User:My322/sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia Contribution FINAL DRAFT

Below is the text that I generated and contributed to the Wikipedia Article of Participatory budgeting.

The first draft in this sandbox as well as the talk page of the actual article demonstrate further what I did in terms of shuffling around/deletion of the text and the structure that were originally established in the article. This, I believe, shares equal value with the text that I created below in terms of my overall contribution to the article and deserves your sincere attention. Thank you.

My322 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Under Lead Section

The frameworks of PB differentiate variously throughout the globe in terms of scale, procedure, and objective. PB, in its conception, is often contextualized to suit a region's particular conditions and needs. Thus, the magnitudes of PB vary depending on whether it is carried out at a municipal, regional, or provincial level. In many cases, PB has been legally enforced and regulated; however, some are internally arranged and promoted. Since the original invention in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1988, PB has manifested itself in a myriad of designs, with variations in methodology, form, and technology.[1] PB stands as one of several democratic innovations such as British Columbia's Citizens' Assembly, encompassing the ideals of a participatory democracy.[2] Today, PB has been implemented in nearly 1,500 municipalities and institutions around the world.[3]

Under Procedure

According to the World Bank Group, certain factors are needed for PB to be adopted: "[...]strong mayoral support, a civil society willing and able to contribute to ongoing policy debates, a generally supportive political environment that insulates participatory budgeting from legislators’ attacks, and financial resources to fund the projects selected by citizens."[4] In addition, there are generally two approaches through which PB formulates: top-down versus bottom-up. The adoption of PB has been required by the federal government in nations such as Peru, while there are cases where local governments initiated PB independent from the national agenda such as Porto Alegre. With the bottom-up approach, NGO's and local organizations have played crucial roles in mobilizing and informing the community members.[5]

PB processes do not adhere to strict rules, but they generally share several basic steps[6]:

  • The municipality is divided geographically into multiple districts.
  • Representatives of the divided districts are either elected or volunteered to work with government officials in a PB committee.
  • The committees are formed with regularly scheduled meetings under a specific timeline to deliberate.
  • Proposals, initiated by the citizens, are dealt under different branches of public budget such as recreation, infrastructure, transportation and etc.
  • Participants publicly deliberate with the committee to finalize the projects to be voted on.
  • The drafted budget is shared to the public and put for a vote.
  • The municipal government implements the top proposals.
  • The cycle is repeated on an annual basis.

Under Implementation

United Kingdom

PB in the United Kingdom was initially introduced as part of the 'New Labour' Party's decentralization agenda that aimed to empower the local governments in the first decade of the 21st century.[7] Hazel Blears, the Labour MP, "[...] played a key role in the inclusion of PB on the national policy agenda[...]," pushing for greater community participation and empowerment in the governmental structure.[8] Within this new political ambiance, the British PB, inspired by Porto Alegre's example, gained traction for implementation, especially through the active engagement oflocal NGO's and community activists, namely the Community Pride Initiative.[9]

The first attempt at PB was initiated as a pilot in the city of Bradford in 2004, and its "procedural model consists of two main steps: the elaboration of project schemes by local community groups and a decision about these schemes by all involved groups during a public meeting."[10] The Bradford process, while limited to small funding, helped PB spread to other cities such as Newcastle.[11] In addition to the bottom-up activism in local communities, Blears's initiative for PB on the national level helped promote its implementation and diffusion more broadly, and by 2011, there were at least 150 recorded cases of PB, albeit being limited to small funding and designated personnel.[12] The "UK style" of PB, as Anja Rocke puts it, "in form of small grant-spending processes with no secured financial basis and organized at the margins of the political system," failed to gain enough momentum to be established nationally as a formal decision-making procedure. PB has yet to resurface on the national agenda in the United Kingdom despite its marginal yet ongoing processes in the local governments.[13]

Republic of Korea

In 2005, the national government revised its Local Finance Act to promote citizen participation in the local government budgeting process in response to a few of the local governments that initially took a bottom-up approach in experimenting with forms of PB.

Myung Bak Lee's Administration in 2011, the newly revised Local Finance Act required all local governments to adopt PB.[15]

Before the 2011 decree, approximately 45% of local governments had already been utilizing the PB system, and it took 3 years for the remaining municipalities to fulfill the mandate.[16] The PB System of Seoul Metropolitan Government served as the benchmark for other local governments' adoption of PB in those years.[17] Seoul, city with the world's 4th highest GDP, runs a PB committee of 300 people representing 25 districts. The committee is then split into 11 different budgetary fields such as parks and recreation, culture, environment, and etc. In its first year, Seoul citizens voted and finalized on 223 projects worth 50.3 billion KRW, and most recently in 2017, the PB system finalized 766 projects amounting to 59.3 billion KRW (approximately 55 million USD).[18]

A comprehensive study of Korea's PB in 2016 suggests that PB in Korea has allocated most of public budget to the following three areas: land/local development, transportation, and culture/tourism. Transparency in budget documents and information sharing has increased since 2011, and the approval rates by local PB committees averaged to approximately 70%. On the other hand, the study also points out that the lack of citizen capacity, inadequate resources for smaller municipalities, and limited representativeness of vested interests as some of the most unresolved challenges in Korea's PB implementation.[19]

India

India's experience with PB has been limited despite its 74th Constitutional Amendment, which proposes to the state and local governments the formation of ward committees composed of local citizens to direct ward-level budgets.[20] Such initiative was not implemented, and thus there were only few cities that experimented with PB, which are Bangalore, Myso, Pune, and Hiware Bazar.[21]

Bangalore was the first to implement PB in India in 2001 with the help of a local NGO. Similarly, Pune was able to adopt PB in 2006 with the help of several local NGOs. Pune's PB system was met with a large response from its local citizens, and multiple online and offline workshops were carried out to foster the implementation.[22] As a result, Pune has experienced both increased citizen participation and budget allocation, which are directed primarily towards roads, electricity, slum-improvement, and water shortage.[23] Influenced by Pune's PB, Pimpri-Chinchwad, the fifth-most populated city of Maharashtra, also began to adopt the framework soon after.[24]

Hiware Bazar may have served as the most successful example of PB in India. On June 25th, 2015, Delhi Deputy chief Minister Manish Sisodia presented the Swaraj Budget.[25] The Aam Admi Party Swaraj Budget was prepared based on voting from the people of different constituencies. In each constituency three meetings were held; each meeting was attended by 200–300 residents, and a list of key issues was prepared, which was then voted on to decide the top priorities.[26][27][28] As a result, the village, once bereft of water, education, and basic needs for life, is now self-sufficient with a high per capita income. [29]

South Africa

For South Africa, the mechanisms for citizen participation is written in its constitution. Each municipality has its budgetary committee formed with representatives from its 'wards' that deal directly with its budgeting.

Ekurhuleni municipalities as representative cases to demonstrate the typical PB process in South Africa.[31] First, the process for the council is fixed by the mayor, who sets up certain deadlines for the council to deliberate within.[32] Then, the municipality is divided geographically into 'wards', and the public budget is drawn with any desired submission from the community through their ward representatives.[33] The tentatively accumulated budget plan is then publicized so that any citizens or "stakeholders" can make their final inputs, and the final version is submitted to the national and provincial governments for approval. [34]

On a nation-wide level, the South African municipalities, as a result of PB, have witnessed the public budget "shift from infrastructure development to local economic development, a higher priority for citizens."[35] Currently, PB is being carried out in 284 municipalities, each varying slightly in its process.[36] The rate of transparency for the municipal governments has increased because the sub-organization ward committees are able to maintain consistently ongoing communication with the citizens.[37] Regardless, the challenges in South African local governance still prevail as a result of the lack of resources and limited capacities assigned to PB. Furthermore, language barriers and cultural differences also provide immediate obstacles for holistic communications between various wards and social groups within the municipalities.[38]

Wikipedia Article Draft 1.0

Instructions for Peer/Professor Review

  • All the original text is in italics.
  • All the revision/insertion created by My322 is in bold.
  • All instructions/physical changes to the text that will be carried out in the final draft are in regular font.

'Lead Section' Insert--------------------------------------------

After: PB processes are typically designed to involve those left out of traditional methods of public engagement, such as low-income residents, non-citizens, and youth.[2] A comprehensive case study of eight municipalities in Brazil analyzing the successes and failures of participatory budgeting has suggested that it often results in more equitable public spending, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents), and democratic and citizenship learning.[3]

The frameworks of PB differentiates variously throughout the globe in terms of scale, procedure, and objective. PB, in its conception, is often contextualized to suit a region's particular conditions and needs. Thus, the magnitudes of PB vary, depending whether it is carried out at a municipal, regional, or even provincial level. In many cases PB has been legally enforced and regulated; however, some are internally arranged and promoted. Since the original invention in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 1988, PB has manifested itself in a myriad of designs, with numerous variations in methodology, form, and technology in its participatory processes.[39] PB stands as one of several democratic innovations such as British Columbia's Citizens' Assembly, encompassing the ideals of a participatory democracy.[40] Today, PB has been implemented in nearly 1,500 municipalities and institutions around the world.[41]

Before: Most broadly, all participatory budgeting schemes allow citizens to deliberate with the goal of creating either a concrete financial plan (a budget), or a recommendation to elected representatives. In the Porto Alegre model, the structure of the scheme gives subjurisdictions (neighborhoods) authority over the larger political jurisdiction (the city) of which they are part. Neighborhood budget committees, for example, have authority to determine the citywide budget, not just the allocation of resources for their particular neighborhood. There is, therefore, a need for mediating institutions to facilitate the aggregation of budget preferences expressed by subjurisdictions.

P.S. The following two paragraphs after my insertion may be moved to a new section called, "Process" or "Procedure". Then, hopefully, my insertion can be the closing paragraph for the lead section.

'History' Revision--------------------------------------------

Graham Smith, "Democratic Innovations" Structure of PB in Porto Allegre Image.

'Implementation' Revision & Insert--------------------------------------------

1. Lead Paragraph

After: As of 2015, over 1,500 instances of PB have been implemented across the five continents.[6] While the democratic spirit of PB remains the same throughout the world, institutional variations abound.[10]

  • Move, Revise, and include Rest of the World paragraph. Erase the subtitle for the paragraph. So,

Add in the same paragraph: Number of towns and cities in

the Dominican Republic,[46], South Korea[47], Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Guatemala[48]
have mandatorily incorporated PB in all of its local governments.

Original - revised to above paragraph:The Dominican Republic has implemented participatory budgeting in all local governments,[19] and a number of towns and cities in Portugal, France, Italy, Germany, and Spain have also initiated participatory budgeting processes.[20] In Canada, participatory budgeting has been implemented with public housing, neighbourhood groups, and a public schools, in the cities of Toronto,[21] Guelph, Hamilton,[22] and West Vancouver. In India, a village called Hiware Bazar has served as an epitome of the process. The village, once bereft of water, education, and basic needs for life, is now self-sufficient with a high per capita income. On 25 June 2015 Delhi Deputy chief Minister Manish Sisodia presented the Swaraj Budget.[23] The Aam Admi Party Swaraj Budget was prepared based on voting from the people of different constituencies. In each constituency three meetings were held.Each meeting was attended by 200–300 residents and a list of key issues were prepared and then a voting took place to choose the top priority.[24][25][26] Similar budget processes have been used in communities in Africa. In France, the Region Poitou-Charentes has launched an experience of participatory budgeting in its secondary schools.[27]

The first recorded Participatory Budgeting process in the United States of America is in the Rogers Park neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois.[28][29] Led by the ward's Alderman, Joe Moore, Chicago's 49th Ward is undertaking this process[30] with the Alderman's "Menu Money." Menu Money is a yearly budgeted amount each of Chicago's 50 wards receives for use on capital expenses. This money in other wards is typically allocated at the complete discretion of a ward's Alderman. Since 2011 more examples have been occurring in the US, in New York City,[31] and now citywide in Vallejo, California,[32] and most recently in Greensboro, NC.[33]

2. Revise Example Countries of PB

Changes:

A. Brazilian Model to Brazil

B. Outcomes deleted, content incorporated into Brazil

C. Rest of the World already deleted by previous revision

D. Boston & New York included under the United States

E. Paris either deleted or included under France

F. Keep Iceland & Buenos Aires

3. Example Countries to be Added

0. Brazil

Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre occurs annually, starting with a series of neighborhood, regional, and citywide assemblies, where residents and elected budget delegates identify spending priorities and vote on which priorities to implement.[11] Porto Alegre spends about 200 million dollars per year on construction and services, this money is subject to participatory budgeting. Annual spending on fixed expenses, such as debt service and pensions, is not subject to public participation. Around fifty thousand residents of Porto Alegre now take part in the participatory budgeting process (compared to 1.5 million city inhabitants), with the number of participants growing year on year since 1989. Participants are from diverse economic and political backgrounds.[11]

The participatory budgeting cycle starts in January and assemblies across the city facilitate maximum participation and interaction. Each February there is instruction from city specialists in technical and system aspects of city budgeting. In March there are plenary assemblies in each of the city's 16 districts as well as assemblies dealing with such areas as transportation, health, education, sports, and economic development. These large meetings—with participation that can reach over 1,000—elect delegates to represent specific neighborhoods. The mayor and staff attend to respond to citizen concerns. In the following months, delegates meet weekly or biweekly in each district to review technical project criteria and district needs. City department staff may participate according to their area of expertise. At a second regional plenary, regional delegates prioritize the district's demands and elect 42 councillors representing all districts and thematic areas to serve on the Municipal Council of the Budget. The main function of the Municipal Council of the Budget is to reconcile the demands of each district with available resources, and to propose and approve an overall municipal budget. The resulting budget is binding, though the city council can suggest, but not require changes. Only the Mayor may veto the budget, or remand it back to the Municipal Council of the Budget (this has never happened).[11] Since its emergence in Porto Alegre, participatory budgeting has spread to hundreds of Latin American cities, and dozens of cities in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. More than 1500 municipalities are estimated to have initiated participatory budgeting.[12] In some cities, participatory budgeting has been applied for school, university, and public housing budgets. These international approaches differ significantly, and they are shaped as much by their local contexts as by the Porto Alegre model.[13]

(Outcomes) - Delete ?

A World Bank paper suggests that participatory budgeting has led to direct improvements in facilities in Porto Alegre. For example, sewer and water connections increased from 75% of households in 1988 to 98% in 1997. The number of schools quadrupled since 1986.[14]

The high number of participants, after more than a decade, suggests that participatory budgeting encourages increasing citizen involvement, according to the paper. Also, Porto Alegre’s health and education budget increased from 13% (1985) to almost 40% (1996), and the share of the participatory budget in the total budget increased from 17% (1992) to 21% (1999).[15] In a paper that updated the World Bank's methodology, expanding statistical scope and analyzing Brazil's 253 largest municipalities that use participatory budgeting, researchers found that participatory budgeting reallocates spending towards health and sanitation. Health and sanitation benefits accumulated the longer participatory budgeting was used in a municipality. Participatory budgeting does not merely allow citizens to shift funding priorities in the short-term – it can yield sustained institutional and political change in the long term.[16]

The paper concludes that participatory budgeting can lead to improved conditions for the poor. Although it cannot overcome wider problems such as unemployment, it leads to "noticeable improvement in the accessibility and quality of various public welfare amenities".[17]

Based on Porto Alegre more than 140 (about 2.5%) of the 5,571 municipalities in Brazil have adopted participatory budgeting.

1.

The United States

Hopefully Alex can contribute for this.

2.

Republic of Korea

In 2005, the national government revised its Local Finance Act to promote citizen participation in the local government budgeting process in response to a few of the local governments that initially took a bottom-up approach in experimenting with forms of PB. Since then, the Ministry of Security and Public Administration invested in the nation-wide promotion of PB system diffusion, and under

Myung Bak Lee's Administration in 2011, the newly revised Local Finance Act required all local governments to adopt PB.[49]

Before the 2011 decree, approximately 45% of local governments had already been utilizing the PB system, and it took 3 years for the remaining municipalities to fulfill the mandate. The PB System of Seoul Metropolitan Government served as the benchmark for other local governments' adoption of PB in those years.[50] Seoul, city with the world's 4th highest GDP, runs a PB committee of 300 people divided into 11 different budgetary fields such as parks and recreation, culture, environment, and etc. In its first year, Seoul citizens voted and finalized on 223 projects worth 50.3 billion KRW, and most recently in 2017, the PB system finalized 766 projects amounting to 59.3 billion KRW (approximately 55 million USD).[51]

A Comprehensive study of Korea's PB in 2016 suggests that PB in Korea has allocated most of public budget to the following three areas: land/local development, transportation, and culture and tourism. Transparency in budget documents and information sharing has increased since 2011, and the approval rates by local PB committees averaged to approximately 70%. On the other hand, the study also points out that the lack of citizen capacity, inadequate resources for smaller municipalities, and limited representativeness of vested interests as some of the most unresolved challenges in Korea's PB implementation.[52]

2. India

India's experience with PB has been limited despite its 74th Constitutional Amendment, which proposes to the state and local governments the formation of ward committees comprised of local citizens to direct ward-level budgets. Such initiative was not implemented, and thus there were only few cities that experimented with PB, which are Bangalore, Myso, and Pune.[53]

Bangalore was the first to implement PB in India in 2001 with the help of a local NGO; nevertheless, the system quickly lost efficacy over time. Similarly, Pune was able to adopt PB in 2006 with the help of several local NGOs. Pune's new PB system, however, was met with a large response from its local citizens, and multiple online and offline workshops were carried out to foster the implementation. As a result Pune has experienced both increased citizen participation as well as increased budget allocation, which are directed primarily towards roads, electricity, slum-improvement, and water shortage. Influenced by Pune's PB, Pimpri-Chinchwad, the fifth-most populated city of Maharashtra, also began to adopt the framework soon after.[54]

4. United Kingdom

PB in the United Kingdom was initially introduced as part of the 'New Labour' Party's decentralization agenda that aimed to empower the local governments in the first decade of the 21st century.[55] Hazel Blears, the Labour MP, "[...] played a key role in the inclusion of PB on the national policy agenda[...]" pushing for greater community participation and empowerment in the governmental structure.[56] Within this new political ambiance, the British PB, inspired by Porto Alegre's example, gained traction implementation through the active engagement from local NGO's and community activists, namely the Community Pride Initiative.[57]

The first attempt at PB was initiated as a pilot in the city of Bradford in 2004, and its "procedural model consists of two main steps: the elaboration of project schemes by local community groups and a decision about these schemes by all involved groups during a public meeting."[58] The Bradford process, while limited to small funds, helped PB spread to other cities such as Newcastle.[59] In addition to the bottom-up activism in local communities, Blears' initiative for PB on the national level helped promote its implementation and diffusion more broadly, and by 2011, there were at least 150 recorded cases of PB, albeit being limited to small funding and designated personnel.[60] The "UK style" of PB, as Anja Rocke puts it, "in form of small grant-spending processes with no secured financial basis and organized at the margins of the political system," failed to gain enough traction to be nationally established as a formal decision-making procedure. PB has yet to resurface on the national agenda in the United Kingdom despite its marginal yet ongoing processes in various local governments.[61]

5. Peru

In Peru, all local governments were mandated by national law to implement PB since since 2003. In it, all municipal institutions are required to create PB councils to promote citizen participation. Nevertheless, the bill, when introduced, was met with opposition from traditional conservative parties, namely the Aprista Party, and thus the Bill was ultimately hybridized requiring 60% of the council to be government officials. In addition, PB in Peru has been challenged with inefficient resources and as a result struggled to find its legitimacy in implementation.

Peru's PB model has met with several challenges as a result of the restriction caused by the structure decreed by law. ...such as lack of resources for smaller regions to run PB as well as the drop in demand for participatory venues from the citizens themselves. Even when mandated, many of these provincial committees were assigned and rarely convinced. PB laws were amended every year; however, as an outcome of the numerous struggles from its initial guidelines. Legal financial restrictions of budgetary allocation and capacities for the PB councils were mainly loosened.

There are indeed positive local cases of PB in Peru despite its struggle in implementation at the national level as reported by the World Bank Group. Most of the successful PB settings were characterized by the lack of structure set up by law that promoted for greater citizen participation. City of Ilo and Villa El Salvador, one of the few cities that initiated the organization of PB before the national law in 2003, are namely the exemplary cases of successful PB. For both cities, participation rate rose as well as redistributive qualities of their budgeting towards necessary elements such as free public services. Transparency rates were likewise increased.


6. South Africa

For South Africa, the mechanisms for citizen participation is written in its constitution. Each municipality has its budgetary committee formed with representatives from its 'wards' that deal directly with its budgeting.

Ekurhuleni municipalities as representative cases to demonstrate the typical PB process in South Africa.[63] First, the process for the council is fixed by the mayor, who sets up certain deadlines for the council to deliberate within.[64] Then, the municipality is divided geographically into 'wards', and the public budget is drawn with any desired submission from the community through their ward representatives.[65] The tentatively accumulated budget plan is then publicized so that any relevant local organizations or citizens can once again make inputs.[66]

On a nation-wide level, the South African municipalities, as a result of PB, have witnessed the public budget "shift from infrastructure development to local economic development, a higher priority for citizens."[67] Currently, PB is being carried out in 284 municipalities, each varying slightly in its process.[68] The rate of transparency for the municipal governments have increased because the sub-organization ward committees are able to maintain consistently ongoing communication with the citizens.[69] Regardless, some of the challenges in South Africa local governance still stand much like PB systems in any other country: lack of resources and limited capacities. Furthemore, language barriers and social and cultural differences also provide obstacles for effective and holistic communication between various wards and social groups within municipalities of South Africa.[70]

4. 'Criticism' Revision--------------------------------------------

Split the section into Advantages and Major Criticisms.

Blog

WEEK 8.2: First Draft

It is difficult to reorganize and add paragraphs because of the mismatch of intention between me and the original contributor of the article. The previous text sometimes lacks the reference for the information in the article, thus it is difficult to either erase them entirely or keep them (because it is still valuable information). It would be much easier if I could real-time communicate with the contributors.

In terms of incorporating examples to support the article (countries, especially) it is difficult to decide which ones to list. Should there be an equal distribution among the continents? Or should it be distributed equally on the spectrum of positive/negative results? Or by which ones are more renowned? Which category should I follow? Currently equal-ish distribution among the globe seems the best bet.

How much visualization should I incorporate?

Week 8.1: First Draft

Revision notes:

1. Rephrase lead section? Or at least reorganize? Is there anything to be added?

--> Include the visualization of PB here as an example?

2. 'History' --> The Brazilian model history should be moved

--> The opening paragraph should deal with the history of PB as a theory. Who first came up with the idea? Where did it originate from/relate to? Who contributed to the framework of the theory? How has the system evolved theoretically?

--> How does it relate to other/bigger ideas? (i.e., direct democracy, mini-publics, etc...) or should this be incorporated in the lead section?

--> Mention Porto Alegre as the first example ever tried. Then explain how it was executed, what the results were, how it became the example for many cities in Brazil as well as internationally. (briefly)

3. 'Implementation' or 'Application'?: categorize by region (continentally)? or scale (city, state, nation)? which one works best?

--> Mention how each PB system is different from another

--> Start with Porto Alegre model. How it worked, the end results, impact report? etc... Include the visual image from Graham Smith's book

--> South Korea, national law mandating every state, city to incorporate PB in their municipal budgeting. Participatory government and policy diffusion in local governments in Korea : implementation of participatory Budgeting Soonhee Kim

Outcomes + impact = positive? negative?

--> Other examples: Germany, France, U.K., Buenos Aires -- outcomes + impact = positive? negative? not impactful?

--> Get rid of 'Rest of the World', try to reorganize by recategorizing the examples

--> Get rid of Boston Youth PB example. New York by Alex?

4. Criticism: Split into pros and cons? Create two subsections underneath?

--> Advantages vs. Major Criticisms?

--> Figure it out with Alex

5. Sections to be added?

--> Maybe 'Process' should have its own?

WEEK 7: Finalized Topic

Participatory budgeting

To start, the definition needs to be cleaned up:

PB processes are typically designed to involve those left out of traditional methods of public engagement, such as low-income residents, non-citizens, and youth.[2] A comprehensive case study of eight municipalities in Brazil analyzing the successes and failures of participatory budgeting has suggested that it often results in more equitable public spending, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents), and democratic and citizenship learning.

The idea behind participatory budgeting needs to be written more comprehensively, comparing/contrasting to other forms/blueprints of municipal budgeting around the world. Then, the section copied above needs to be corrected or moved to a separate chapter. Associations with Brazil's "Porto Algre" model should be put away to where the article mentions examples. More authoritative resources about its definition and implications.

History section as well focuses too heavily on the Brazilian model. The history of participatory budgeting should first start with the formulation of the idea, where it was seen first historically before the modern times (Athens?), and why it came about. In terms of what is lacking in the article, examples other than Brazil's participatory budgeting should be researched further in depth: Seoul, South Korea, New York, Dominican Republic, France, United Kingdom... major examples and their implications, as well as their pros and cons regarding what worked and what did not in different regions (to form a comprehensive table of overall challenges and benefits of PB as an institutional tool for municipal budgeting).

A cool idea may be to have a visualization of how participatory budgeting works as some sort of a network (nodes and edges). A visual differentiation between PB and traditional municipal budgeting can also be a good idea.


Tentative References:

- International Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43337-0

- Participatory government and policy diffusion in local governments in Korea : implementation of participatory Budgeting Soonhee Kim ISBN:9791159321061, requested

- Everyone counts : could "participatory budgeting" change democracy? Josh Lerner ISBN:9780801456060 (e-book), online

- Framing citizen participation [electronic resource] ; participatory budgeting in France, Germany and the United Kingdom Anja Rocke ISBN:9781137326669, online

- Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation Graham Smith ISBN:9780521514774, Bass x checked out

Week 6: Potential Topics for the Wikipedia Article

Basic Income

- There are many parts throughout the entire text that can be generally cleaned-up... - Arguments for/against Basic Income section should be reorganized. Too messy. - Definition can be re-written...

Deliberative polling

- Difficult to find balance between subjective and objective information - Its aspects as an institutional solution for governance are not covered extensively (i.e. incentivization, pros, etc) - Despite its numerous and wide array of applications, many of the examples and their narratives are missing in the article. Adding such to the article certainly will bolster both the pros and cons as well as further examine the practicality of Fishkin's theory. - Talk page is not too active, the author is not too responsive - The writing and organization can certainly be bettered. In my opinion, the content is neither really cohesive nor consistent.

Participatory budgeting

- Not extensive (especially the criticism section) - Definition and the description of its procedure should be separated, then each written more in detail. - Mostly about participatory budgeting in Brazil...? - No pros/cons, not enough prospects as an institutional solution, not enough information of how it worked, why it did or did not work in its application - Information not extensive enough other than Brazilian PB history...

Open government

- The article is already stated by Wikipedia to have too many problems - The current text potentially conveys subjective information and is certainly missing a lot of references - I believe more can be said about the general definition of the term and examples of its application (trial & error). More comprehensive visualization, I think, is necessary to demonstrate in what ways an open government is different from traditional governments.

Week 4: Article Evaluation

Crowdsourcing

The article shares objective information about the subject and incorporates various sources for validity. It also does not deliver a tone of bias as the majority of the information is pedagogical and opinionated. The writer, I believe, has done a good job of paraphrasing the sources in an impartial style of writing. The citations are well formulated and accurate with reliable and mostly unbiased sources. However, since the term "crowdsourcing" was coined relatively recently, there does not seem to be an abundance of absolutely neutral research on the subject matter; much of crowdsourcing is utilized in the business world, and such may narrow the spectrum of research on it to particular needs.

The strength of this article is that the information provided is comprehensive, covering the birth and the history of the concept as well as many of the fields that are relevant to it. Nonetheless, its greatest weakness is that the structure of the presentation is quite dissected, which may be devitalizing the overall strength of delivery to the readers. For example, there are too many subcategories under either 'historical examples', or 'examples'. Each one is only briefly described, yet there is a lack of response to why only certain examples are included and why they may be important to the identification of the subject. Furthermore, the numerous subcategories can easily be re-organized into larger sectors and separated for a clearer presentation. If there isn't enough to say about a particular field, that information should be either removed or merged with another.

The article was a product of an assignment in Carnegie Mellon University and was a part of the Wikiproject Internet Culture. It was rated C-Class on the project's scale. There are not too many feedbacks on the Talk page, but a couple of argument was made for greater neutrality on certain paragraphs.

The way that crowdsourcing is described in this Wikipedia article is largely under the context of economics and digitization. I certainly think more can be added or expressed in terms of political theory other than 'crowdvoting' since there are resources within our class materials that already deal heavily with crowdsourcing in politics.

Overall, the article itself was relatively unimpressive compared to the more popular topics.

Week 2: Introduction

Clint Yoo, PLSC 308 Beyond Representative Government

is a student at Yale University. He is from Seoul, Korea, and is majoring in political science. He has been an international student in the United States since 5th grade and has traveled around the world to widen his horizon. He speaks Korean, English, Spanish, and un-petit-peu-French.

Clint is the veteran of the Republic of Korea Army and fulfilled his service on June 20th, 2017. He was the team leader in a special counterterror unit called Special Duty Team under the 1st Command of ROKA. The details of his service and training are heavily classified under ROK mandate and unfortunately are not for disclosure.

His greatest commitment beyond academics is his involvement in the Korea National Lacrosse Team. He has played as the starting defenseman since his second year in high school and has participated in several Asian-Pacific and World Championships. He is headed to the 2018 World Lacrosse Championships occurring in Israel, Netanya in July, 2018.

Imperative to his description is his fervor for

the Game of Thrones
.

  1. ISBN 978-3-319-43337-0
    .
  2. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  3. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  4. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  5. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  6. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  7. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  8. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  9. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  10. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  11. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  12. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  13. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  14. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  15. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  16. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  17. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  18. ^ "참여예산제". 서울특별시 시민참여예산. 서울특별시청. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  19. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  20. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June–August 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  21. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June–August 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  22. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June–August 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  23. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June–August 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  24. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June–August 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  25. ^ Highlights of Swaraj budget presented by deeputy CM SH Manish Sisodia, Aam Admi party.
  26. ^ "Aam Admi gives Swaraj budget a thumbs up", The Times of India, India Times.
  27. ^ "Swaraj". Books. Google.
  28. ^ "Goal of Swaraj". Aam Aadmi Party.
  29. ^ Dhara, Sagar. "Including People in Governance". The Hindu. The Hindu. Retrieved 16 April 2018.
  30. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  31. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  32. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  33. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  34. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  35. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  36. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  37. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  38. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  39. ISBN 978-3-319-43337-0
    .
  40. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  41. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  42. ^ Volumen zwei: Endbericht Bürgerhaushalt Europa 5 [Volume two] (PDF) (in German), DE: Bürgerhaushalt Europa.
  43. ^ "Participatory Budgeting – Working together, making a difference". Toronto Community Housing.
  44. ^ PB Hamilton, Ontario, CA.
  45. ISBN 978-0-8213-6923-4. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  46. ^ "History". The Participatory Budgeting Project.
  47. ^ 지식엔진연구소, PMG. "주민참여예산제도". Naver. PMG, 박문각. Retrieved 9 March 2018.
  48. ISBN 978-0-8213-6923-4. Retrieved 9 March 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  49. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  50. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  51. ^ "참여예산제". 서울특별시 시민참여예산. 서울특별시청. Retrieved 10 March 2018.
  52. ISBN 979-11-5932-106-1. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  53. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June-August, 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  54. ^ Keruwala, Naim (June-August, 2013). "Participatory Budgeting in India-The Pune Experiment" (PDF). The Budget Bulletin. V. National Foundation for India. Retrieved 10 March 2018. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  55. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  56. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  57. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  58. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  59. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  60. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  61. ISBN 978-1-137-32666-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help
    )
  62. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  63. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  64. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  65. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  66. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  67. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1. Retrieved 12 April 2018. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help
    )
  68. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  69. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
  70. ISBN 978-0-8213-6924-1
    . Retrieved 12 April 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:My322/sandbox&oldid=837892119"