Participatory Budgeting and the Radical Imagination: In Europe but not in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory budgets are recent interventions that have sought to counter neoliberalism in the global south and north. I critically assess the claim that they constitute new democratic spaces in which marginal and poor citizens create practices of self-government based on principles of social justice and democratic deliberation. Tracing the ‘migration’ of PBs from Porto Alegre to the EU to Canada, I ask why one less radical variant, Alternative Budgets (ABs), has become the default left critique of the deficit in ‘fiscal democracy’ in Canada. I suggest that Canadian PBs and ABs are weak reflections of the radical imagination. Despite the global financial meltdown, the ongoing hegemony of neoliberalism in Canada (and the EU) has meant that PBs are still exercises in ephemeral, or fugitive democracy that are not yet autonomous from the neoliberal state. This is not inherent in the idea of PBs, but is the result of institutional/political and historical barriers which, in Canadian neoliberalism, continue to block their potential radicalization/proliferation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".