ECPR Graduate Student Conference

Innsbruck, 3-5 July 2014

Participatory public policy making: ignored by applied concepts of democracy?

presented by

Simona Zimmermann

Section S23: Public Policy

Panel P081: Public Policy Making on Subnational Level: What Actors and Mechanisms

should be considered?

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 2 -

Introduction

Actual concepts of democracy are focusing on the Nation State and thus on the institutions on

the national level. But also on the subnational level there is policy making happening that

should follow democratic rules in states that call themselves democracies. Logically, a

democratic state needs to be working democratically in all its aspects. This paper will focus

on the capacity of analytical tools in the social sciences to account for participatory policy

making by the example of a local institution in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Recently, some researchers are analysing democratic innovations: institutions set up in

established democracies (Western Europe and North America) in order to improve the

regimes’ legitimacy (f.e. Geißel 2008; Goodin 2008; Goldfank 2011). Many of those

institutions are realising participatory principles in different forms. The WZB

(Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin) identified three groups of innovative institutions: deliberative,

participatory and Co-Governance Institutions (Geißel 2008: 229), the second and the third one

mainly concerning local institutions. In other parts of the world participatory institutions

considered innovative here (especially Co-Governance) are not imposed top-down in order to

save the established order; they grew into the political system by a bottom-up process. This

can be observed in Brazil for example, where left wing social movements experienced with

deliberative participatory decision making procedures they integrated on different levels in the

political system once they became institutionalized governing parties. But also here many of

those institutions work on a local level (Wampler/ Avritzer 2004: 295-299; Santos/ Avritzer:

2005: lx; Glória Gohn 2010: 243). Especially the institution of participatory budgeting gets a

great deal of attention by researchers and politicians (cf. Souza 2001; Sintomer et al. 2007,

2010).

There is the claim in political research of a deficit in dominant democracy theories when it

comes to accounting for the evolutions of democracies that are not following the European

Model. (Smith 2001; Avritzer 2002; Santos/Avritzer 2005; Pogrebinschi 2013). Often those

claims concern the Latin American development and come from authors concerned with this

region. Leonardo Avritzer, Brazilian researcher, for example states: “a new way of doing

politics is being practiced, but remains theoretically unaccounted for” (Avritzer 2009: 4).

Following this idea, this paper draws up the thesis that instruments of democratic

measurement cannot account for participatory public policy making because of a

representative bias in their conceptual basis. This is relevant because theoretical concepts of

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 3 -

democracy have normative power (cf. Giannone 2010). They are the base for definitions of

democracy that are used by governments and international organizations to define a country’s

level of democracy (Coppedge/Garring et al. 2011: 248; Landman 2007: 17). Thus, tools for

measuring democracy have consequences for countries that depend on other countries

financial aid as this aid is usually conditioned on the democratic functioning of institutions

and their organization conforming to the dominant definition of democracy. Consequently, an

applied concept of democracy is never neutral, even if it belongs to the group of positivist

theories. A representative bias in common democracy concepts would mean, that bottom-up

grown deliberative-participatory institutions are not considered when the democratic quality

of a country is judged. In exploring this thesis, we will see that there are political theories

which would call those institutions highly democratic though.

In a first step, the way participation is accounted for in political theory will be analysed. We

will compare the commonly applied definitions of democratic participation with the way it is

realized in innovative participatory institutions. For the group of Co-Governance Institutions

there cannot be found a fitting theoretical concept of participation. In order to fill this gap, we

will have a close look on the participatory city budget of Belo Horizonte and draw up a

possible definition of participation in Co-Governance Institutions by referring, among others,

to Thamy Pogrebinschi’s (2013) idea of pragmatic democracy.

This catalogue of participation types will allow us undertaking an examination of the way

participation is accounted for by recent democracy measurement tools. This will lead us to the

affirmation that current concepts of democracy have a participatory deficit concerning

deliberative types of participation, especially when it comes to a combination of deliberation

and direct decision making by citizens. This narrows the possibilities of democratization

strategies to take into consideration participatory institutions and to set this type of public

policy making in a bigger context. In the case of Brazil, this would mean to ignore “naturally

grown” democratic institutions of deliberative direct participation that bear a great democratic

potential.

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 4 -

1. Participation in democratic Theory

In reviewing literature on participation research (van Deth 2003; Verba/ Nie et al. 1978; Delli

Carpini/ Cook et al. 2004; Chambers 2003; Altman 2013) one can identify three commonly

applied definitions of Participation (see table 1). This compilation is of course not meant to be

a final collection of participation definitions, but a selection that is exemplary for three types

of participation which usually are used in research on democracy.

According to the original meaning of democracy (rule by the people) one can consider

participation to be the backbone of this type of government, as it creates the link between

sovereign and people (cf. Parry/ Moyser 1994: 44; Preuß 2003: 259; Niesen 2007: 332;

Morlino 2012:1). Following the logic of two big traditions of democratic theory, we can make

up two broad groups of participation types that are characteristic for the presumed link of

people and sovereign by the respective theory groups: one theory tradition is characterized by

a representative link between people and sovereign (liberal tradition) and the other one by an

imminent link (communitarian tradition) (c.f. Held’s (1987) distinction of democracy theories

according to their representation of political participation).

Table 1: Empirical definitions of political participation

Empirical definitions of political participation

Characteristics Examples

Indirect participation (van

Deth)

Voluntary Vote,

Campaigning,

Demonstrations,

Contact MPs,

act in organizations,

conscious consumption

an active action

Performed by citizens

In relation to government and

politics

Intention to influence decisions or

decision makers

Direct participation (Altman) Vote or decide about preferences Referendum (after citizen

initiative) At the ballot box

Deliberative participation (Delli

Carpini et al.)

Act of speech (deliberation) Informal discussion

groups, formal institutions

(e.g. town hall meetings,

round tables)

Between citizens

Formation of opinion/ Integration

About a topic of public interest

Justification of an option for action

Source: Own representation according to Delli Carpini et al. 2003, van Deth 2003, Altman 2013

The three exemplary empirical definitions collected in table 1 can easily be allocated to two of

the three groups of innovative participatory institutions as it is this kind of participation that is

happening there and is defining the group’s borders. For Co-Governance Institutions though,

it is not that easy. But if we want to see, how participation is accounted for in concepts of

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 5 -

democracy, and if these concepts can account for participatory institutions, we need to know

how participation is happening in Co-Governance institutions as well. Consequently, we need

to find out, what kind of participation is happening in Co-Governance institutions. Therefore,

we will describe the single elements of one exemplary Co-Governance institution with

elements from different democracy theories’ participation concept.

Table 2: Overview concepts of participation and innovative participative institutions

Institution Type Theory tradition

representative imminent

Direct participation - direct

Deliberative

procedures

deliberative -

Co-Governance deliberative? direct?

Source: Own representation

A popular example for a Co-Governance institution is the participatory city budget. Here,

citizens can decide over the use of a part of the city budget in a process of deliberation and

votes on different administrative levels. It was implemented for the first time in Porto Alegre

(Brazil) in 1989 and since has been spreading all over the country and beyond (Souza 2001:

165f). Recently, Sintomer et al. (2007, 2010) are observing a process they call “learning from

the South” (Sintomer et al 2010): increasingly the institution of participatory budgeting has

been adapted in Europe as an innovative institution.

This paper will have a closer look on the functioning of Belo Horizonte’s participatory

budget, which is a well working example of this type of institution. It was established in 1993

(Woody/ Murray 2007: 22f). We compare the single steps that are undertaken in one cycle of

decision making (2 years)1 to the concept of participation in relevant democratic theories

2 (see

table 4). This leads us to the insight that a successful participatory budgeting process is

combining elements of all possible types of participation. The characteristic feature though,

consists of the combination of deliberative elements with elements of direct participation:

deliberatively made decisions are directly transported into the political system and their

realization is monitored by delegates who were involved in the decision making process.

1 This analysis is based on the official information documents of Belo Horizonte’s city administration (Secretaria

Municipal Adjunta de Planejamento e Gestão - Gerência do Orҫamento Participativo), conversations with

administration staff and participating citizens. 2 These theories were selected very carefully following thoughts of David Held’s Models of Democracy

according to the linkage between the people and the sovereign (1987:4), Morlino’s idea on evaluating

democratic quality by normative theory (2012: 25) and Lembcke et al.’s scheme of normative theories (2012:

24).

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 6 -

Considering Thamy Pogrebinschi’s (2013) ideas of Brazil as a pragmatic democracy, we will

call this kind of participation pragmatic participation for the moment.

However, the evaluation of democratic quality is claimed to be mostly based on Dahl’s liberal

concept of polyarchy (Munck/ Verkhuilen 2002: 9). Robert E. Dahl developed this definition

of democracy according to the European process of Nation State building (Dahl 1989: chapter

15). This supports the claim that evolutions diverging from this model risk to be neglected by

analysis. So far, the claim of a participatory deficit of political science’s analytical tools could

be supported. In a next step, the practical dimension of this deficit will be examined.

Therefore, the second chapter will examine in what respect the three types of participation -

direct, deliberative, pragmatic - are part of the democracy concepts applied in democracy-

measurement tools. How much attention does participatory public policy making get?

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 7 -

Table 3: Participation according to different Theories

Relation between

sovereign and

people

Elements of representative

participation…

Elements of imminent

participation…

… at political decision making

Participative (Barber)

community =

sovereign

Large concept of participation

including civil disobedience,

symbolic violence;

Has an instrumental function:

selection, control, and

programming of the political

elite;

Production of a common will

Political acts are not reduced to

law-making: participation

includes deliberation in

institutions close to everyday

life about preferences, decisions

(e.g. in neighbourhood

assemblies);

Exchange between all members

of the community about

desirable generally binding

rules

Deliberative

(Dryzek)

Lifeworld –

administrative

system

--- Quality of the decision is

emphasised;

Mediation between state and

society;

Concrete problem- solving by

exchanging ideas;

Building of identities; empathy;

integration

Associative

(Arendt)

Community = civil

society - sovereign

Associations of citizens

compete for public;

Spontaneous participation;

institutionalized procedures of

representative participation;

freedoms; public struggle for

constitutional basic principles

---

Pragmatism

(Dewey)

community =

sovereign

Possible, depending on

institution

Exchange between

(administrative) expertise and

the public sphere; deliberative

adaption of institutions to the

context

Liberalism Community /

Sovereign

Formation of opinions;

Expression of opinions;

Freedoms; election of

representatives

-

Source: own representation according to Barber 1984, Arendt 1992, 2000, Dewey 1996 (1927), Dryzek 1990,

2000, Weber 2012, Bluhm/Malowitz 2012, Landwehr 2012, Pogrebinschi 2013, Selk/ Jörke 2012, Holthaus/

Noetzel 2012

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 8 -

Table 4: participative elements of the participatory budgeting process in Belo Horizonte

compared with participatory elements of selected democratic theories

Participatory Budget in Belo Horizonte Concept of participation

Administration Community Theoretical Elements Theoretical

approach

Opening

event

Publication of

available resources;

report about previous

projects

Information; assembly

of residents,

Comforça,

representatives,

associations, civil

servants

Information;

Exchange between

experts and citizens

(top-down); association

of citizens

Deliberation

Associative

1st round

neighbourho

ods

1. distribution of

priority forms;

information about

available budget to be

decided on

2. commentaries on

propositions handed-in

(priority forms)

1. proposition of

projects, discussion

about their priority,

determination of

priority list (priority

forms)

2. Revision of

annotated forms

Deliberation in

institutions close to

everyday life; concrete

problem-solving by

exchanging ideas;

competition for public;

exchange experts-

citizens;

Participative

Deliberative

Associative

Pragmatism

2nd

round

sub-regions

Drawing up and

distribution of an

information sheet

containing a cost

estimate for the 25

selected projects

1. pre-selection of 25

project proposals

2. election of

delegates for the

regional forum

Deliberation in

institutions close to

everday life; concrete

problem-solving by

exchanging ideas;

competition for public;

exchange experts-

citizens; electing

representatives

Participative

Deliberative

Associative

Pragmatism

Liberalism

Caravan of

Priorities

Organisation Delegates; in-site

information about the

25 projects proposals‘

contextual

circumstances

Decision’s quality;

empathy

Deliberative

3rd

round

regions

Organisation 1. discussion and

selection of 14

projects for the region

2. election of

delegates for the

Comforça

Deliberation in

institutions close to

everday life; concrete

problem-solving by

exchanging ideas;

competition for public;

election of

representatives

Participative

Deliberative

Associative

Liberalism

Town Hall

Meeting

Mayor obtains „book

of projects“

Comforça hands over

the „book of projects“

containing all selected

projects

exchange experts-

citizens (bottom-up);

handing over of citizen

decisions to

administration

Pragmatism

Participative

Implementati

on

Realisation of projects Surveillance of

realisation

Control via

representatives;

exchange experts-

citizens

Liberalism

Pragmatism

Source: Own representation based on democratic theory approaches (see table 3) and documents by the

Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 9 -

2. Application of democratic concepts in democracy measurement

In order to clarify the thesis that applied concepts of democracy neglect participation, two

measurement instruments evaluating democracies’ quality have been examined: the

Democracy Barometer and Varieties of Democracy. They have been chosen for this analysis

although are not the most commonly used tools (yet) for the following reasons.

First, these are very recent instruments, Varieties of Democracy still being in its first round of

data collection, and thus close to actual discussions about democracy measurement. This

discussion actually incudes the question on how participation should be treated. Some authors

defend the opinion that it is not accounted for sufficiently (e.g. Munck/Vekhuilen 2002: 11;

Morlino 2012: 25, 199; Altman 2013: 617f). One of them, David Altman, is part of the

Varieties of Democracy project. Thus, we can expect that here participation is considered in a

broad manner. Second, both, Varieties of Democracy and Democracy Barometer, aim at a

precise and detailed analysis of democratic systems. Their explicit objective is to find the

differences between democratic regimes instead of just distinguishing them from autocracies

(Bühlmann/Merkel et al. 2012: 116; Coppedge/Gerring et al. 2012: 19). Consequently, we can

assume a great diversity of democratic concepts included in the conceptual base of those

instruments. If participation is considered broadly by any measurement tool, it is most likely

one of those two. Third, they both respect the qualitative standards defined by Munck and

Verkhuilen (2002). On the base of theoretical reflections, the abstract concept of democracy is

translated into a concrete operationalization in a transparent and systematic way (see table 5).

This means those instruments are probably of high measuring quality and have been

constructed in a clear and transparent way which allows examining the different levels of their

democracy concept for the appearance of participatory elements. This way, the thesis of a

participatory deficit in social science’s analytical tools can be clarified.

The documents used for this analysis are the projects publications, especially their code

books. The analysis only incudes those elements of the question-batteries that are relevant

according the theoretical reflections made in the first chapter of this paper (see grey

background in table 5). Those have been classified in tables according to their level of

concreteness. This overview allows seeing if abstract elements really were translated into

concrete indicators which finally serve to collect the information. This procedure leads us to

the following result (see overview in table 6).

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 10 -

Table 5: structure of indices « Democracy Barometer » and « Varieties of Democracy »

Democracy-Barometer Varieties of Democracy

abstract concept Democracy

First level principles models

First level attributes

Liberty

Control

Equality

Electoral democracy

Liberal democracy

Majoritarian democracy

Consensual democracy

Participatory democracy

Deliberative democracy

Egalitarian democracy

First levelbis

Functions1 :

Public Space

Transparency

Participation

-

Second level component component

Third level subcomponent subcomponent

Fourth level indicator indicator

1 : only relevant functions are represented here

Grey background : analysed attributes ; details of level 2-4 are not represented for reasons of clarity and space

Source : own representation after Bühlmann/Merkel et al. 2012; Coppedge/Lindberg et al. 2013

On the different levels of the two instruments, participation is considered in three aspects: as a

mere theoretical concept, as an institutionalized principle and their quality (effectiveness).

Direct participation is taken into account by the analysed measurement instruments in almost

all the possible aspects. Therefore both, Varieties of Democracy and Democracy Barometer,

are able to account for the group of direct participative institutions. Especially referendums

are considered by the indices, particularly detailed in the case of the Varieties of Democracy

project which includes a large amount of indicators concerning this type of institution and its

effectiveness. Deliberative participation, however, is just partly taken into account. Only one

of the instruments, Varieties of Democracy, is including questions concerning deliberation.

Here, deliberation is considered on an elite level and understood as being an exchange

between the media or highly organized interests. And those questions dealing with

deliberation are formulated in a way that does not allow revealing the presence of deliberative

structures that have an institutional character. So, deliberation is not including all kinds of

citizens and is not considered in an institutionalized form. Pragmatic participation (direct-

deliberative) is not included in no way in none of the instruments.

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 11 -

This means that there is a participatory deficit in the sense that institutions realizing a

deliberative or pragmatic concept of participation cannot be accounted for by democracy

measuring instruments. The reason for this is insufficient consideration of different

participation concepts and their respective institutionalized forms by the conceptual base of

democracy indices. In the same time, institutions realising the concept of direct participation

have a real chance to find consideration. This considerably relativizes the thesis drawn up in

the beginning of the paper. As the instruments used in this analysis aim at a detailed

examination of democracy and follow this aim consequently, it is not likely that any other

instrument with less ambitious goals will use larger concepts of democracy as a working base.

Therefore, we can consider the participatory deficit stated here being valid for other applied

concepts of democracy as well.

Table 8: Summary of results- presence of participation concepts in two democracy indices

Democracy Barometer Varieties of Democracy

the concept is present in form of …

concept institution effectiveness concept institution effectiveness

Indirect participation

Direct participation

directe

Deliberative

participation [ ]

Pragmatic

participation (dir.-

delib.)

Source:own representation

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 12 -

Conclusion

This paper presented a clarification of the thesis that commonly applied democracy concepts

dispose of a participatory deficit. An analysis of democracy measurement instruments and

their conceptual basis showed that this is true for deliberative and pragmatic participation.

The notion of “pragmatic participation” (following Pogrebinschi 2013) was introduced in the

first chapter to fill the gap of a designation of the participation type happening in Co-

Governance institutions. However, institutions of direct participation are taken into

consideration. The thesis could thus be made more precise. The focus of attention when

analysing participatory public policy making should thus be on deliberative and pragmatic

aspects of participation in order to minimize the risk of overlooking important elements. This

is especially important when dealing with the democratic quality of regimes or institutions.

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 13 -

Literature

Altman, David (2013): Bringing direct democracy back in: toward a three-dimensional

measure of democracy. In: Democratization, 20. 4, 615–641

Arendt, Hanna (1992(1958)): Vita Activa oder vom Tätigen Leben. 7. Auflage München:

Piper.

Arendt, Hanna (2000 (1970)): Macht und Gewalt. In: Ursula Ludz (Ed.):In der Gegenwart.

Übungen im politischen Denken 2. München:Piper, 145-208

Avritzer, Leonardo (2002): Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton, N.J:

Princeton University Press.

Avritzer, Leonardo (2009): Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil. Washington D.C/

Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Barber, Benjamin (1984): Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New

Age.Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

Bluhm, Harald/Malowitz, Karsten (2012): Integration durch Konflikt. Zum Programm

zivilgesellschaftlicher Demokratie. In: Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary

S. (Ed.): Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Band 1: Normative Demokratietheorien.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 189–222.

Bühlmann, Marc/Merkel, Wolfgang/Müller, Lisa/Giebler, Heiko/Weßels, Bernhard (2012):

Demokratiebarometer: ein neues Instrument zur Messung von Demokratiequalität. In:

Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 6, 115–159.

Chambers, Simone (2003): Deliberative Democratic Theory. In: Annual Review of Political

Science, 6. 1, 307–326.

Coppedge, Micheal/Gerring, John/et.al (2011): Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: a

new approach. In: Perspective on Politics, Vol 9. No 2, 247–267.

Coppedge, Micheal/Gerring, John/Lindberg, Staffan I. (2012): Varieties of Democracies,

Project Description. In: https://v-

dem.net/DemoComp/en/faq/V_DemProjDescrv1_022Oct2012.pdf. Consulté:

10.08.2012.

Coppedge, Michael/Lindberg, Staffan I./Gerring, John/Teorell, Jan/the University of Notre

Dame Center for Research Computing/the University of Gothenburg Department of

Political Science/the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies (2013): V-Dem

Taxonomy New. In:https://v-dem.net/DemoComp/visualizations/v-

demtaxonomy.zip/view. Consulté: 06.11.2013.

Delli Carpini, Michael X./Cook, Fay Lomax/Jacobs, Lawrence R. (2004): Public

Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the

Empirical Literature. In: Annual Review of Political Science, 7. 1, 315–344.

Dewey, John(1996 (1927)):Die Öffentlichkeit und ihre Probleme. Bodenheim: Philo.

Dryzek, John S. (1990): Discursive Democracy. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press.

Dryzek, John S. (2000): Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford/ New York: Oxford

University Press.

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 14 -

Geißel, Brigitte (2008): Zur Evaluation demokratischer Innovation - die lokale Ebene. In:

Heinelt, Hubert/Vetter, Angelika (Ed.): Lokale Politikforschung heute. Wiesbaden: VS

Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 227–248.

Giannone, Diego (2010): Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of

Democracy: The Freedom House Case. In: Democratization, 17, 68–97.

Glória Gohn/Maria da (2010): Interessengruppen, soziale Bewegungen und Akteure der

Zivilgesellschaft. In: Costa, Sérgio/Kohlhepp, Gerd/Nitschack, Horst/Sangmeister,

Hartmut (Ed.): Brasilien heute. Geographischer Raum, Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur.

Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag, 235–244.

Goodin/Robert E. (2008): Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the

deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldfrank, Benjamin (2011): Deepening local democracy in Latin America. University Park,

PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Held, David (1987): Models of Democracy.Cambridge/ Oxford: Polity Press and Basil

Blackwell.

Holthaus, Leonie/Noetzel, Thomas (2012): Demokratischer Pluralismus versus despotische

Herrschaft. In: Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary S. (Ed.): Zeitgenössische

Demokratietheorie. Band 1: Normative Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für

Sozialwissenschaften, 33–62.

Landman, Todd (2007): Developing Democracy: Concepts, Measures, and Empirical

Relationships. In: http://www.idea.int/resources/analysis/loader.cfm?

csmodule=security/getfile&pageid=26057. Consulté: 14.04.2013.

Landwehr, Claudia (2012): Demokratische Legimtimation durch rationale Kommunikation.

Theorien deliberativer Demokratie. In: Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary

S. (Ed.): Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Band 1: Normative Demokratietheorien.

Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 355–385.

Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary S. (2012): Zwischen Konkurrenz und

Konvergenz. Eine Einführung in die normative Demokratietheorie. In: Lembcke, Oliver

W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary S. (Ed.): Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Band 1:

Normative Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 9–32.

Morlino, Leonardo (2012): Changes for Democracy. Actors, Structures, Processes.New York:

Oxford University Press.

Munck, Gerardo L./Verkuilen, Jay (2002): Conceptualizing and measuring democracy.

Evaluating Alternative Indices. In: Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 35, No.1, 5–34.

Niesen, Peter (2007): Volkssouveränität. Dans: Fuchs, Dieter/Roller, Edeltraud (Ed.): Lexikon

Politik. Hundert Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun., 330–332.

Parry, Geraint/Moyser, George (1994): More Participation, More Democracy? In: Beetham,

David (Ed.): Defining and Measuring Democracy. London/Thousand Oaks/ New Delhi:

Sage Publications, 44–62.

Pogrebinschi, Thamy (2013a): Die pragmatische Wende der Demokratie. In Lateinamerika

werden Repräsentation und Partizipation miteinander verbunden. In: WZB Mitteilungen.

113, März 2013, 35–39.

Simona Zimmermann

S23 P081

- 15 -

Preuß, Ulrich K. (2003): Die Bedeutung kognitiver und moralischer Lernfähigkeit für die

Demokratie. In: Offe, Claus (Ed.): Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Frankfurt; New

York: Campus Verlag, 259–280.

Secretaria Municipal Adjunta de Planejamento e Gestão - Gerênciado Orҫamento

Participativo(2013): Plano Regional de Empreendimentos. Orҫamento Participativo

2013/2014. Orҫamento Participativo Digital 2011.Belo Horizonte: Prefeitura Belo

Horizonte.

Secretaria Municipal Adjunta de Planejamento e Gestão - Gerênciado Orҫamento

Participativo (2012): Transformar BH é uma escolha sua. Orçamento Participativo

2013/2014. Metodologia e Diretrizes. Belo Horizonte: Prefeitura Belo Horizonte.

Selk, Veith/Jörke, Dirk (2012): Der Vorrang der Demokratie. Die pragmatische

Demokratietheorie von John Dewey und Richard Rorty. In: Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi,

Claudia/Schaal, Gary S. (Ed.): Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Band 1: Normative

Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 255–284.

Sintomer, Yves/Herzberg, Carsten/Röcke, Anja (2007): From Porto Alegre to Europe:

Potentials and Limitations of Participatory Budgeting. In:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237450495_From_Porto_Alegre_to_Europe_Pot

entials_and_Limitations_of_Participatory_Budgeting_1. Consulté:14.04.2013.

Sintomer, Yves/Herzberg, Carsten/Allegretti, Giovanni/Röcke, Anja (2010): Learning from

the South: Participatory Budgeting Worldwide – an Invitation to Global Cooperation.

Bonn: GIZ.

Smith, Graham (2009): Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen

Participation. Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge University Press.

Souza, Celina (2001): Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in

building democratic institutions. In: Environment and Urbanization, 13. 1, 159–184.

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa/Avritzer, Leonardo (2005): Introduction: Opening up the Canon

of Democracy. In: Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (Ed.): Democratizing Democracy.

Beyond the Liberal Democratic Canon.London/ New York: Verso, xxxiv–lxxiv.

van Deth, Jan W. (2003): Vergleichende politische Partizipationsforschung. In: Berg-

Schlosser, Dirk/Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand (Ed.): Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft,

Ein einführendes Studienhandbuch. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften,

167–188.

Verba, Sidney/Nie, Norman H./Kim, Jae-on (1978): Participation and Political Equality.

Chicago/ London: The University of Chicago Press.

Wampler, Brian/Avritzer, Leonardo (2004): Participatory Publics: Civil Society and New

Institutions in Democratic Brazil. In: Comparative Politics, Vol 36, No.3, 291–312.

Weber, Florian (2012): Selbstbestimmung durch Teilhabe. Theorie der partizipativen

Demokratie. In: Lembcke, Oliver W./Ritzi, Claudia/Schaal, Gary S. (Ed.):

Zeitgenössische Demokratietheorie. Band 1: Normative Demokratietheorien. Wiesbaden:

VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 223–254.

Woody, Terence/Murray, Warwick E. (2007): Participatory Democracy in Brazil and Local

Geographies: Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte Compared. In: European Review of

Latin American and Caribbean Studies. 83, 19–41.