Participatory Budgeting in the EAEU Countries: Regulatory Framework and Practical Experience
https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-2929-2024-04-87-96
EDN: UGYIZR
Abstract
Aim. The article defines the common features and specifics of the policy and practical experience of participatory budgeting in five post-Soviet member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan).
Tasks. The assessment of the current situation in these countries by international organizations is used.
The effectiveness of the legal framework for open budget and participatory budgeting in each analyzed country is revealed. Participatory budgeting models specific to the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union are analyzed.
Methods. First of all, we analyze the legislation and strategic documents, as well as the responsible bodies. Secondly, we provide an assessment of the practice of the EAEU countries by international organizations. Thirdly, we analyze the participatory budgeting models specific to the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. Finally, we draw conclusions on similar problems in the EAEU countries
Results. It was revealed that the model of convergence democracy is more typical for Russia and Kazakhstan, multilateral participation is more or less specific for Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, participatory modernization is suitable for Belarus. Moreover, we see that there is no model of participatory budgeting that is specific to all EAEU countries.
Conclusions. It can be concluded that the EAEU countries differ significantly in their participatory budgeting policies and practices, as well as in the ratings of international organizations. At the same time, a number of common points are noted.
About the Author
R. V. Bolgov
St. Petersburg State University; ITMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Radomir V. Bolgov, Associate Professor of the World Politics Department of St. Petersburg State University; Senior Researcher of e-Governance Center at ITMO University, PhD in Political Sciences
Saint Petersburg
References
1. Allegretti G., Rocke A., Sintomer Y., Herzberg C. Transnational Models of Citizen Participation: The Case of Participatory Budgeting // Journal of Public Deliberation. 2012, Vol. 8. No. 2. DOI: 10.16997/jdd.141
2. Andreula N., Chong A., Guillen J. Institutional Quality and Fiscal Transparency. IDB Working Paper Series (IDB-WP-125). Washington, DC, 2009. 29 p.
3. Bastida F., Benito B. Central Government Budget Practices and Transparency: An International Comparison // Public Administration. 2007. No. 85 (3). P. 667–716. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00664.x
4. Bertot J. C., Jaeger P. T., Grimes J. M. Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-corruption Tools for Societies // Government Information Quarterly. 2010. No. 27. P. 264–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
5. Beuermann D., Amelina M. Does Participatory Budgeting Improve Decentralized Public Service Delivery? Experimental Evidence from Rural Russia // Economics of Governance. 2018. Vol. 19. No. 4. P. 339–379. DOI: 10.1007/s10101-018-0214-3
6. Bolgov R., Ermolina M., Vasilyeva N. Open Budget Effects for Urban Development: Russia’s Cases // ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2016. 3rd International Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, EGOSE 2016. P. 184–188.
7. Bunkov A., Bolgov R., Chugunov A. Web 2.0 in Russian Open Government // Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM13). 2013. P. 173–183.
8. Campbell M., Escobar O., Fenton C., Craig P. The Impact of Participatory Budgeting on Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review of Evaluations // BMC Public Health. 2018. Vol. 18. No. 1. P. 822. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5735-8
9. Cohen N. The Power of Expertise? Politician-Bureaucrat Interactions, National Budget Transparency and the Israeli Health Care Policy // Policy Studies. 2013. Vol. 34. No. 5–6. P. 638–654. DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2013.804174
10. Davidson M. Participatory Budgeting, Austerity and Institutions of Democracy: The Case of Vallejo, California // City. 2018. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 551–567. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2018.1507107
11. Demediuk P., So lli R., Adolfsson P. People Plan Their Park: Voice and Choice through Participatory Budgeting // International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 2012. Vol. 6. No. 5. P. 185–198. DOI: 10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v06i05/52080
12. Foelscher A. Participatory Budgeting in Central and Eastern Europe // Anwar Shah (ed.), Participatory Budgeting. Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2007. P. 127–155.
13. Friess D., Porten-Chee P. What Do Participants Take Away from Local eParticipation?: Analyzing the Success of Local eParticipation Initiatives from a Democratic Citizens’ Perspective // Analyse und Kritik, 2018. Vol. 40. No. 1. P. 1–29. DOI: 10.1515/auk-2018-0001
14. Golubev V., Filatova O., Balabanova S., Ibragimov I. Open Government Data as a Tool for Cooperation between People and Government: A Case Study of Open Data and e-Governance Resources in the Eurasian Economic Union // Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet and Modern Society, IMS 2017. P. 195–199. DOI: 10.1145/3143699.3143702
15. Harrison T. M., Sayogo D. S. Open Budgets and Open Government: Beyond Disclosure in Pursuit of Transparency, Participation and Accountability // dg.o’13: Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 2013. P. 235–244. DOI: 10.1145/2479724.2479757
16. Hu B., Mendoza R. U. Public Health Spending, Governance and Child Health Outcomes: Revisiting the Links // Journal of Human Development and Capabilities. 2013. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 285–311. DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2013.765392
17. Ivanov O. Open Municipal Budget of Khanty-Ugra // Finances. 2012. No. 12. P. 77–80.
18. Khagram S., de Renzio P., Fung A. Overview and Synthesis: The Political Economy of Fiscal Transparency, Participation, and Accountability around the World. 2012. URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2012/openbudgets/openbudgets_chapter.pdf (accessed: 22.09.2023).
19. Khodachek I., Timoshenko K. Russian Central Government Budgeting and Public Sector Reform Discourses: Paradigms, Hybrids, and a “Third Way” // International Journal of Public Administration. 2018. Vol. 41. No. 5–6. P. 460–477.
20. Kolstad I., Wiig A. Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries? // World Development. 2009. No. 37 (3). P. 521–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.07.002
21. Lagutina M. Eurasian Economic Union Foundation: Issues of Global Regionalization // Eurasia Border Review. 2014. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 102.
22. Lindgren T., Ekenberg L., Nouri J. [et al.] Open Government Ideologies in Post-soviet Countries // International Journal of Electronic Governance. 2016. No. 8 (3). P. 256–272. URL: https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/BorderStudies/en/publications/review/data/ebr51/V5_N1_06Lagutina2.pdf
23. Luchmann L. H. H. Participatory Budgeting and Democratic Innovation: Some Analytical Variables // Public Administration and Information Technology. 2017. Vol. 25. P. 63–78. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54142-6_5
24. Malfliet K., Verpoest L., Vinokurov E. The CIS, the EU and Russia. The Challenges of Integration. Palgrave Macmillan, N.Y., 2007.
25. Miller S. A., Hildreth R. W., Stewart L. M. The Modes of Participation: A Revised Frame for Identifying and Analyzing Participatory Budgeting Practices // Administration and Society. 2019. Vol. 51. No. 8. P. 1254–1281. DOI: 10.1177/0095399717718325
26. Parkhimovich O., Vlasov V., Mouromtsev D. Ontology Development of Open Government Data on Example of St. Petersburg Budget Expenditures // Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics. 2012. No. 6 (82). P. 141–146.
27. Saguin K. Why the Poor Do not Benefit from Community-Driven Development: Lessons from Participatory Budgeting // World Development, 2018. Vol. 112. P. 220–232. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.009
28. Scherer S., Wimmer M. Reference Process Model for Participatory Budgeting in Germany // 4th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart2012. Proceedings, 2012. P. 97–111. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33250-0_9
29. Seifert J., Carlitz R., Mondo E. The Open Budget Index (OBI) as a Comparative Statistical Tool // Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2013. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 87–101. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2012.748586
30. Styrin E., Dmitrieva N., Zhulin A. Openness Evaluation Framework for Public Agencies // Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ICEGOV. 2013. P. 370–371. DOI: 10.1145/2591888.2591964
31. Turgel I. D. Formation of the “the Open Budget” in the Russian Federation: Long-term Plans and First Results // Management Issues. 2014. No. 3. P. 22–30. EDN: SMLTEZ
32. Wehner J., De Renzio P. Citizens, Legislators, and Executive Disclosure: The Political Determinants of Fiscal Transparency // World Development. 2013. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 96–108. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.06.005
33. Williams A. A Global Index of Information and Political Transparency. Discussion paper 14.07. Business School, University of Western Australia, 2014. 52 p. URL: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:uwa:wpaper:14-07
Review
For citations:
Bolgov R.V. Participatory Budgeting in the EAEU Countries: Regulatory Framework and Practical Experience. EURASIAN INTEGRATION: economics, law, politics. 2024;18(4):87-96. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-2929-2024-04-87-96. EDN: UGYIZR
Views:
168
Email this article 
