Deliberation in Workshops in the Participatory Budgeting Process ()
1. Introduction
In this paper, we examine a small-scale participatory budgeting (PB) experiment in which citizens were allowed to decide on how a public fund of EUR 10,000 for regeneration/community development is allocated. This study is based on the two-year participatory action research (PAR) project called “Participatory Budgeting as a tool for public engagement in the development of a local urban neighborhood” (2017-18) (Sun Idea - osallistuva budjetointi kaupunginosakehittämisessä - Laurea-ammattikorkeakoulu). The experiment consisted of the phases on preparing and informing citizens, the participation of citizens through submitting proposals and collaborating in workshops, and voting using a digital tool (see Sintomer et al., 2008). The goals of the research project were to: 1) enhance community capacity with human resources and develop a resident-friendly online tool for citizen participation, 2) delegate decision-making power to citizens in defining a part of the public resources, and 3) involve citizens in the elaboration and ranking of the proposals.
In line with the democratic principles of inclusiveness, citizens in Finland have a right to say and local councils must ensure the diverse and effective opportunities for their participation in local government (Local Government Act, 2015). These include opportunities to participate in planning the municipality’s finances, co-develop municipal services, and propose initiatives, as well as to traditional public discussions and hearings. PB can be considered as a promising democratic tool to enable citizens’ initiatives and participation in local decision-making (see Krenjanova & Reinsalu, 2013).
The City of Espoo has launched several regeneration and urban development projects, but it has failed to engage residents to work together with the municipal authorities. The residents’ interviews in the City of Espoo have revealed that there is a strong will among stakeholders to create sustainable changes and enhance residents’ participation and agency (Lund & Juujärvi, 2018). Concurrently, the municipal program of “Participatory Espoo” advances open decision-making, local activities, and the participation of different groups (City of Espoo, 2021). Residents’ involvement with influencing urban development is currently very optimistic, especially when the participatory ways of involving them are mostly missing. For these reasons, we implemented the practical PB experiment process called “My Idea” as a tool for public engagement in urban development in collaboration with cross-sectorial civil servants.
We consider that it is of the utmost important to explore residents’ possibilities for deliberation during the PB process when they attempt to participate in and influence urban development. Both workshops and online platforms are possible ways of enabling participation and deliberation and it is important to utilize them in a meaningful way and for the right purposes. We believe that successful engagement can be achieved with the promise that residents can present, clarify, and negotiate their proposals in the workshops, and finally implement them as they wish. We aim to promote the knowledge of deliberation in the PB process with our micro-level experiment from the perspective of how deliberation and collaboration in workshops concerning residents’ proposals enhance residents’ participation in urban development.
We expected the workshops to enable a social process that results in positive changes among residents. We argue that the discursive engagement of residents is crucial during deliberation with the municipal authorities and experts. Giving a voice to residents with their local place-based knowledge, fostering deep reflection by probing questions, and exploring diverse perspectives through meaningful dialog can boost their involvement (see Foster-Fishman et al., 2005). We believe that participation can be enhanced through relations with other people and that successful participatory practices, such as PB, support residents’ further engagement to take an action in joint activities in urban development.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We begin by introducing the concepts of deliberation and participatory budgeting, after which we describe the process of the PB experiment. Then, we present the methodology of the research, followed by the results. The paper ends with the discussion and conclusions are drawn on how residents were engaged in deliberation in the workshops. The research questions in this paper are: 1) How do the workshops enhance deliberation? and 2) How do the participants experience deliberation in the workshops in the PB process?
2. Deliberation
Public deliberation is a mechanism for involving citizens directly in decision-making on issues that require the negotiation of competing viewpoints held by the public (Fishkin, 2009; Gutmann & Thompson, 2004). As a communicative and consensus-based model of democracy, it provides an alternative to voting models, and it is supposed to enhance the quality of decision-making by bringing together informed citizens and engaging in the process of participation. Deliberative democracy focuses on the communicative processes of opinion and will-formation that precede voting (Chambers, 2003), and its goals are to increase legitimacy, a public-spirited perspective, mutual respect, and the quality of decisions by participation and co-operation in debate (Gutmann & Thompson, 1997). The decision-making procedure is deliberative when it is founded on the exchange of reasons and arguments and is inclusive when involving those who are affected by the issue, thus having a say in it. The basis of deliberative democracy is a public debate and reciprocal reason giving. It involves the potential of a shared solution and rational consensus, but it also has phases of disagreements, conflicts, and compromises to overcome resulting in better decisions (Floridia, 2013; Habermas, 1981). According to Myers (2018), conflicting interests may enhance deliberation by reducing overreliance on commonly known information.
Nowadays, a deliberative democracy approach is concerned with the qualitative aspects of the conversation, deliberative settings, and meaningful ways of bringing citizens into the deliberation process, especially including marginalized groups or canvassing silent sectors (Kahane, 2003). Kahane et al. (2013) explain that deliberation emerges in exercises that emphasize learning through the exchange of perspectives, problem-solving orientation, and exploring diverse emotional perspectives and personal experiences. Deliberation includes patterns of behavior, such as justifying claims, orientation towards the common good, asking questions, being respectful and empathic, and suggesting constructive proposals (see Pedrini, 2015).
The construction of interactions in group discussions involving unequal conditions of authority has indicated how reciprocal and hierarchical relationships are manifested between deeply divided groups. In deliberation, factors such as empathic understanding, the search for commonalities, and self-criticism can lead to constructive dialogue and reciprocal relationships between participants with unequal power (Maia et al., 2017). Experts have a special position in discussions compared to citizens because they have authority and prior knowledge that can enhance the quality of deliberation or, on the other hand, can deteriorate the equality between interlocutors (Maia et al., 2017; see also Kahane et al., 2013). Participants representing unequal positions and resources in workshops may make the setting artificial (see Bächtiger & Gerber, 2014).
3. Participatory Budgeting
PB allows the participation of non-elected persons in the conception and/or allocation of public finances. Its original form, with the ideas of democratization and promoting social justice (Porto Allegre, Brazil), has developed into multiple procedures which aim to enhance active citizenry. PB is connected to democratic decision-making processes, to administrative reforms, to new ways of governing, and it has an innovation potential as well. The PB process includes discussions of financial questions, the involvement of the city with power over administration and resources, agreement of public deliberation based on meetings, and a yearly repeated process, and the output has to reflect the public will in the name of accountability (Sintomer et al., 2012). In short, the phases of PB empower citizens to identify needs in their community, to express budget proposals to elected officials, and to vote on how to spend public funds (Gilman, 2016).
The process of PB is supposed to focus on the improvements in the community and increasing the sense of community. As a participatory practice, it enables building trust and accountability, and enhancing a cooperative spirit and democratic capacity among citizens. Although citizens’ participation in local decision-making processes has been increased, involving citizens in community development to address social structural problems in deprived districts is challenging (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007; Wagenaar, 2007). Being in constant contact with tenant citizens, the municipal authorities serve the new role of governments by supporting the tenant-led initiatives and integrating them into governance with professional staff (see Foroughi, 2017).
4. Participatory Budgeting Process in the City of Espoo
The PB process took place in the municipal district of Espoo Centre in the City of Espoo, southern Finland. The district with its close neighborhoods consists of approximately 40,000 inhabitants. In terms of social and economic indicators, some of the neighborhoods represent the most disadvantaged areas in the city. The proportion of unemployed and uneducated people, single-parent and large household families, and people on social welfare is high. The proportion of immigrants in the area is 25% with a high number of spoken languages (over 80) in the city, makes the area exceptional (Hirvonen, 2011; Jaatinen & Joensuu, 2020).
The regional development group, consisting of municipal authorities, residents, and researchers, started the planning of the PB process at the beginning of 2017. The aims of the PB process were to promote the wellbeing of residents and to improve the communication between residents and public administration. The residents were instructed to suggest new ideas to make the area of Espoo Centre more lively, cheerful, and beautiful. Proposals were to be submitted on the digital platform visible for everyone. Participation was open for everyone and the winning proposals were to be implemented in the district of Espoo Centre by the residents. The City of Espoo proposed the amount of EUR 10,000 to be shared so that one proposal can receive a maximum of EUR 3000 for its implementation.
The planning process included plenty of preparation, informing, and marketing of the PB to the professionals, public officials, residents, media, and decision-makers in the City of Espoo. The planning was triggered by a need for more participatory tools to engage residents to influence their neighborhood issues. The use of digital tools necessitated the motivation of the residents by providing them with guidance and support to utilize the computers in the public library and common service point. The digital platform consisted of components of submitting the proposal with detailed further information, a description of the proposal with text, pictures, photographs, and videos, an estimate of the budget and implementation, and finally the voting (see Figure 1).
Twenty residents submitted altogether 30 proposals to the digital platform during one month, some suggested even a couple of proposals. Two workshops were organized for the residents who had submitted proposals. Residents had an opportunity to invite their friends and supporters to attend the workshops. Experts representing different sectors were also invited to help residents make their proposals feasible and attractive to potential voters. The experts represented public administration (urban planning, youth, culture, and sports) and non-governmental organizations. They had pre-read the citizens’ proposals and were prepared to provide knowledge of technical details and regulations, and to give recommendations and further information in the workshops. The municipal authorities and researchers from the regional development group facilitated the group discussions. The residents and experts were divided into groups according to the proposals’ topic and expertise. Five groups were formed according to the topics: murals and environmental art (six residents, five experts), local events (five residents, four experts), environmental management (four residents, four experts), citizens’ activities (one resident, three experts), and community building (issues
![]()
Figure 1. The phases of the PB process in spring 2017.
concerning the feeling of communality and sharing) (four residents, six experts).
The first three-hour workshop was organized on April 5 with 20 residents and 22 experts. The goals were to present the proposals in a group, to clarify and develop them further with the experts, and to draw up a plan for proceeding to the voting process. The participants were provided with additional information about the laws, regulations, permissions, and location possibilities that might promote or prevent the implementation of the proposals. The digital platform was open for the complementation, corrections, and further-development of the proposals between the first and second workshops. Sixteen residents with their proposals attended the second three-hour workshop on April 20 with 13 experts. The goals of the second workshop were to modify the texts and the visual outcome of the pictures and photographs on the digital platform with the city communication experts, to clarify the budget, location, and timetable of the proposal implementation, and to prepare the residents to advertise and market their proposals for voters.
5. Data and Study Methods
Our research draws on residents’ involvement in the PB process and the building of the deliberative processes between residents, local municipal authorities, and experts. Workshops as a participatory practice during the PB process provided an opportunity to investigate residents’ engagement with deliberation. We focused our research on deliberation in the workshops and the participants’ experiences of deliberation in the PB process. The research consists of two sets of data: group discussions and interviews.
We employed a PAR approach that aims to empower citizens through involvement in urban development, resulting in increased resources and relations (see Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2005). As a part of a PAR design, the various data were collected in different phases of the research process and the participants were considered as agents of change (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000). Participant observation was conducted by the researchers who acted as facilitators in the two workshops. Group discussions were tape-recorded, yielding nine hours of recordings, and partly transcribed. The analysis was focused on the deliberative behavior, such as changing perspectives, solving problems, and presenting experiences and feelings in the group discussions. In this analysis, we studied the methodology and analysis of Maia et al. (2017) and applied our own version of analysis suitable for the context and data focusing on the reciprocity of deliberation and dynamics of small-group discussions.
As secondary data, twelve interviews were conducted with nine residents and three municipal authorities involved in the PB process. There were both women and men with diverse ages and occupations. The semi-structured interviews took place after the voting phase at the interviewees’ workplaces or at public premises and lasted for about one hour. The interviews were related to the phases of the PB process, residents’ efforts to advance their interests in the workshops, and their experiences of getting support. The data, audiotaped and literally transcribed interviews lasting one hour on average, were analyzed according to the steps of inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the beginning, the episodes of experiences of workshop deliberation were discerned from the data, after which an inductive, bottom-up analysis, was conducted to the separated data. We identified three emerging themes: 1) PB process as a learning opportunity, 2) workshops as a place for deliberation, and 3) challenges of deliberation.
In following, we provide a rich description of the data overall with our data-driven analysis. By doing this, we want to catch the most relevant elements of the contents of both data sets and provide coherent excerpts in relation to our claims so that the reader gets a sense of the dominant deliberation in the area.
6. Findings
We organized the findings in two settings. We analyzed the data of workshop discussions and observations to describe the residents’ deliberation with the experts while they tried to negotiate the feasibility of their proposals and to get permission for the implementation of them as they wished. The interview data were analyzed to describe the participants’ experiences of the workshop deliberation. We now report the results and provide excerpts of both settings.
6.1. Deliberation in the Workshops
There were five discussion groups going on in the workshops, with approximately 48 participants in total. The topics of the groups concerned the issues of murals and environmental art, local events, environmental management, citizens’ activities, and community building. In the workshops, residents received advice and further information on legislative regulations, rules, technical arguments, and recommendations concerning their proposals. Some proposals also raised conflicting interests among the residents and experts during the workshops.
Some residents wanted to organize events for all the people. They emphasized that events should be a combination of outdoor activities with pop-up cafes and cultural activities, such as music. In most cases, the residents sought information to upgrade their proposal and regulations about the license for the implementation. Artistic proposals were highly valued but also questioned. A lesson was learned from the characteristics of artists’ work. The artists did not consider it relevant to share their art with anyone else; it was a question of ownership. Therefore, their motivation for deliberation was low. Even though art brings beauty, the individual artists’ proposals did not achieve the feeling of communality among the residents and voters. In general, with their proposals the residents intended to promote the common good for all the people, attempted to raise the atmosphere, and awake a common consciousness for environmental issues.
The experts provided their knowledge and advice to the residents in workshops or sent it afterwards in case they needed more time to investigate the proposal thoroughly. Sometimes, experts did not have answers and residents’ questions were bypassed, or the answers were quite straightforward since there was nothing to negotiate. An example of this occurred when a proposal of two residents was focused on preventing the noisy activities of youngsters on the streets in the evenings. The expert answered: “You don’t have any chance to win because this proposal doesn’t concern anyone other than you.” In these kinds of situations the experts started to compromise. They advised the mentioned residents not to use negative expressions in their proposals; instead, they suggested residents should use positive expressions with legal frames.
There was also humor in the workshops. Some restrictions made both the experts and residents laugh. For instance, the regulation concerning the use of scissors in the library. Scissors cannot be used in the library in case someone wants to harm someone else. However, scissors could be used in an open visible space in a library. In general, the experts supported everyone to continue and not to give up, and they tried to be fair with every proposal. The reasons for some to give up included, for instance, the experts did not find a suitable location for the proposals or residents wanted to focus on one proposal only and give up on another one, or the proposal was already implemented in the area by someone else.
We will raise here the examples of the proposals for “flower meadow”, “parkour groups cleaning the environment” and “artistic benches for the garden”. These examples will describe how reciprocity was obtained and sustained in deliberation. The residents were in charge of presenting their proposals and justifying their claims. The experts did not have decision-making power over the residents’ proposals, but they had expertise in the issues.
In the first example, the resident proposed a common meadow for the central area for all citizens. The resident explained clearly what she wanted, made suggestions, asked the experts for their opinions, and justified her claims with the common good and connected it to positive experiences and feelings. In the discussion, the experts showed their interest by asking and answering questions, speaking about their earlier experiences, showing sometimes that they feel the same way, and trying to clarify the proposal. Sometimes they even said that the proposal is unfeasible and doubted the residents’ ability to implement it. Gradually, the experts started to provide their help and developed the proposal by explaining and ensuring the facts connected to the implementation of the flower meadow. Finally, when they decided to support the proposal, they explained what the residents should do and what they cannot do. They listed matters related to the implementation of the proposal, outlined responsibilities, and gave conditions. Episode 1 below shows the deliberation of a “flower meadow”, how the resident reached her aim by giving grounds for her proposal, and the experts leaned on each other to reach a common understanding of the feasibility of the proposal, after which they showed their willingness to support their opinion.
Episode 1, E1-E3 = experts from urban planning and maintenance, Pam = resident, R = researcher
Pam: But the flower meadow…. there are gardens in many cities. I would like to establish a small flower garden in a meadow close to the grocery. (Justifying with an example)
E1: Is it here…? (Asking and showing a map)
Pam: Yes, it is probably that … (Showing to the expert)
E1: OK. It is the place where we once had the environmental art exhibition. (Connecting to a past positive experience)
Pam: Sure, you know these kinds of flower meadows in other cities? (Connecting to an example)
E3: Yes, along the motorway. (Recognizing the location)
E1: Yes, in city B. (Recognizing another location)
Pam: Last summer, when I visited one flower meadow, I met many families there. They were happy when they were able to pick beautiful flowers. (Connecting to own experience and the common good)
E2: Is the idea that people can pick the flowers? (Clarifying the proposal)
Pam: Yes, of course. Look at this ugly place… flowers would cheer people up. (Connecting to the feelings and the common good)
E2: I will support the idea, but the residents should implement it themselves. Residents should collect a group of people. That meadow cannot be grounded to a place like that. You should find a suitable place. The city already has flowers close to that place. There would be a place in another part of the area. Besides, the area needs trimming, cleaning, raking, and sand. Moreover, you should do all this with shovels. It is impossible for you! The city should come halfway. (Guiding, commanding, obstructing, understating, showing distrust, providing support and expertise)
E3: The place is so central that I am afraid it could only be a meadow without the opportunity to pick the flowers. However, we could develop the idea… (Doubting, but looking ahead)
E1: I might organize the trimming if you win. Anyway, it is a place for many people from many generations and social classes. That brings joy for everyone. Yes, we are going to help you. (Supporting, broadening the view, connecting to the common good)
E2: You should prepare many things, such as buying the seeds, mold, mowing, haymaking… (Advising, listing things)
Pam: Great if ordinary people had a possibility to do the haymaking. Am I the only one who wants these kinds of things? (Connecting to the common good)
E1: By the way, I suppose that it would be a meadow with multispecies. And in this garden, they have to be domestic plants. (Providing expertise and rules)
R: Do I understand that this proposal is feasible? (Checking)
E3: Yes. Could you contact the Garden Association (asking the resident)? Maybe they can help. (Advising)
E1: Can there be a joint mowing day? Like in the capital area? (Suggesting)
E3: Yes, a common day for environment cleaning! (Supporting)
E1: I still want to remind you that the meadow cannot stay there forever since it is a place for new buildings in the future. (Reminding)
Some cases revealed that the experts directed the discussion in the wrong direction. For instance, when they started to explain something which was too early and not yet of interest to the residents. An example of this was the discussion of the future taxation of the services connected to the proposals. Another example showed how the discussion moved away from the original proposal when the experts started to interpret it. Then, residents defended their proposal, interrupted the experts, and clarified their original proposal. A common understanding was reached when the residents clarified the original idea of their proposal and shifted the conversation, which is clearly manifested in Episode 2 during the deliberation of the proposal “parkour groups cleaning the environment”.
Episode 2, E1 and E3 = experts from urban planning and maintenance, Emily and Dan = residents, R = researcher
E1: I think it’s a good idea that young people are getting involved to collect rubbish and learning to keep the environment clean. However, I want you to know that the city organizes regularly environmental cleaning days. Nevertheless, it is not a competitive practice. (Supporting, reporting existing practices)
R: Can these practices be combined? Cleaning parkour groups on the official cleaning day. Are there many environmental cleaning days in each year? With whom does the city divide the responsibility and whom does it concern? (Connecting to the work division)
E3: They are in spring, and we provide the equipment to citizens for cleaning. There is a lot of rubbish. I really like this proposal that young people are active in this. It develops their responsibility. (Connecting to the cleaning day)
Emily: I would like to interrupt you now. Movement is the main thing in our proposal and, after that, environmental education. (Correcting the perspective)
Dan: We give them something fun to do. An alternative perspective. (Supporting, explaining, broadening the view)
E1: I like parkour because it is a new way of using the urban space and areas. It does not harm anyone. Hanging around in a positive way. (Changing the perspective)
The example of “artistic benches for the garden” shows how the residents rationalized their proposal and defended their ideas with their own experiences and place-based knowledge. The experts clarified the proposal in many ways by asking questions. First, the details connected to the whole lifespan of the proposal were the focus of experts’ interest. Second, the permission practice for the implementation was difficult to understand and solve. The proposal ended up in a small quarrel between the experts about the permission. The residents did not give up. They connected their perspectives to the sense of community and provided resources and knowledge to decide the final production and location of the benches. The arrangement of all the legal components of the proposal was the most relevant things for the experts. The deliberation process was sometimes so obscure that the residents had to clarify the experts’ ultimate decision. This case was instructive for both residents and experts. Episode 3 describes the multiphase process of deliberation of residents claiming more decision-making power for themselves by providing their local resources and experts muddling through the legal frames of the permission of “artistic benches for the garden”.
Episode 3, E1 and E3 = experts from urban planning and maintenance, Pam and George = residents, R = researcher
Pam: I have painted the old city benches with the local youngsters before (a couple of years ago). I am again ready to paint two benches now. (Suggesting, connecting to her experience)
E3: You mean two benches? (Asking)
Pam: I can of course paint more, but I need a working group. I don’t want to be alone with the benches and painters. (Explaining the practice)
E3: This idea could be developed further. How many benches and where? The whole idea of the benches, their location, and the painters should be a coherent proposal. The benches should be painted in the area where they are going to be located when they are ready. The benches could form a tour along the path in the forest where people do sports. (Giving conditions and ideas)
Pam: Well, I thought they would be located in a central place. But your idea is okay as well. (Explaining her original idea, abandoning)
E3: Above all, the location should be decided beforehand. In addition, how long are the benches going to be there? Moreover, how are they going to be removed? Before winter? (Listing questions connected to the practice)
George: People would vote if they understood that the benches are going to be located in their living area. (Connecting to a sense of community and the common good)
Pam: I met an old woman who didn’t find benches to sit down for rest. In our city, there are too few benches. However, I don’t start arguing about this now. (Recalling an experience, taking another’s position)
Researcher: Are the benches like this? (Showing the picture resident had brought along)
E3: They are like Mondrian style benches. (Providing knowledge)
Pam: Yes, the youngsters recognized that, too. (Connecting to residents’knowledge)
E3 talks about the fire that destroyed the old benches. Now the town has 170 new benches, but not the old ones.
Pam: Are there any of the old benches left in the city garden? (Asking)
Researcher: Will the situation change in the future? (Clarifying)
George: We could paint them in the old barn. (Suggesting)
E3: Could you?
Pam: Yes, we could. I would like to have appropriate conditions for the painting. (Looking for support)
George: But we have to pay rent for the barn. (Indicating a contradiction)
Researcher: Who could take the responsibility for this? (Trying to organize)
George: The art association could guide the implementation. We need some workers from the city as well. (Suggesting resources, explaining the needs)
E3: This project should be planned well so that everyone understands it. (Supporting, advising)
Pam: Can we develop this further? (Asking a permission)
Researcher: Yes, you can.
A few minutes later another expert (E1) joined the group.
E1: We don’t have benches for painting now in the city. (Telling a negative fact, rejecting)
E3: Yes, the previous ones got burned. But this proposal can be implemented when we receive more benches. Maybe in a year. (Trying to solve the implementation)
E1: Well, that’s a famous architectural model. I don’t know what the opinion of the decision-makers is about the painting of these famous benches. (Connecting to municipalities’decision-making, hesitating)
E3: I have just advised that the project should be planned thoroughly, including where and which benches are included in this project. It probably can’t be that model. (Supporting residents, trying to solve)
E1: How about the maintenance of them? The lifecycle of the benches should be planned before the project. (Asking, suspecting)
Pam: I think residents should themselves decide where the painted benches should be located. (Trying to get a permission)
E1: Who has given the permission for the painting of the previous benches? (Looking backward to the legality and responsibilities of the previous decision)
Pam: I do not remember.
E1: At least I have not given the permission. (Opting out of the situation)
Pam: There were some municipal authorities from the city who gave the permission. (Clarifying)
E1: I don’t understand what has happened. (Not finding the coherency)
Pam: The previous painted benches are now in the yard of the local school. (Telling the location as an evidence)
E1: OK, now I know who has given the permission. (Finding the compatible part, accepting)
6.2. Experiences of Deliberation in Workshops
The residents experienced the workshops as a learning opportunity to deliberate and develop their proposals and to enhance their trust in themselves. The workshops helped them get to know other residents, their proposals and have a voice in their own matters. There were also some obstacles to deliberation. Residents felt that the lack of time, understatement of their proposals, and contradictory manifestations of citizen participation prevented deliberation.
Residents claimed that they learned, for instance, the phases of the PB process, budgeting issues, organizing an event, prioritizing things, and understanding the laws and regulations beyond the activities of the public sector. Residents expressed that the experts’ opinions were crucial for developing their proposals in the right direction. Residents felt that they acquired adequate information, and in addition, they received the experts’ contact details for the further requests of information about the budgeting and implementation procedures if needed. They expressed that the workshops increased their idea generation and had a positive impact on their self-confidence. The common discussions challenged residents to develop their proposals forward with a timetable and new fresh tips.
“A good thing is that they challenged us by asking questions about the concrete implementation. ‘Are you sure you can do this?’ There were more questions than answers, and that pushed forward the proposal process.” (George, a resident)
“The workshops were a springboard for us. They sped up the progress of our proposal. It was good to change perspectives and get energy. We recognized that our proposal is unique. Others had good proposals as well.” (Dan, with his friends, residents)
Meeting the experts and deliberating in the workshops was highly valued and considered fruitful. Residents mentioned that the dynamics of the group discussion in the workshop was beneficial and working with their own group was considered positive. Residents were able to present their own proposals and familiarize themselves with the proposals and presentations of others in the same group. They understood the resources and capacities of others and shared thoughts with each other. Knowing others’ interests motivated residents to develop their own proposals in the direction that would complement others’ proposals. By providing their local knowledge to others during the deliberation process they tried to seek out new partners with whom they could co-operate in urban development issues in the future.
“It’s important that the residents learn to speak and get their voice heard, list their priorities, and listen to other people and what they have to say. Maybe the listening failed but at least the proposals were developed further.” (Teresa, an authority)
“The workshops could have been like stands for questions and answers. Now it was more like feedback from the residents, it could have been more like brainstorming. The most important thing is the growing responsibility of the residents, not the money.” (Michael, an authority)
Residents and authorities felt that some issues prevented deliberation. There was not enough time to cross-fertilize their proposals with others, while, on the other hand, many residents protected their proposals and did not want to reveal them since it was a competition after all. They did not want to combine their proposals with others; neither did they want to mix proposals. Both residents and authorities felt that more time was needed for familiarizing and deliberation with everyone’s proposal. Residents felt that more time will be needed also to develop their proposals according to the feedback.
“In our group, we had the feeling that we don’t know everything about others’ proposals and what happens in other groups. There could have been other methods to promote finding a partner. In the end, many of us asked ‘Was that all?’” (Rita, a resident)
“The workshops were purposeful. They combined the cross-sectoral departments to work together. However, the limited timeframe prevented me from acquainting myself with the presentations of other groups. There should be cross-fertilizing of proposals. New ideas should come from the residents. I think residents were empowered when they recognized that the city is interested in their proposals.” (Ken, an authority)
Residents experienced that they did not get a serious chance for deliberation and implementation since their proposal was not valued enough. They felt that, for instance, the size of their proposal was too small to be of interest to the experts. This was clearly expressed when some experts claimed that the city is already implementing the same kinds of things on a larger scale. An example of this was an answer to a resident that the implementation of her proposal, “boxes for flower planting”, in the suggested location was a less important place, not the central place. This was experienced negatively by the resident who said that the experts consider residents’ proposals as minor and thus to be implemented in out-of-sight places.
“I was ready to quit after the first workshop because the expert suggested ‘you can plant the flowers with the children along the path in the forest’. However, I want the flowers to be in a visible place in town.” (Pam, a resident)
A contradiction between the expressions of “citizen participation” and “collaboration” in the rhetoric of experts was not a good start for deliberation. The current discursive frame of the official documents and participatory programs underline the collaboration of residents and stakeholders. These documents manifest the citizens’ and municipal authorities’ collaboration. This was considered to be in opposition to the experts’ expression “the citizens are to implement the proposals themselves”. The municipal authorities themselves demanded citizens implement their proposals without the help of the city. However, in some cases, residents’ proposals were not feasible without technical help.
“They highlighted in the instructions that all residents should be involved in the implementation but there were proposals where residents had no role. For example, they cannot paint the walls. The city should decide which proposals are expected to be the right ones.” (George, a resident)
“I was irritated when I heard the experts saying ‘You are going to implement this yourself.’ I think that the residents’ proposals should be respected in a way that the city would help those in need.” (Pam, a resident)
7. Discussion
In this article, we provided an approach to deliberation between residents, experts, and municipal authorities in workshops concerning residents’ proposals. Our results contribute to an understanding of deliberation in the PB process in urban development. The study presents an analysis of facilitated deliberation in workshops and how the participants experienced it. The workshop discussion data were analyzed according to deliberative behavior between discussants and the interview data were analyzed concentrating on the experiences of deliberation.
Our aim was to enable and strengthen deliberation in the PB process. PB as a democratic tool enabled citizens’ participation through submitting proposals and making decisions in urban planning. As a participatory method, it enabled the recognition of place-based knowledge and the needs of residents and allowed opportunities for residents to increase their power. In our PB experiment, we organized a phase of deliberation in the form of two workshops where residents’ proposals were presented and developed. In terms of deliberation, we found useful Kahane’s (2003) elements of deliberative democracy, such as qualitative aspects of the conversation, deliberative settings, and meaningful ways of bringing citizens into the deliberation process. Chambers’s (2003) definition of deliberation as a model of enhancing the quality of decision-making by bringing citizens together, engaging them in communicative processes of opinion- and will-formation was appropriate. Our analysis was sharpened by the expressions of the deliberation, such as the exchange of perspectives, problem-solving orientation, and exploring diverse emotional perspectives and personal experiences (Kahane et al., 2013), and patterns of behavior, such as justifying claims, orientation towards the common good, asking questions, being respectful and empathic, and suggesting constructive proposals (see Pedrini, 2015).
In our study, we were interested in how the workshops enhanced deliberation and how the participants experienced it. Deliberation in the workshops followed the course of asking and answering questions, giving grounds, providing information, making changes, and finally reaching common understanding and support. The discussions in the workshops provided information, learning, and relationships. The collaboration and deliberation between residents, experts, and municipal authorities identified the needs of the residents and emphasized the significance of residents’ local place-based knowledge. By learning from the viewpoints of others, the workshops challenged both residents’ and experts’ understandings of the current situation in the area. We came to know that residents need the experts’ information about the details related to the feasibility of their proposals, such as regulations and permissions. They also need an opportunity to explain their needs, experiences, and advantages of the proposal to receive the power for implementing their proposal.
The facilitation in the workshops makes a difference in the quality of the discussions and in the engagement of the residents. The experts’ opinions with their rational and technical knowledge, regulations, and legislation were relevant and so was their role as supporters. However, the presence of researchers and municipal authorities as facilitators in the workshop discussions ensured that all the participants’ voices were heard. Reciprocal interaction was achieved by listening to each other, engaging in perspective-taking, and showing respect. Trust was obtained when residents have the feeling that they can implement their proposals as they wish.
Workshops as a setting provided a social place for discussions, negotiation, and building mutual trust. Citizen participation is highly valued and it should be kept in mind that face-to-face communication, reflection, and the building of common understanding of the issues at stake is time-consuming. Sometimes common understanding was reached through conflicts, disagreements, and irritations, and it demanded long and multi-phased processes of compromising.
Deliberation is a dialogue process of reaching decisions that legitimate democratic institutions. It means combining the pros and cons of a collective problem into a possible solution. We believe that in a deliberation process both residents and experts can reciprocally exchange knowledge and perspectives and understand current local situations and circumstances better. Residents were able to impact and make informed decisions and engage better with future development of their living area. In terms of deliberative democracy, the workshops appeared to be a good deliberative practice. They helped and challenged residents engage in the PB process by receiving information and feedback. The power of PB as a practice of including citizens to participate and to make government more accountable and transparent is apparent, but it necessitates access to deliberation. We believe that well-organized facilitation of the deliberation process could lead to better solutions in urban development.
This research has limitations. Facilitation in the workshops enhanced deliberation, but there are several factors to keep in mind. The number and duration of the workshops, the time between the workshops, and the number of participants in the workshops may have an impact on deliberation, participation, and the results. Limited resources from the municipality to collaborate with the residents may have an impact on the residents’ deliberation possibilities. The goals of the PB process whether they concern the improvement of the area where the participants live may either provoke or decrease citizen’s participation for deliberation. The involvement of marginalized or silent groups and whether the local knowledge of the participants represented the common interests of all residents in the area were beyond the scope of our study.
8. Conclusion
This study indicates that the process of PB with deliberation enables residents to engage in urban development. Workshops can promote deliberation and enhance decision-making. In a PB process, deliberation is a key factor when building confidence and motivation among residents. A deliberative practice is a starting point for residents’ involvement in public participation and promotes their engagement in the PB process. The results of the study highlight residents’ inclusion in all the steps of participatory budgeting; from planning of the process and making decisions in voting to implementing their own proposals. The deliberation and collaboration in workshops enhance residents’ participation in urban development, but the successful deliberation calls for a structured system in governance to receive information and share ideas to make decisions accountable.
Acknowledgements
We warmly thank fellow researchers Päivi Haapanen, Timo Kopomaa, and Ossi Salin for their help at Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo, Finland. We also thank all the participants in this study. The research was funded by the Urban Research and Metropolitan Policy Programme 2017-18 (in Finnish “Kaupunkitutkimusja Metropolipolitiikka”). The research was conducted in accordance with research protocol concerning human participants. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.