 75% were
positive” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010, p. 56). While the authors recognize some
negative results, overall, impact was positive.
Mansuri and Rao (2013) also conducted an extensive review of more than
500 World Bank publications regarding Bank programs that include some
sort of participation (e.g., community-driven development, “demand-side
governance,” or decentralization). They find that “community involvement
seems to modestly improve resource sustainability and infrastructure quality” (p. 6). However, they argue that there “is little evidence that induced participation builds long-lasting cohesion, even at the community level” (p. 9).
Overall, Mansuri and Rao find modest empirical support that would continue to justify large investments of time, energy, and financial resources into
participatory governance.
A recent study by Baiocchi, Heller, and Silva (2011) compares five Brazilian
cities that undertake participatory budgeting to five Brazilian cities that
do not. This approach is among the first to systematically compare cities
with and without one particular type of participatory program. The “paired
case comparison” enables them to assess whether the adoption of this
particular participatory process produced any meaningful change. They
find strong and compelling evidence that the presence of participatory
budgeting empowers civil society, increases state-society interactions, and
alters the types of public policies implemented by the government. Quite
simply, adopting participatory budgeting does have a positive impact when
compared to those cities that do not adopt this process.
Several studies demonstrate the impact of participatory programs on
social well-being (Boulding & Wampler, 2010; Donaghy, 2013; World Bank,

Participatory Governance

7

2008). Mike Touchton and Brian Wampler (2014) have developed an original
database of 250 Brazilian cities with more than 100,000 residents. Using
matching and cross-sectional time series analysis they find that municipalities adopting participatory budgeting spend more on health care,
education and sanitation and experience a decline in infant mortality. The
effects grow stronger over time, which signals that the improvements in the
quality of life were not due to the initial introduction of social programs
but were the result of an institutionalization of new policy and governance
practices. In addition, they also found the effects were stronger when the
Brazil’s Workers’ Party administered the program, suggesting that political
party association with participatory budgeting leads to stronger effects.
Thus, much of this newer research is documenting positive impacts from
participatory governance.
NEW FORMS OF ENGAGEMENT
Participatory governance induces citizens, civil society organizations, and
public officials to engage in new forms of political and social engagement.
Based on these experiences, researchers and theorists are recasting debates
on deliberative democracy, representation, state-society relations, and state
building.
Some cutting-edge research draws from the concerns of deliberative
democrats to better understand how the specific rules of participatory
governance affect deliberation, participation, and decision-making. Unlike
deliberative democracy, most participatory governance programs use a
combination of deliberative and majoritarian voting practices. Although
deliberation is an integral part of participatory governance—it allows
citizens to hold public officials accountable, raise contentious issues, and
advocate for their agenda—what distinguishes most participatory governance programs from the deliberative formats is the acute need of citizens
and governments to find real, working solutions to pressing social and
political problems (Cornwall & Coelho, 2007; Fung, 2003; Mansbridge, 2012;
Warren, 1996).
Deliberative democrats are concerned with the quality, fairness and equality of deliberative processes. This concern led Ben Olken (2010) to conduct a
field experiment in 49 Indonesian villages to assess the effects of voting rules
and participation. He compares an open, public voting system (participants
vote by raising their hands in public) to a closed, secret ballot. Olken finds
that the closed system generated greater satisfaction than the open voting
system. Furthermore, in “women only projects,” the closed system produces
projects that were more likely to be implemented in the poorest sections of
the village. Olken demonstrates that changes in voting rules have a strong

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

effect on the voting choices of participants, especially the poorest and most
politically marginalized. Given these findings, it is increasingly important
to ask how the rules governing participatory governance institutions can be
adapted to overcome social inequalities.
In the scholarly and practitioner communities, a rich debate is also emerging about the changing nature of representation. Participatory governance
alters how citizens are represented in the political arena. Participatory
institutions are often situated within the broader context of representative
democracy, which means that there are now complementary forms of representation occurring across the spectrum of democratic institutions. Important
research is documenting the nature and effects of these changes. For example,
Urbinati and Warren (2008) explore new forms of “authoritization,” whereby
non-electoral mechanisms are used to authorize leaders to act on behalf of
their followers. Adrian Lavalle and his research team in São Paulo explore
on how participatory governance is producing new forms of intermediations
between state and society (see Houtzager & Lavalle, 2009, for example).
These authors show that the introduction of participatory governance
institutions alters how citizens mobilize as well as how they engage the state.
Finally, participatory governance programs also expand the number of
access points into the state, thereby broadening the state’s surface area
(Heller & Evans, 2010). The creation of new participatory venues changes
how the state functions. Citizens gain access to new information, are able to
make use of public forums, and are included in policy networks. Changing
how citizens engage the state creates the possibility of changing how the
state exercises its authority. It appears that altering internal state processes
as well as state officials’ activities is a vital part of increasing the impact of
participatory institutions.
Although most participatory governance programs are housed in
democratic environments, there are a growing number of programs
emerging in authoritarian contexts. Baogang He (2011) demonstrates that
local-level governments in China are using aspects of participatory governance as part of a process of incorporating citizens’ interests into local
decision-making processes. The input appears to be “feedback” rather than
actual decision-making. This case highlights how authoritarian governments
can use participatory governance as a means to strengthen their hold on
power rather than extending authority to citizens.
DIFFUSION AND SCALING UP
Participatory governance programs are spreading across the globe and
are increasingly being scaled up beyond the local level of government.
One of the most important diffusion processes is the development of a

Participatory Governance

9

South-to-the-North and South-to-the South flow of information and ideas,
thus reversing the long standing trend of North-to-South diffusion of ideas
and knowledge. The South–north diffusion has largely been initiated by
Brazil. Importantly, and evident in the discussion above, participatory
governance spread outward from Brazil and India across South America
(Goldfrank, 2011; McNulty, 2011; Van Cott, 2008), Europe (Allegretti &
Herzberg, 2007), as well as into Africa and Asia (Ganuza & Baiocchi, 2012;
Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke, & Allegretti, 2012). However, we still do not
fully understand the diffusion mechanisms.
The World Bank—the largest single funder of participatory governance
programs across the globe—has been a key conduit for the spread of the
ideas from South-to-South (Goldfrank, 2012; Shah, 2007). Employing the
term “demand-side” governance to categorize the direct participation of
citizens in policymaking process, World Bank promotion is also controversial. Analysts debate whether the World Bank has “co-opted” participatory
governance to push forward neo-liberal economic reforms or whether there
is true commitment to empower individuals.
Ben Goldfrank’s insightful analysis of the internal dynamics of the World
Bank reveals an additional layer to this debate (2012). Goldfrank argues that
a few social scientists working within the World Bank promote the idea of
“demand-side” governance to economists and engineers, who comprise the
majority of decision-makers within the Bank. Thus, participatory governance
reforms are included in World Bank projects but remain at the margins rather
than the heart of what the institution does. Goldfrank’s work suggests that
the World Bank incorporates some basic aspects of participation but that it
has not altered its basic governance approach.
Finally, participatory governance processes are increasingly being scaled
up beyond the local level. The early wave of programs has its roots at the
local level, such as Porto Alegre and Kerala. Many worry that this focus is too
narrow—that “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally” might limit the impact of
the programs. Over the past decade, many national-level governments have
mandated citizen participation directly into budgetary and policy-making
affairs nation-wide. A diverse set of countries including South Korea, Brazil,
Peru, the Philippines, Poland, and Bolivia have passed legislation to include
participatory institutions in local and intermediate levels of governments
around the country.
FUTURE TRENDS
As public officials, civil society organizations, and citizens increasingly turn
to participatory governance as a means to solve a variety of social and political problems, this is an exciting time to conduct research on this topic. The

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

goal of future research should be to develop better practices and policies that
guide these experiences as they continue to emerge and evolve around the
world.
Future work should focus on three lines of research. First, scholars need
to continue to research examples of participatory governance with an eye
towards the increasing number of cases in both industrialized nations and
authoritarian regimes. The fact that more and more developed countries are
adapting these experiences suggests that these efforts resonate in countries
around the world, regardless of their levels of economic development.
Furthermore, as participatory governance emerges in authoritarian regimes,
such as China, it will be important to understand the motivations behind
these kinds programs as well as the unique implementation environment.
We should expect more examples of participatory governance to emerge in
a variety of contexts around the world and start to ask questions about why
and how.
Second, the next wave of research on these experiments needs to continue
in order to even more systematically examine their impact. As the previous
section demonstrates, after more than twenty years of implementation of
these programs, we continue to have only a very preliminary understanding
of the range and intensity of their effects. This new line of inquiry is of vital
importance because billions of dollars are being spent on these projects
(Mansuri & Rao, 2013). We need more extensive evidence to demonstrate
whether participatory governance programs are producing the outcomes
desired by their proponents. People are investing their precious time, energy,
and resources in the hope that participatory institutions will improve the
quality of ordinary people’s lives. Future work in this area might also use
Archon Fung’s (2006) “democracy cube,” which is a tool to help policy
makers make decisions about the intensity and breadth of participation.
Third, new research also needs to focus on cross-country comparisons that
generate information about a broader number of cases. Most of the existing
knowledge about participatory governance is based on case studies about
one country or one kind of participatory institution. To date, there have not
been any cross-regional, cross-national studies that include multiple types of
participatory institutions.
Challenges for this research agenda exist. Undertaking extensive research
on additional countries and cases of participatory governance demand time
and money. Grant making institutions and universities will need to buy into
the need for this kind of policy relevant research. Furthermore, to develop
solid cross-country comparative work on a variety of forms, scholars from
around the world will need to coordinate regularly to advance the research.
Finally, researching participatory governance in authoritarian contexts may
pose a different set of challenges as information about the process may not be

Participatory Governance

11

readily available. Even given these issues, we are confident that future work
will address these important questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Blair Ruble and Allison Garland of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for their ongoing support. In 2011, the
Wilson Center published our co-authored report, “Does Participatory Governance Matter?” With their permission, we draw from the ideas presented
in the report and at a May 2011 workshop that Brian Wampler organized at
the Wilson Center. We also thank participants at that conference.
REFERENCES
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Allegretti, G., & Herzberg, C. (2007). Participatory budgets in Europe: Between efficiency
and growing local democracy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Transnational Institute.
Avritzer, L. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in Porto
Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. K. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming
local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boulding, C., & Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect
of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125–135.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen
influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(02), 371–390.
Cornwall, A., & Coehlo, V. S. (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of citizen participation
in new democratic arenas. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Donaghy, M. (2013). Civil society and participatory governance: Municipal councils and
social housing programs in Brazil. New York, NY: Routledge.
Faguet, J. P. (2012). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in
Bolivia. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (1993). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 67–75.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design
choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Gaventa, J. & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. Research Summary of Working Paper 347. November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Rs347.pdf
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).
Goldfrank, B. (2011). Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation, decentralization, and the left. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Goldfrank, B. (2012). The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–18.
Gret, M., & Sintomer, Y. (2005). The Porto Alegre experiment: Learning lessons for a better
democracy. London, England: Zed Books.
He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three
different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.
Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: the politics of decentralization in Kerala, South
Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.
Heller, P., & Evans, P. (2010). Taking Tilly south: Durable inequalities, democratic
contestation and citizenship in the southern metropolis. Theory and Society, 39,
433–450.
Houtzager, P. P. & Gurza Lavalle, A. (2009). Participatory governance and the challenge of assumed representation in Brazil. Institute of Development Studies.
Isaac, T. M., & Heller, P. (2003). Democracy and development: Decentralized planning in
Kerala. In Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England: Verso.
Mansbridge, J. (2012). On the importance of getting things done. PS: Political Science
& Politics, 45, 1–8. doi:10.1017/S104909651100165X
Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? Washington, DC: The World Bank.
McNulty, S. (2011). Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori
Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nylen, W. (2003). Participatory democracy versus elitist democracy: Lessons from Brazil.
New York, NY: Palgrave.
Olken, B. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field
experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243–267.
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1),
7–19.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Participatory Governance

13

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public
Deliberation, 8(2), Article 9.
Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 10(47), 1442–1469.
Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary
democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.
Van Cott, D. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and
accountability. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of
democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61–81.
Wampler, B. & McNulty S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter?
Exploring the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC:
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.
wilsoncenter.org/publication-series/does-participatory-governance-matter
Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political
Science Review, 90(1), 46–60.
World Bank (2008). Brazil: Toward a more inclusive and effective participatory budget in Porto Alegre, 1 (Main Report). Washington, DC.

FURTHER READING
American Political Science Association (2012). Democratic imperatives: Innovations in
rights, participation, and economic citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy,
Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile World. American Political Science
Association. http://apsanet.org/imgtest/TF_DemocracyReport_Final.pdf
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Wampler, B. & McNulty, S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter? Exploring
the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicationseries/does-participatory-governance-matter

STEPHANIE L. McNULTY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Stephanie L. McNulty, author of Voice and Vote: Decentralization and
Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru (Stanford University Press, 2011), is a Latin
Americanist with expertise in decentralization, participatory governance,
gender, and development. She is currently working on a second book about

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

participatory decentralization reforms in the developing world. Dr. McNulty
is an Assistant Professor of Government at Franklin and Marshall College in
Lancaster, PA. She has her PhD from George Washington University and a
MA from New York University. http://www.fandm.edu/stephanie-mcnulty
BRIAN WAMPLER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Brian Wampler is a Professor of Political Science at Boise State University, located in the United States. He is the author of Participatory Budgeting
in Brazil: Cooperation, Contestation, and Accountability (Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2007). In 2009–2010, Wampler was a Fulbright Scholar at
the Federal University of Minas Gerais. He is currently finishing a book
titled: Activating Democracy in Brazil: Popular Participation, Interlocking Institutions, and Social Justice. Wampler has published extensively on participatory
forms of democracy in journals such as Comparative Politics, World Development, and Latin American Politics and Society. https://sspa.boisestate.edu/
politicalscience/faculty/brian-wampler/
RELATED ESSAYS
Domestic Politics of Trade Policy (Political Science), Michaël Aklin et al.
Party Organizations’ Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H.
Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and
Nicholas J. D’Amico
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder
Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon
and Woo Chang Kang
Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Civic Engagement (Sociology), Peter Levine
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler
Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner
et al.
Constitutionalism (Political Science), Keith E. Whittington



Participatory Governance
STEPHANIE L. McNULTY and BRIAN WAMPLER

Abstract
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years. This trend,
called participatory governance, involves state-sanctioned institutional processes
that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that produce
real changes in citizens’ lives. Billions of dollars are spent supporting these efforts
around the world. The concept, which harks back to theorists such as Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, has only recently become prominent in theories
about democracy. After presenting the foundational research on participatory
governance, the essay notes that newer research on this issues falls into three areas:
(i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new forms of engagement, with a
focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and
diffusion. The essay concludes with a research agenda for future work on this topic.

INTRODUCTION
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative
participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years.
From participatory budgeting to citizen councils, ordinary citizens are now
able to participate in an array of decisions that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. This trend, called participatory governance, involves
state-sanctioned institutional processes that allow citizens to exercise voice
and vote in public policy decisions that produce tangible changes in citizens’
lives. These processes engage citizens in public venues throughout the year,
thereby allowing them to be involved in policy formation and selection as
well as oversight.
A broad number of examples fall under the rubric of participatory
governance—from the “Right to Information” campaigns initiated in
Northern India to Indonesia’s World Bank-sponsored Community Driven
Development Program to Uganda’s participatory constitution-making
process to Brazil’s participatory budgeting. A common thread among
these forums is that citizens and/or civil society organizations are actively
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

engaged in state-sanctioned policymaking arenas in which actual decisions
regarding authority and resources are made.
How does participatory governance differ from more well-known alternatives of direct democracy or deliberative democracy? Direct democracy in the
context of the United States is mostly associated with state-level recalls and
referendums, which allow citizens to express a binary choice with very little
opportunity to engage their voice in an ongoing way (Bowler & Donovan,
2002). Modern forms of direct democracy in the United States were crafted
to limit the power of party elites and to increase access of excluded groups
(Pateman, 2012). They were not designed to allow people to be involved
in ongoing policymaking processes. Deliberative institutions, such as deliberative polling, allow citizens to exercise voice but do not necessarily link
participants’ vote to binding decisions that require government officials to
act in specific ways (Fishkin, 1993). Participatory governance institutions, on
the other hand, are specifically designed to give interested citizens the right
to reshape local policy outcomes in ongoing ways.
Why have these experiments become so prevalent around the world?
The explosion of participatory governance is closely linked to what Samuel
Huntington called the third wave of democratization. The third wave was
accompanied by policies of decentralization in many parts of the world.
Both decentralization and the emphasis on participation became an integral
part of this third wave, as countries around Latin America, Asia, Africa,
and Eastern Europe began to hold regular and free elections. Over time,
however, many began to note that institutions associated with representative democracy at the subnational levels were not working as well as
initially hoped. Many countries, such as those in Central Asia, seemed to
“backslide,” or become less democratic. Other countries, such as Nigeria,
Bolivia, and Honduras seemed stuck in the same patterns of corruption,
clientelism, and elite rule that had dominated politics for decades. As a
result, political philosophers, politicians, and activists began to promote the
idea of participatory democracy, hoping that these new institutions could
solve a myriad of problems.
The adoption of participatory governance is often based on the perception
that representative democracy is unable to improve the quality of state performance, educate and empower citizens, and make reasonably good use of
scarce public resources (Fung & Wright, 2003; Pateman, 1970). However, participatory governance does not necessarily reflect a rejection of representative
democracy; rather, it represents an effort to redesign institutions and improve
the quality of democracy, social well-being, and the state.
One of the most interesting developments in participatory governance has
been the dissemination of these experiments from the developing world,
where they first began to emerge, to the developed world. This has been

Participatory Governance

3

especially true with the case of the participatory budget, which began in
Porto Alegre, Brazil in the late 1980s. This form of budgeting spread around
Latin America first and then took hold in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. It is estimated that over 1500 participaotry
budgeting processes take place around the world.1
As the next section demonstrates, ideas about participatory governance are
not new. They are rooted in debates about the nature of democracy and participation that have been taking place for centuries.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Thinking about the nature of participation harks back to theorists such as
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, both of whom argued that
active citizen participation is essential for the success of the polity. However,
arguments about the importance of broad participation in democratic
regimes never dominated mainstream theories. Instead, the predominant
theories stressed participation through electoral means, such as voting.
Some of this emphasis is linked to an inherent fear of the masses as a
potentially destabilizing force in democratization processes. As a result,
more contemporary theorists of democracy (e.g., Joseph Shumpeter and
Robert Dahl) stress formal and electoral participation and competition.
In the 1960s, activists and scholars began to advocate for a different conceptualization of democracy, based on widespread and direct participation as
opposed to the more formal representative channels. New social movements
in the United States and Europe demanded entry into the political system.
Theorists such as Carole Pateman (1970), Jane Mansbridge (1983), and Ben
Barber (1984) began to argue for more participatory forms of democracy.
These scholars also demonstrated that these forms could work. Pateman’s
work documented a successful example of participatory governance in the
workplace and Mansbridge’s research focused on effective deliberation in
town hall meetings. Academic research began to show that democratic systems must find ways to engage its citizens beyond the voting booth to deepen
the quality of democracy.
When democratic reforms began sweeping the world during the third
wave, these ideas gained prominence in scholarly and practical debates.
As noted above, as elections and voting began to take place on a regular
basis in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, citizens increasingly expressed
disillusionment with the idea and practice of representative democratic
channels. Legislative bodies were not always responsive to citizens and
elected heads of state were still corrupt. Critics argued that the stress on
1. For more information see http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

representative institutions and elections had failed the average citizen in
many of these countries. For some, participatory forms of government
emerged as a complement to what are now commonly called “democratic
deficits.”
The most well-known experience with participatory governance began
in the late 1980s in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Officials from the Workers’ Party
worked closely with citizens and neighborhood groups to set up participatory budgeting, a policy-making process that would debate and decide local
budget priorities. An institutionalized participatory budget process was
born. Inspired by this experience, as well as similar innovations in India,
Mexico, and the United States, scholars began to focus on the emergence
and success of participatory governance in some contexts.
Two books stand out for providing a framework for understanding this
concept. Leonardo Avritzer’s Democracy and the Public Sphere in Latin America explores the experience of participatory budgeting in Brazil and direct
citizen participation in Mexico as a way to promote what he calls “participatory publics.” Focusing on Latin America, Avritzer (2002, p. 9) argues that
“democratization can be broadened if public arenas that have given rise to
political renewal are transformed into forms of public deliberation.”
In Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory
Government, Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright put forth a framework
for understanding experiments meant to engage citizens in political
decision-making. Coining a term that is now regularly employed, they
document forms and explore the implementation of Empowered Participatory Governance. This specific form of participatory governance brings
together three principles: (i) a focus on specific, tangible problems; (ii)
bottom-up participation which involves ordinary people; and (iii) the use of
deliberation in solving problems (Fung & Wright, 2003).
As new experiences with participatory governance emerged around
the developing world, scholars continued to document their origins and
implementation. Much of the early empirical research documented case
studies, including participatory budgeting, citizen councils, and participatory development planning. Many of these case studies focused on
participatory budgeting in Brazil (Abers, 2000; Avritzer, 2009; Baiocchi, 2005;
Gret and Sintomer, 2005; Heller 2001; Nylen, 2003; Wampler, 2007, 2008).
As institutions of participatory governance expanded around the world,
scholars began exploring examples in other parts of the world, such as
India (Heller, 2001; Isaac & Heller, 2003), Peru (McNulty, 2011), and Bolivia
(Faguet, 2012).
As scholarship and experiences grew, researchers began to adopt a comparative design to explore why some participatory institutions worked better than others. For example, Donna Van Cott’s (2008) work on institutional

Participatory Governance

5

innovation in local governments in Bolivia and Ecuador documents higher
levels of success when the design is flexible and locally driven. She finds that
leadership and the party system also help explain different degrees of success. Brian Wampler (2007) researches the spread of participatory budgeting
around Brazil to better understand the factors that determine successful outcomes. He finds that mayors’ support explain variation in outcomes in Brazil,
and the local configuration of civil society can lead to more or less success
with participatory budgeting. Wampler (2007, p. 5) writes that “citizens must
be able to negotiate among themselves and vis-à-vis the government over the
distribution of scarce resources while also being willing to publicly pressure
government officials over the government’s actions or inactions related to
participatory budgeting.”
Stephanie McNulty’s (2011) work on Peruvian participatory institutions
echoes Wampler and Van Cott’s emphasis on the importance of committed
leadership and a collaborative civil society sector. In Peru, as part of a 2002
decentralization reform several participatory institutions were designed
at the national level and implemented around the country. McNulty’s
within case comparison signals that in many cases, elected officials ignored
or manipulated the mandate. If there was no civil society sector pushing
the reform, these institutions did not take hold. Only in cases where both
political leaders and civil society organizations worked together in what
McNulty calls a “virtuous cycle of participation” did the institution succeed.
Thus, the later wave of empirical research focuses on explaining how well
these institutions function in different contexts. A consensus has emerged
that several factors help us understand varied levels of success with participatory governance. They are: (i) the role of political parties; (ii) the role of civil
society organizations; (iii) intergovernmental relations; (iv) rules and design
of the participatory institution; (v) resources; and (vi) leadership and political
will (Wampler & McNulty, 2011). This research has improved these processes
in several places around the world.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
As these institutions and programs proliferate across the globe, researchers
have an incredible opportunity to expand the sites, topics, and methodological approaches used to analyze the internal processes associated with participatory governance as well as the impacts generated. The diversity of sites
is astounding. Chicago, Albania, Sevilla, rural Indonesia, Porto Alegre, the
Philippines, China, India, are among the many places where participatory
governance programs are being implemented. Much of the newer research
falls into three areas: (i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

forms of engagement, with a focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and diffusion.
BROADER IMPACT
Under the context of scarce resources, researchers are leading efforts to help
policy makers and political activists better understand if the allocation of
precious time, expertise, and money to support participatory democracy is
worthwhile. Scholars are now beginning to answer the question: what is
the broader impact of participatory governance? For example, the Institute
of Development Studies conducted research for more than 20 years on
participatory programs across the globe. This allowed John Gaventa and
a research team to conduct a systematic analysis of their impact. Their
evaluation focuses on four areas: the “construction of citizenship, strengthened practices of participation, the building of responsive and accountable
states, or more inclusive and cohesive societies” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010).
They find: “(o)f almost 830 outcomes in 100 cases studied, some 75% were
positive” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010, p. 56). While the authors recognize some
negative results, overall, impact was positive.
Mansuri and Rao (2013) also conducted an extensive review of more than
500 World Bank publications regarding Bank programs that include some
sort of participation (e.g., community-driven development, “demand-side
governance,” or decentralization). They find that “community involvement
seems to modestly improve resource sustainability and infrastructure quality” (p. 6). However, they argue that there “is little evidence that induced participation builds long-lasting cohesion, even at the community level” (p. 9).
Overall, Mansuri and Rao find modest empirical support that would continue to justify large investments of time, energy, and financial resources into
participatory governance.
A recent study by Baiocchi, Heller, and Silva (2011) compares five Brazilian
cities that undertake participatory budgeting to five Brazilian cities that
do not. This approach is among the first to systematically compare cities
with and without one particular type of participatory program. The “paired
case comparison” enables them to assess whether the adoption of this
particular participatory process produced any meaningful change. They
find strong and compelling evidence that the presence of participatory
budgeting empowers civil society, increases state-society interactions, and
alters the types of public policies implemented by the government. Quite
simply, adopting participatory budgeting does have a positive impact when
compared to those cities that do not adopt this process.
Several studies demonstrate the impact of participatory programs on
social well-being (Boulding & Wampler, 2010; Donaghy, 2013; World Bank,

Participatory Governance

7

2008). Mike Touchton and Brian Wampler (2014) have developed an original
database of 250 Brazilian cities with more than 100,000 residents. Using
matching and cross-sectional time series analysis they find that municipalities adopting participatory budgeting spend more on health care,
education and sanitation and experience a decline in infant mortality. The
effects grow stronger over time, which signals that the improvements in the
quality of life were not due to the initial introduction of social programs
but were the result of an institutionalization of new policy and governance
practices. In addition, they also found the effects were stronger when the
Brazil’s Workers’ Party administered the program, suggesting that political
party association with participatory budgeting leads to stronger effects.
Thus, much of this newer research is documenting positive impacts from
participatory governance.
NEW FORMS OF ENGAGEMENT
Participatory governance induces citizens, civil society organizations, and
public officials to engage in new forms of political and social engagement.
Based on these experiences, researchers and theorists are recasting debates
on deliberative democracy, representation, state-society relations, and state
building.
Some cutting-edge research draws from the concerns of deliberative
democrats to better understand how the specific rules of participatory
governance affect deliberation, participation, and decision-making. Unlike
deliberative democracy, most participatory governance programs use a
combination of deliberative and majoritarian voting practices. Although
deliberation is an integral part of participatory governance—it allows
citizens to hold public officials accountable, raise contentious issues, and
advocate for their agenda—what distinguishes most participatory governance programs from the deliberative formats is the acute need of citizens
and governments to find real, working solutions to pressing social and
political problems (Cornwall & Coelho, 2007; Fung, 2003; Mansbridge, 2012;
Warren, 1996).
Deliberative democrats are concerned with the quality, fairness and equality of deliberative processes. This concern led Ben Olken (2010) to conduct a
field experiment in 49 Indonesian villages to assess the effects of voting rules
and participation. He compares an open, public voting system (participants
vote by raising their hands in public) to a closed, secret ballot. Olken finds
that the closed system generated greater satisfaction than the open voting
system. Furthermore, in “women only projects,” the closed system produces
projects that were more likely to be implemented in the poorest sections of
the village. Olken demonstrates that changes in voting rules have a strong

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

effect on the voting choices of participants, especially the poorest and most
politically marginalized. Given these findings, it is increasingly important
to ask how the rules governing participatory governance institutions can be
adapted to overcome social inequalities.
In the scholarly and practitioner communities, a rich debate is also emerging about the changing nature of representation. Participatory governance
alters how citizens are represented in the political arena. Participatory
institutions are often situated within the broader context of representative
democracy, which means that there are now complementary forms of representation occurring across the spectrum of democratic institutions. Important
research is documenting the nature and effects of these changes. For example,
Urbinati and Warren (2008) explore new forms of “authoritization,” whereby
non-electoral mechanisms are used to authorize leaders to act on behalf of
their followers. Adrian Lavalle and his research team in São Paulo explore
on how participatory governance is producing new forms of intermediations
between state and society (see Houtzager & Lavalle, 2009, for example).
These authors show that the introduction of participatory governance
institutions alters how citizens mobilize as well as how they engage the state.
Finally, participatory governance programs also expand the number of
access points into the state, thereby broadening the state’s surface area
(Heller & Evans, 2010). The creation of new participatory venues changes
how the state functions. Citizens gain access to new information, are able to
make use of public forums, and are included in policy networks. Changing
how citizens engage the state creates the possibility of changing how the
state exercises its authority. It appears that altering internal state processes
as well as state officials’ activities is a vital part of increasing the impact of
participatory institutions.
Although most participatory governance programs are housed in
democratic environments, there are a growing number of programs
emerging in authoritarian contexts. Baogang He (2011) demonstrates that
local-level governments in China are using aspects of participatory governance as part of a process of incorporating citizens’ interests into local
decision-making processes. The input appears to be “feedback” rather than
actual decision-making. This case highlights how authoritarian governments
can use participatory governance as a means to strengthen their hold on
power rather than extending authority to citizens.
DIFFUSION AND SCALING UP
Participatory governance programs are spreading across the globe and
are increasingly being scaled up beyond the local level of government.
One of the most important diffusion processes is the development of a

Participatory Governance

9

South-to-the-North and South-to-the South flow of information and ideas,
thus reversing the long standing trend of North-to-South diffusion of ideas
and knowledge. The South–north diffusion has largely been initiated by
Brazil. Importantly, and evident in the discussion above, participatory
governance spread outward from Brazil and India across South America
(Goldfrank, 2011; McNulty, 2011; Van Cott, 2008), Europe (Allegretti &
Herzberg, 2007), as well as into Africa and Asia (Ganuza & Baiocchi, 2012;
Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke, & Allegretti, 2012). However, we still do not
fully understand the diffusion mechanisms.
The World Bank—the largest single funder of participatory governance
programs across the globe—has been a key conduit for the spread of the
ideas from South-to-South (Goldfrank, 2012; Shah, 2007). Employing the
term “demand-side” governance to categorize the direct participation of
citizens in policymaking process, World Bank promotion is also controversial. Analysts debate whether the World Bank has “co-opted” participatory
governance to push forward neo-liberal economic reforms or whether there
is true commitment to empower individuals.
Ben Goldfrank’s insightful analysis of the internal dynamics of the World
Bank reveals an additional layer to this debate (2012). Goldfrank argues that
a few social scientists working within the World Bank promote the idea of
“demand-side” governance to economists and engineers, who comprise the
majority of decision-makers within the Bank. Thus, participatory governance
reforms are included in World Bank projects but remain at the margins rather
than the heart of what the institution does. Goldfrank’s work suggests that
the World Bank incorporates some basic aspects of participation but that it
has not altered its basic governance approach.
Finally, participatory governance processes are increasingly being scaled
up beyond the local level. The early wave of programs has its roots at the
local level, such as Porto Alegre and Kerala. Many worry that this focus is too
narrow—that “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally” might limit the impact of
the programs. Over the past decade, many national-level governments have
mandated citizen participation directly into budgetary and policy-making
affairs nation-wide. A diverse set of countries including South Korea, Brazil,
Peru, the Philippines, Poland, and Bolivia have passed legislation to include
participatory institutions in local and intermediate levels of governments
around the country.
FUTURE TRENDS
As public officials, civil society organizations, and citizens increasingly turn
to participatory governance as a means to solve a variety of social and political problems, this is an exciting time to conduct research on this topic. The

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

goal of future research should be to develop better practices and policies that
guide these experiences as they continue to emerge and evolve around the
world.
Future work should focus on three lines of research. First, scholars need
to continue to research examples of participatory governance with an eye
towards the increasing number of cases in both industrialized nations and
authoritarian regimes. The fact that more and more developed countries are
adapting these experiences suggests that these efforts resonate in countries
around the world, regardless of their levels of economic development.
Furthermore, as participatory governance emerges in authoritarian regimes,
such as China, it will be important to understand the motivations behind
these kinds programs as well as the unique implementation environment.
We should expect more examples of participatory governance to emerge in
a variety of contexts around the world and start to ask questions about why
and how.
Second, the next wave of research on these experiments needs to continue
in order to even more systematically examine their impact. As the previous
section demonstrates, after more than twenty years of implementation of
these programs, we continue to have only a very preliminary understanding
of the range and intensity of their effects. This new line of inquiry is of vital
importance because billions of dollars are being spent on these projects
(Mansuri & Rao, 2013). We need more extensive evidence to demonstrate
whether participatory governance programs are producing the outcomes
desired by their proponents. People are investing their precious time, energy,
and resources in the hope that participatory institutions will improve the
quality of ordinary people’s lives. Future work in this area might also use
Archon Fung’s (2006) “democracy cube,” which is a tool to help policy
makers make decisions about the intensity and breadth of participation.
Third, new research also needs to focus on cross-country comparisons that
generate information about a broader number of cases. Most of the existing
knowledge about participatory governance is based on case studies about
one country or one kind of participatory institution. To date, there have not
been any cross-regional, cross-national studies that include multiple types of
participatory institutions.
Challenges for this research agenda exist. Undertaking extensive research
on additional countries and cases of participatory governance demand time
and money. Grant making institutions and universities will need to buy into
the need for this kind of policy relevant research. Furthermore, to develop
solid cross-country comparative work on a variety of forms, scholars from
around the world will need to coordinate regularly to advance the research.
Finally, researching participatory governance in authoritarian contexts may
pose a different set of challenges as information about the process may not be

Participatory Governance

11

readily available. Even given these issues, we are confident that future work
will address these important questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Blair Ruble and Allison Garland of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for their ongoing support. In 2011, the
Wilson Center published our co-authored report, “Does Participatory Governance Matter?” With their permission, we draw from the ideas presented
in the report and at a May 2011 workshop that Brian Wampler organized at
the Wilson Center. We also thank participants at that conference.
REFERENCES
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Allegretti, G., & Herzberg, C. (2007). Participatory budgets in Europe: Between efficiency
and growing local democracy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Transnational Institute.
Avritzer, L. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in Porto
Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. K. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming
local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boulding, C., & Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect
of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125–135.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen
influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(02), 371–390.
Cornwall, A., & Coehlo, V. S. (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of citizen participation
in new democratic arenas. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Donaghy, M. (2013). Civil society and participatory governance: Municipal councils and
social housing programs in Brazil. New York, NY: Routledge.
Faguet, J. P. (2012). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in
Bolivia. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (1993). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 67–75.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design
choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Gaventa, J. & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. Research Summary of Working Paper 347. November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Rs347.pdf
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).
Goldfrank, B. (2011). Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation, decentralization, and the left. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Goldfrank, B. (2012). The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–18.
Gret, M., & Sintomer, Y. (2005). The Porto Alegre experiment: Learning lessons for a better
democracy. London, England: Zed Books.
He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three
different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.
Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: the politics of decentralization in Kerala, South
Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.
Heller, P., & Evans, P. (2010). Taking Tilly south: Durable inequalities, democratic
contestation and citizenship in the southern metropolis. Theory and Society, 39,
433–450.
Houtzager, P. P. & Gurza Lavalle, A. (2009). Participatory governance and the challenge of assumed representation in Brazil. Institute of Development Studies.
Isaac, T. M., & Heller, P. (2003). Democracy and development: Decentralized planning in
Kerala. In Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England: Verso.
Mansbridge, J. (2012). On the importance of getting things done. PS: Political Science
& Politics, 45, 1–8. doi:10.1017/S104909651100165X
Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? Washington, DC: The World Bank.
McNulty, S. (2011). Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori
Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nylen, W. (2003). Participatory democracy versus elitist democracy: Lessons from Brazil.
New York, NY: Palgrave.
Olken, B. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field
experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243–267.
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1),
7–19.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Participatory Governance

13

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public
Deliberation, 8(2), Article 9.
Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 10(47), 1442–1469.
Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary
democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.
Van Cott, D. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and
accountability. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of
democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61–81.
Wampler, B. & McNulty S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter?
Exploring the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC:
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.
wilsoncenter.org/publication-series/does-participatory-governance-matter
Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political
Science Review, 90(1), 46–60.
World Bank (2008). Brazil: Toward a more inclusive and effective participatory budget in Porto Alegre, 1 (Main Report). Washington, DC.

FURTHER READING
American Political Science Association (2012). Democratic imperatives: Innovations in
rights, participation, and economic citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy,
Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile World. American Political Science
Association. http://apsanet.org/imgtest/TF_DemocracyReport_Final.pdf
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Wampler, B. & McNulty, S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter? Exploring
the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicationseries/does-participatory-governance-matter

STEPHANIE L. McNULTY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Stephanie L. McNulty, author of Voice and Vote: Decentralization and
Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru (Stanford University Press, 2011), is a Latin
Americanist with expertise in decentralization, participatory governance,
gender, and development. She is currently working on a second book about

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

participatory decentralization reforms in the developing world. Dr. McNulty
is an Assistant Professor of Government at Franklin and Marshall College in
Lancaster, PA. She has her PhD from George Washington University and a
MA from New York University. http://www.fandm.edu/stephanie-mcnulty
BRIAN WAMPLER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Brian Wampler is a Professor of Political Science at Boise State University, located in the United States. He is the author of Participatory Budgeting
in Brazil: Cooperation, Contestation, and Accountability (Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2007). In 2009–2010, Wampler was a Fulbright Scholar at
the Federal University of Minas Gerais. He is currently finishing a book
titled: Activating Democracy in Brazil: Popular Participation, Interlocking Institutions, and Social Justice. Wampler has published extensively on participatory
forms of democracy in journals such as Comparative Politics, World Development, and Latin American Politics and Society. https://sspa.boisestate.edu/
politicalscience/faculty/brian-wampler/
RELATED ESSAYS
Domestic Politics of Trade Policy (Political Science), Michaël Aklin et al.
Party Organizations’ Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H.
Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and
Nicholas J. D’Amico
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder
Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon
and Woo Chang Kang
Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Civic Engagement (Sociology), Peter Levine
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler
Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner
et al.
Constitutionalism (Political Science), Keith E. Whittington


Participatory Governance
STEPHANIE L. McNULTY and BRIAN WAMPLER

Abstract
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years. This trend,
called participatory governance, involves state-sanctioned institutional processes
that allow citizens to exercise voice and vote in public policy decisions that produce
real changes in citizens’ lives. Billions of dollars are spent supporting these efforts
around the world. The concept, which harks back to theorists such as Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, has only recently become prominent in theories
about democracy. After presenting the foundational research on participatory
governance, the essay notes that newer research on this issues falls into three areas:
(i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new forms of engagement, with a
focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and
diffusion. The essay concludes with a research agenda for future work on this topic.

INTRODUCTION
Efforts to engage new actors in political decision-making through innovative
participatory programs have exploded around the world in the past 25 years.
From participatory budgeting to citizen councils, ordinary citizens are now
able to participate in an array of decisions that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago. This trend, called participatory governance, involves
state-sanctioned institutional processes that allow citizens to exercise voice
and vote in public policy decisions that produce tangible changes in citizens’
lives. These processes engage citizens in public venues throughout the year,
thereby allowing them to be involved in policy formation and selection as
well as oversight.
A broad number of examples fall under the rubric of participatory
governance—from the “Right to Information” campaigns initiated in
Northern India to Indonesia’s World Bank-sponsored Community Driven
Development Program to Uganda’s participatory constitution-making
process to Brazil’s participatory budgeting. A common thread among
these forums is that citizens and/or civil society organizations are actively
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

engaged in state-sanctioned policymaking arenas in which actual decisions
regarding authority and resources are made.
How does participatory governance differ from more well-known alternatives of direct democracy or deliberative democracy? Direct democracy in the
context of the United States is mostly associated with state-level recalls and
referendums, which allow citizens to express a binary choice with very little
opportunity to engage their voice in an ongoing way (Bowler & Donovan,
2002). Modern forms of direct democracy in the United States were crafted
to limit the power of party elites and to increase access of excluded groups
(Pateman, 2012). They were not designed to allow people to be involved
in ongoing policymaking processes. Deliberative institutions, such as deliberative polling, allow citizens to exercise voice but do not necessarily link
participants’ vote to binding decisions that require government officials to
act in specific ways (Fishkin, 1993). Participatory governance institutions, on
the other hand, are specifically designed to give interested citizens the right
to reshape local policy outcomes in ongoing ways.
Why have these experiments become so prevalent around the world?
The explosion of participatory governance is closely linked to what Samuel
Huntington called the third wave of democratization. The third wave was
accompanied by policies of decentralization in many parts of the world.
Both decentralization and the emphasis on participation became an integral
part of this third wave, as countries around Latin America, Asia, Africa,
and Eastern Europe began to hold regular and free elections. Over time,
however, many began to note that institutions associated with representative democracy at the subnational levels were not working as well as
initially hoped. Many countries, such as those in Central Asia, seemed to
“backslide,” or become less democratic. Other countries, such as Nigeria,
Bolivia, and Honduras seemed stuck in the same patterns of corruption,
clientelism, and elite rule that had dominated politics for decades. As a
result, political philosophers, politicians, and activists began to promote the
idea of participatory democracy, hoping that these new institutions could
solve a myriad of problems.
The adoption of participatory governance is often based on the perception
that representative democracy is unable to improve the quality of state performance, educate and empower citizens, and make reasonably good use of
scarce public resources (Fung & Wright, 2003; Pateman, 1970). However, participatory governance does not necessarily reflect a rejection of representative
democracy; rather, it represents an effort to redesign institutions and improve
the quality of democracy, social well-being, and the state.
One of the most interesting developments in participatory governance has
been the dissemination of these experiments from the developing world,
where they first began to emerge, to the developed world. This has been

Participatory Governance

3

especially true with the case of the participatory budget, which began in
Porto Alegre, Brazil in the late 1980s. This form of budgeting spread around
Latin America first and then took hold in Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy. It is estimated that over 1500 participaotry
budgeting processes take place around the world.1
As the next section demonstrates, ideas about participatory governance are
not new. They are rooted in debates about the nature of democracy and participation that have been taking place for centuries.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Thinking about the nature of participation harks back to theorists such as
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, both of whom argued that
active citizen participation is essential for the success of the polity. However,
arguments about the importance of broad participation in democratic
regimes never dominated mainstream theories. Instead, the predominant
theories stressed participation through electoral means, such as voting.
Some of this emphasis is linked to an inherent fear of the masses as a
potentially destabilizing force in democratization processes. As a result,
more contemporary theorists of democracy (e.g., Joseph Shumpeter and
Robert Dahl) stress formal and electoral participation and competition.
In the 1960s, activists and scholars began to advocate for a different conceptualization of democracy, based on widespread and direct participation as
opposed to the more formal representative channels. New social movements
in the United States and Europe demanded entry into the political system.
Theorists such as Carole Pateman (1970), Jane Mansbridge (1983), and Ben
Barber (1984) began to argue for more participatory forms of democracy.
These scholars also demonstrated that these forms could work. Pateman’s
work documented a successful example of participatory governance in the
workplace and Mansbridge’s research focused on effective deliberation in
town hall meetings. Academic research began to show that democratic systems must find ways to engage its citizens beyond the voting booth to deepen
the quality of democracy.
When democratic reforms began sweeping the world during the third
wave, these ideas gained prominence in scholarly and practical debates.
As noted above, as elections and voting began to take place on a regular
basis in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, citizens increasingly expressed
disillusionment with the idea and practice of representative democratic
channels. Legislative bodies were not always responsive to citizens and
elected heads of state were still corrupt. Critics argued that the stress on
1. For more information see http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/.

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

representative institutions and elections had failed the average citizen in
many of these countries. For some, participatory forms of government
emerged as a complement to what are now commonly called “democratic
deficits.”
The most well-known experience with participatory governance began
in the late 1980s in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Officials from the Workers’ Party
worked closely with citizens and neighborhood groups to set up participatory budgeting, a policy-making process that would debate and decide local
budget priorities. An institutionalized participatory budget process was
born. Inspired by this experience, as well as similar innovations in India,
Mexico, and the United States, scholars began to focus on the emergence
and success of participatory governance in some contexts.
Two books stand out for providing a framework for understanding this
concept. Leonardo Avritzer’s Democracy and the Public Sphere in Latin America explores the experience of participatory budgeting in Brazil and direct
citizen participation in Mexico as a way to promote what he calls “participatory publics.” Focusing on Latin America, Avritzer (2002, p. 9) argues that
“democratization can be broadened if public arenas that have given rise to
political renewal are transformed into forms of public deliberation.”
In Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory
Government, Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright put forth a framework
for understanding experiments meant to engage citizens in political
decision-making. Coining a term that is now regularly employed, they
document forms and explore the implementation of Empowered Participatory Governance. This specific form of participatory governance brings
together three principles: (i) a focus on specific, tangible problems; (ii)
bottom-up participation which involves ordinary people; and (iii) the use of
deliberation in solving problems (Fung & Wright, 2003).
As new experiences with participatory governance emerged around
the developing world, scholars continued to document their origins and
implementation. Much of the early empirical research documented case
studies, including participatory budgeting, citizen councils, and participatory development planning. Many of these case studies focused on
participatory budgeting in Brazil (Abers, 2000; Avritzer, 2009; Baiocchi, 2005;
Gret and Sintomer, 2005; Heller 2001; Nylen, 2003; Wampler, 2007, 2008).
As institutions of participatory governance expanded around the world,
scholars began exploring examples in other parts of the world, such as
India (Heller, 2001; Isaac & Heller, 2003), Peru (McNulty, 2011), and Bolivia
(Faguet, 2012).
As scholarship and experiences grew, researchers began to adopt a comparative design to explore why some participatory institutions worked better than others. For example, Donna Van Cott’s (2008) work on institutional

Participatory Governance

5

innovation in local governments in Bolivia and Ecuador documents higher
levels of success when the design is flexible and locally driven. She finds that
leadership and the party system also help explain different degrees of success. Brian Wampler (2007) researches the spread of participatory budgeting
around Brazil to better understand the factors that determine successful outcomes. He finds that mayors’ support explain variation in outcomes in Brazil,
and the local configuration of civil society can lead to more or less success
with participatory budgeting. Wampler (2007, p. 5) writes that “citizens must
be able to negotiate among themselves and vis-à-vis the government over the
distribution of scarce resources while also being willing to publicly pressure
government officials over the government’s actions or inactions related to
participatory budgeting.”
Stephanie McNulty’s (2011) work on Peruvian participatory institutions
echoes Wampler and Van Cott’s emphasis on the importance of committed
leadership and a collaborative civil society sector. In Peru, as part of a 2002
decentralization reform several participatory institutions were designed
at the national level and implemented around the country. McNulty’s
within case comparison signals that in many cases, elected officials ignored
or manipulated the mandate. If there was no civil society sector pushing
the reform, these institutions did not take hold. Only in cases where both
political leaders and civil society organizations worked together in what
McNulty calls a “virtuous cycle of participation” did the institution succeed.
Thus, the later wave of empirical research focuses on explaining how well
these institutions function in different contexts. A consensus has emerged
that several factors help us understand varied levels of success with participatory governance. They are: (i) the role of political parties; (ii) the role of civil
society organizations; (iii) intergovernmental relations; (iv) rules and design
of the participatory institution; (v) resources; and (vi) leadership and political
will (Wampler & McNulty, 2011). This research has improved these processes
in several places around the world.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
As these institutions and programs proliferate across the globe, researchers
have an incredible opportunity to expand the sites, topics, and methodological approaches used to analyze the internal processes associated with participatory governance as well as the impacts generated. The diversity of sites
is astounding. Chicago, Albania, Sevilla, rural Indonesia, Porto Alegre, the
Philippines, China, India, are among the many places where participatory
governance programs are being implemented. Much of the newer research
falls into three areas: (i) the broader impact of these experiments; (ii) new

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

forms of engagement, with a focus on representation, deliberation, and intermediation; and (iii) scaling up and diffusion.
BROADER IMPACT
Under the context of scarce resources, researchers are leading efforts to help
policy makers and political activists better understand if the allocation of
precious time, expertise, and money to support participatory democracy is
worthwhile. Scholars are now beginning to answer the question: what is
the broader impact of participatory governance? For example, the Institute
of Development Studies conducted research for more than 20 years on
participatory programs across the globe. This allowed John Gaventa and
a research team to conduct a systematic analysis of their impact. Their
evaluation focuses on four areas: the “construction of citizenship, strengthened practices of participation, the building of responsive and accountable
states, or more inclusive and cohesive societies” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010).
They find: “(o)f almost 830 outcomes in 100 cases studied, some 75% were
positive” (Gaventa & Barrett, 2010, p. 56). While the authors recognize some
negative results, overall, impact was positive.
Mansuri and Rao (2013) also conducted an extensive review of more than
500 World Bank publications regarding Bank programs that include some
sort of participation (e.g., community-driven development, “demand-side
governance,” or decentralization). They find that “community involvement
seems to modestly improve resource sustainability and infrastructure quality” (p. 6). However, they argue that there “is little evidence that induced participation builds long-lasting cohesion, even at the community level” (p. 9).
Overall, Mansuri and Rao find modest empirical support that would continue to justify large investments of time, energy, and financial resources into
participatory governance.
A recent study by Baiocchi, Heller, and Silva (2011) compares five Brazilian
cities that undertake participatory budgeting to five Brazilian cities that
do not. This approach is among the first to systematically compare cities
with and without one particular type of participatory program. The “paired
case comparison” enables them to assess whether the adoption of this
particular participatory process produced any meaningful change. They
find strong and compelling evidence that the presence of participatory
budgeting empowers civil society, increases state-society interactions, and
alters the types of public policies implemented by the government. Quite
simply, adopting participatory budgeting does have a positive impact when
compared to those cities that do not adopt this process.
Several studies demonstrate the impact of participatory programs on
social well-being (Boulding & Wampler, 2010; Donaghy, 2013; World Bank,

Participatory Governance

7

2008). Mike Touchton and Brian Wampler (2014) have developed an original
database of 250 Brazilian cities with more than 100,000 residents. Using
matching and cross-sectional time series analysis they find that municipalities adopting participatory budgeting spend more on health care,
education and sanitation and experience a decline in infant mortality. The
effects grow stronger over time, which signals that the improvements in the
quality of life were not due to the initial introduction of social programs
but were the result of an institutionalization of new policy and governance
practices. In addition, they also found the effects were stronger when the
Brazil’s Workers’ Party administered the program, suggesting that political
party association with participatory budgeting leads to stronger effects.
Thus, much of this newer research is documenting positive impacts from
participatory governance.
NEW FORMS OF ENGAGEMENT
Participatory governance induces citizens, civil society organizations, and
public officials to engage in new forms of political and social engagement.
Based on these experiences, researchers and theorists are recasting debates
on deliberative democracy, representation, state-society relations, and state
building.
Some cutting-edge research draws from the concerns of deliberative
democrats to better understand how the specific rules of participatory
governance affect deliberation, participation, and decision-making. Unlike
deliberative democracy, most participatory governance programs use a
combination of deliberative and majoritarian voting practices. Although
deliberation is an integral part of participatory governance—it allows
citizens to hold public officials accountable, raise contentious issues, and
advocate for their agenda—what distinguishes most participatory governance programs from the deliberative formats is the acute need of citizens
and governments to find real, working solutions to pressing social and
political problems (Cornwall & Coelho, 2007; Fung, 2003; Mansbridge, 2012;
Warren, 1996).
Deliberative democrats are concerned with the quality, fairness and equality of deliberative processes. This concern led Ben Olken (2010) to conduct a
field experiment in 49 Indonesian villages to assess the effects of voting rules
and participation. He compares an open, public voting system (participants
vote by raising their hands in public) to a closed, secret ballot. Olken finds
that the closed system generated greater satisfaction than the open voting
system. Furthermore, in “women only projects,” the closed system produces
projects that were more likely to be implemented in the poorest sections of
the village. Olken demonstrates that changes in voting rules have a strong

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

effect on the voting choices of participants, especially the poorest and most
politically marginalized. Given these findings, it is increasingly important
to ask how the rules governing participatory governance institutions can be
adapted to overcome social inequalities.
In the scholarly and practitioner communities, a rich debate is also emerging about the changing nature of representation. Participatory governance
alters how citizens are represented in the political arena. Participatory
institutions are often situated within the broader context of representative
democracy, which means that there are now complementary forms of representation occurring across the spectrum of democratic institutions. Important
research is documenting the nature and effects of these changes. For example,
Urbinati and Warren (2008) explore new forms of “authoritization,” whereby
non-electoral mechanisms are used to authorize leaders to act on behalf of
their followers. Adrian Lavalle and his research team in São Paulo explore
on how participatory governance is producing new forms of intermediations
between state and society (see Houtzager & Lavalle, 2009, for example).
These authors show that the introduction of participatory governance
institutions alters how citizens mobilize as well as how they engage the state.
Finally, participatory governance programs also expand the number of
access points into the state, thereby broadening the state’s surface area
(Heller & Evans, 2010). The creation of new participatory venues changes
how the state functions. Citizens gain access to new information, are able to
make use of public forums, and are included in policy networks. Changing
how citizens engage the state creates the possibility of changing how the
state exercises its authority. It appears that altering internal state processes
as well as state officials’ activities is a vital part of increasing the impact of
participatory institutions.
Although most participatory governance programs are housed in
democratic environments, there are a growing number of programs
emerging in authoritarian contexts. Baogang He (2011) demonstrates that
local-level governments in China are using aspects of participatory governance as part of a process of incorporating citizens’ interests into local
decision-making processes. The input appears to be “feedback” rather than
actual decision-making. This case highlights how authoritarian governments
can use participatory governance as a means to strengthen their hold on
power rather than extending authority to citizens.
DIFFUSION AND SCALING UP
Participatory governance programs are spreading across the globe and
are increasingly being scaled up beyond the local level of government.
One of the most important diffusion processes is the development of a

Participatory Governance

9

South-to-the-North and South-to-the South flow of information and ideas,
thus reversing the long standing trend of North-to-South diffusion of ideas
and knowledge. The South–north diffusion has largely been initiated by
Brazil. Importantly, and evident in the discussion above, participatory
governance spread outward from Brazil and India across South America
(Goldfrank, 2011; McNulty, 2011; Van Cott, 2008), Europe (Allegretti &
Herzberg, 2007), as well as into Africa and Asia (Ganuza & Baiocchi, 2012;
Sintomer, Herzberg, Röcke, & Allegretti, 2012). However, we still do not
fully understand the diffusion mechanisms.
The World Bank—the largest single funder of participatory governance
programs across the globe—has been a key conduit for the spread of the
ideas from South-to-South (Goldfrank, 2012; Shah, 2007). Employing the
term “demand-side” governance to categorize the direct participation of
citizens in policymaking process, World Bank promotion is also controversial. Analysts debate whether the World Bank has “co-opted” participatory
governance to push forward neo-liberal economic reforms or whether there
is true commitment to empower individuals.
Ben Goldfrank’s insightful analysis of the internal dynamics of the World
Bank reveals an additional layer to this debate (2012). Goldfrank argues that
a few social scientists working within the World Bank promote the idea of
“demand-side” governance to economists and engineers, who comprise the
majority of decision-makers within the Bank. Thus, participatory governance
reforms are included in World Bank projects but remain at the margins rather
than the heart of what the institution does. Goldfrank’s work suggests that
the World Bank incorporates some basic aspects of participation but that it
has not altered its basic governance approach.
Finally, participatory governance processes are increasingly being scaled
up beyond the local level. The early wave of programs has its roots at the
local level, such as Porto Alegre and Kerala. Many worry that this focus is too
narrow—that “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally” might limit the impact of
the programs. Over the past decade, many national-level governments have
mandated citizen participation directly into budgetary and policy-making
affairs nation-wide. A diverse set of countries including South Korea, Brazil,
Peru, the Philippines, Poland, and Bolivia have passed legislation to include
participatory institutions in local and intermediate levels of governments
around the country.
FUTURE TRENDS
As public officials, civil society organizations, and citizens increasingly turn
to participatory governance as a means to solve a variety of social and political problems, this is an exciting time to conduct research on this topic. The

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

goal of future research should be to develop better practices and policies that
guide these experiences as they continue to emerge and evolve around the
world.
Future work should focus on three lines of research. First, scholars need
to continue to research examples of participatory governance with an eye
towards the increasing number of cases in both industrialized nations and
authoritarian regimes. The fact that more and more developed countries are
adapting these experiences suggests that these efforts resonate in countries
around the world, regardless of their levels of economic development.
Furthermore, as participatory governance emerges in authoritarian regimes,
such as China, it will be important to understand the motivations behind
these kinds programs as well as the unique implementation environment.
We should expect more examples of participatory governance to emerge in
a variety of contexts around the world and start to ask questions about why
and how.
Second, the next wave of research on these experiments needs to continue
in order to even more systematically examine their impact. As the previous
section demonstrates, after more than twenty years of implementation of
these programs, we continue to have only a very preliminary understanding
of the range and intensity of their effects. This new line of inquiry is of vital
importance because billions of dollars are being spent on these projects
(Mansuri & Rao, 2013). We need more extensive evidence to demonstrate
whether participatory governance programs are producing the outcomes
desired by their proponents. People are investing their precious time, energy,
and resources in the hope that participatory institutions will improve the
quality of ordinary people’s lives. Future work in this area might also use
Archon Fung’s (2006) “democracy cube,” which is a tool to help policy
makers make decisions about the intensity and breadth of participation.
Third, new research also needs to focus on cross-country comparisons that
generate information about a broader number of cases. Most of the existing
knowledge about participatory governance is based on case studies about
one country or one kind of participatory institution. To date, there have not
been any cross-regional, cross-national studies that include multiple types of
participatory institutions.
Challenges for this research agenda exist. Undertaking extensive research
on additional countries and cases of participatory governance demand time
and money. Grant making institutions and universities will need to buy into
the need for this kind of policy relevant research. Furthermore, to develop
solid cross-country comparative work on a variety of forms, scholars from
around the world will need to coordinate regularly to advance the research.
Finally, researching participatory governance in authoritarian contexts may
pose a different set of challenges as information about the process may not be

Participatory Governance

11

readily available. Even given these issues, we are confident that future work
will address these important questions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Blair Ruble and Allison Garland of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for their ongoing support. In 2011, the
Wilson Center published our co-authored report, “Does Participatory Governance Matter?” With their permission, we draw from the ideas presented
in the report and at a May 2011 workshop that Brian Wampler organized at
the Wilson Center. We also thank participants at that conference.
REFERENCES
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Allegretti, G., & Herzberg, C. (2007). Participatory budgets in Europe: Between efficiency
and growing local democracy. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Transnational Institute.
Avritzer, L. (2009). Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and citizens: The politics of participatory democracy in Porto
Alegre. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Baiocchi, G., Heller, P., & Silva, M. K. (2011). Bootstrapping democracy: Transforming
local governance and civil society in Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boulding, C., & Wampler, B. (2010). Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect
of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, 38(1), 125–135.
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen
influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(02), 371–390.
Cornwall, A., & Coehlo, V. S. (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of citizen participation
in new democratic arenas. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Donaghy, M. (2013). Civil society and participatory governance: Municipal councils and
social housing programs in Brazil. New York, NY: Routledge.
Faguet, J. P. (2012). Decentralization and popular democracy: Governance from below in
Bolivia. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Fishkin, J. S. (1993). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 67–75.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design
choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Gaventa, J. & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. Research Summary of Working Paper 347. November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Rs347.pdf
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).
Goldfrank, B. (2011). Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation, decentralization, and the left. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Goldfrank, B. (2012). The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–18.
Gret, M., & Sintomer, Y. (2005). The Porto Alegre experiment: Learning lessons for a better
democracy. London, England: Zed Books.
He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three
different logics at work. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 122–133.
Heller, P. (2001). Moving the state: the politics of decentralization in Kerala, South
Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics and Society, 29(1), 131–163.
Heller, P., & Evans, P. (2010). Taking Tilly south: Durable inequalities, democratic
contestation and citizenship in the southern metropolis. Theory and Society, 39,
433–450.
Houtzager, P. P. & Gurza Lavalle, A. (2009). Participatory governance and the challenge of assumed representation in Brazil. Institute of Development Studies.
Isaac, T. M., & Heller, P. (2003). Democracy and development: Decentralized planning in
Kerala. In Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England: Verso.
Mansbridge, J. (2012). On the importance of getting things done. PS: Political Science
& Politics, 45, 1–8. doi:10.1017/S104909651100165X
Mansbridge, J. (1983). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? Washington, DC: The World Bank.
McNulty, S. (2011). Voice and vote: Decentralization and participation in post-Fujimori
Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Nylen, W. (2003). Participatory democracy versus elitist democracy: Lessons from Brazil.
New York, NY: Palgrave.
Olken, B. (2010). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field
experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104(2), 243–267.
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1),
7–19.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shah, A. (2007). Participatory budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Participatory Governance

13

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., Röcke, A., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Transnational models of citizen participation: The case of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public
Deliberation, 8(2), Article 9.
Touchton, M., & Wampler, B. (2014). Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 10(47), 1442–1469.
Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary
democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.
Van Cott, D. (2008). Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and
accountability. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wampler, B. (2008). When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of
democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics, 41(1), 61–81.
Wampler, B. & McNulty S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter?
Exploring the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC:
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.
wilsoncenter.org/publication-series/does-participatory-governance-matter
Warren, M. E. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. The American Political
Science Review, 90(1), 46–60.
World Bank (2008). Brazil: Toward a more inclusive and effective participatory budget in Porto Alegre, 1 (Main Report). Washington, DC.

FURTHER READING
American Political Science Association (2012). Democratic imperatives: Innovations in
rights, participation, and economic citizenship. Report of the Task Force on Democracy,
Economic Security, and Social Justice in a Volatile World. American Political Science
Association. http://apsanet.org/imgtest/TF_DemocracyReport_Final.pdf
Avritzer, L. (2002). Democracy and the public sphere in Latin America. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in
empowered participatory governance. The real utopias project IV. London, England:
Verso.
Wampler, B. & McNulty, S. (2011). Does participatory governance matter? Exploring
the nature and impact of participatory reforms. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publicationseries/does-participatory-governance-matter

STEPHANIE L. McNULTY SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Stephanie L. McNulty, author of Voice and Vote: Decentralization and
Participation in Post-Fujimori Peru (Stanford University Press, 2011), is a Latin
Americanist with expertise in decentralization, participatory governance,
gender, and development. She is currently working on a second book about

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

participatory decentralization reforms in the developing world. Dr. McNulty
is an Assistant Professor of Government at Franklin and Marshall College in
Lancaster, PA. She has her PhD from George Washington University and a
MA from New York University. http://www.fandm.edu/stephanie-mcnulty
BRIAN WAMPLER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Brian Wampler is a Professor of Political Science at Boise State University, located in the United States. He is the author of Participatory Budgeting
in Brazil: Cooperation, Contestation, and Accountability (Pennsylvania State
University Press, 2007). In 2009–2010, Wampler was a Fulbright Scholar at
the Federal University of Minas Gerais. He is currently finishing a book
titled: Activating Democracy in Brazil: Popular Participation, Interlocking Institutions, and Social Justice. Wampler has published extensively on participatory
forms of democracy in journals such as Comparative Politics, World Development, and Latin American Politics and Society. https://sspa.boisestate.edu/
politicalscience/faculty/brian-wampler/
RELATED ESSAYS
Domestic Politics of Trade Policy (Political Science), Michaël Aklin et al.
Party Organizations’ Electioneering Arms Race (Political Science), John H.
Aldrich and Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
Economic Models of Voting (Political Science), Ian G. Anson and Timothy
Hellwig
The Underrepresentation of Women in Elective Office (Political Science),
Sarah F. Anzia
Heuristic Decision Making (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and
Nicholas J. D’Amico
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
Government Formation and Cabinets (Political Science), Sona N. Golder
Distributive Politics: Federal Outlays (Political Science), Sanford C. Gordon
and Woo Chang Kang
Women Running for Office (Political Science), Jennifer L. Lawless
Civic Engagement (Sociology), Peter Levine
Money in Politics (Political Science), Jeffrey Milyo
Electoral Authoritarianism (Political Science), Andreas Schedler
Does the 1 Person 1 Vote Principle Apply? (Political Science), Ian R. Turner
et al.
Constitutionalism (Political Science), Keith E. Whittington



Media

Participatory Governance