MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2189476830

Reflections on Participatory Budgeting in New York City

2015· article· en· W2189476830 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Castillo

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œinnovation journal · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueE-Government and Public Services
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésParticipatory budgetingPublic administrationEquity (law)DeliberationCitizen journalismCorporate governanceLocal governmentDemocracyPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessPoliticsFinanceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACTIn the past two decades, participatory budgeting has arisen throughout the world, most recently taking root in municipalities across the United States. This innovation in democratic governance has garnered considerable public support as it has the potential to reinvigorate civic participation, modernize local government administration, and foster social equity in the provision of public goods and services. In this essay, I posit that the success of participatory budgeting in the United States will depend heavily on the ability of public officials and administrators to tailor the implementation of this process to the contextual realities facing American cities, particularly with regards to patterns of public participation. Only by being cognizant of such patterns and adapting programs to these realities can public officials and administrators ensure that participatory budgeting accomplishes its original laudable goals, especially with regards to the advancement of social equity.Key Words: public participation, deliberative democracy, civic engagement, collaborative governance, social equity, innovationIntroductionIn the past two decades, participatory budgeting, a tool aimed at facilitating public participation and deliberation in the budgetary process, has arisen, taking root in the governments of various nations and most recently across cities in the United States. This innovation in democratic governance has garnered considerable public support where it has been implemented, as it has the potential to deliver many benefits to local governments. For instance, participatory budgeting has the potential to reinvigorate civic participation, modernize local government administration, and foster social equity in the provision of public goods and services (Shah, 2007; Wampler and Hartz-karp, 2012; Wampler, 2012). Indeed, participatory budgeting has the potential to address and alleviate some of the more pressing problems in democracy facing local governments today.Nevertheless, this road to progress in democratic governance needs to be taken carefully. Both theoretical and empirical research support the utilization of participatory budgeting, showing that the process can indeed act as a governance tool that delivers on the aforementioned promises with regards to governance improvements. But research findings also suggest that the ability to actualize these promises when utilizing this process in the United States will depend on the administrative ability to tailor the implementation of participatory budgeting to the contextual realities facing the localities where the process is implemented. Recognizing theses contexts and adapting participatory budgeting programs and their related support services to these contexts is critical, lest this new participatory governance approach end in working against the actualization of the original and laudable goals of participatory budgeting as set forth in its original implementation in Porto Alegre, Brazil.Experiencing Participatory BudgetingAs a resident of Brooklyn, NY, I have been able to observe the development of participatory budgeting from both a theoretical and practical perspective. My firsthand experience with participatory budgeting began in the summer of 2012, the second year when this process was implemented in selected neighborhoods across New York City. As an academic, I have written about and studied public participation in government; therefore, my interest was already piqued with regards to the subject matter when I learned about the start of a pilot project in participatory budgeting in New York City. Participatory budgeting was introduced in New York City in 2011, when the Participatory Budgeting Project, a nonprofit group devoted to expanding the use of this participatory governance approach, worked with New York City Council members to initiate a pilot project in four city council districts. While participatory budgeting was not available in the council district where I resided in 2011, by 2012, I had moved into Park Slope, Brooklyn, one of the council districts where participatory budgeting had been initiated in 2011 and was being reintroduced in 2012. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Étude de cas · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,339
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,674

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,017
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0330,024
Communication savante0,0160,009
Science ouverte0,0030,016
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,325
Tête enseignante GPT0,430
Écart entre enseignants0,105 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeÉtude de cas
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œinnovation journalMême sujetE-Government and Public ServicesTravaux en français237 207