Participatory Democracy, Decentralization and Local Governance: the<scp>M</scp>ontreal Participatory Budget in the light of ‘Empowered Participatory Governance’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The intent of this article is to reflect on the notion of empowered participatory governance in order to gain a better understanding of the institutional contexts and parameters that encourage a more participative democracy, and thereby bring to light the political mechanisms that contribute to broadening the decision‐making process. The example we consider is the M ontreal P articipative B udget ( PB ). We focus on the impact of decentralization, more specifically on the form this took as the M ontreal PB was being elaborated. We examine how much decentralization circumscribes the PB process. The M ontreal P articipative B udget provides an illustration of the emergence of a participative level in a political context that is, on the whole, hostile to participatory decision making. We suggest that the PB in this context benefits from a new window of opportunity. The chosen example has a dual significance: it underlines the role of temporal contingencies and scales of the process of decentralization in the participative structures at the local level, and it enables us to gain a better grasp of the problem of institutional architectures in implementing participatory democracy by emphasizing the political and social realities underlying new loci for decision making. Résumé Cette réflexion entend participer à l'agenda de recherche autour de la Empowered Participatory Governance lancé par Fung et Wright. Après avoir dressé un bilan d'analyses consacrées à différentes expériences participatives, afin de préciser les configurations institutionnelles et politiques favorables à une gouvernance plus participative, nous examinons ces résultats à l'aune du Budget Participatif du Plateau Mont‐Royal à Montréal. Notre étude s'attarde plus particulièrement sur les liens entre décentralisation et démocratie participative, soulignant la nécessité d'une analyse qui prenne en compte les rapports de force entre les acteurs au sein des systèmes de gouvernance antérieurs à l'instauration des instances participatives. Si la présence de mouvements sociaux et de partis politiques, soutenant le projet participatif, s'avère incontournable, un mouvement uniquement bottom up risque également de cantonner la portée transformatrice de la démocratie participative à sa portion congrue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".