(Urban Politics in A Global Society) Osmany Porto de Oliveira (Auth.) - International Policy Diffusion and Parti

OSMANY PORTO DE OLIVEIRA
INTERNATIONAL POLICY
DIFFUSION AND
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
Ambassadors of Participation, International
Institutions and Transnational Networks
URBAN POLITICS IN
A GLOBAL SOCIETY
Urban Politics in a Global Society
Series Editors
Richard Stren
Department of Political Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Christopher Gore
Department of Politics &
Public Administration
Ryerson University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
‘This is a pioneering study in the field. It raises the big questions of how ideas of
democratic participation spread, and why they “stick” or do not. We don’t have
anything comparable in the field of local government, urban planning or compara-
tive politics to rival the spread of this very specific “tool” of local participation.
The trend in urban studies internationally is to move from localized case studies
to comparative studies involving different cities and even countries, but this study
goes further with both comparative case studies in several continents, and the
description and analysis of a general process of diffusion.’
— Richard Stren,
Emeritus Professor of Political Science,
University of Toronto,Canada
Today, cities around the world house more than half of our global popu-
lation, and their size and economic power are growing. Nowhere is this
more evident than incities of the so-called “developing” areas of Latin
America, Africa, and Asia. In many countries of the global south, large
cities have already outstripped most northern cities in size, while the func-
tions and administrative powers of all cities—large, medium-sized, and
small—are growing as a result of decentralization, democratization, and
the initiatives of civil society and community groups at the local level.
These changes are uneven and almost always localized, but they highlight
the increasing importance of understanding the politics of cities and the
manners in which cities are taking their place globally among the major
nodal points in the international political system. Urban Politics in a
Global Society publishes well-researched and topical books that examine
the political aspects of cities and urban development from the vantage
points of political science, sociology, economics, geography, environment,
planning, and policy. The series focuses especially on cities in the global
south, and/or on populations from the global south living in cities in the
north. The series editors will also consider proposals that examine urban
politics or approaches to urban development in countries not considered
the global south, but where there are lessons, experiences or trends from
the global south that resonate or are applicable to cities in the north. The
series editors welcome comparative or single-country studies that address
a range of topics, including, but not limited to: urban reform; political
opposition or movements; housing and resettlement; health, sanitation
and infrastructure; migration, mobility and demographic transitions; pov-
erty and well-being; intergovernmental relations; electoral systems and
systems of representation and exclusion; public-private partnerships and
relations; financial assistance, investment and revenue generation; and
innovations in research strategies and method.
More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/15467
Osmany Porto de Oliveira
International Policy
Diffusion and
Participatory
Budgeting
Ambassadors of Participation, International
Institutions and Transnational Networks
sponsored by
The opinions, hypothesis and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are of responsibility of the author
and don’t necessarily reflect the vision of FAPESP
Osmany Porto de Oliveira
Department of International Relations
Universidade Federal de São Paulo
Osasco, São Paulo, Brazil
Urban Politics in a Global Society

ISBN 978-3-319-43336-3 ISBN 978-3-319-43337-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43337-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954256
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or here-
after developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Image courtesy of Gus Morais
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to my family,
for the support during these years of study and research.
Foreword
Sometimes a young academic comes along and reminds us how excit-

ing research can be. Osmany Porto de Oliveira is just such an academic.
His text, International Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting,
invites the reader to look at the process of policy diffusion in new and
more intergraded ways. By approaching the topic as a holistic enterprise,
International Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting will make the
discussion of diffusion as a formulaic process nearly impossible. Osmany
has written a text that future generations of scholars are well advised to
read and follow in their own studies.
This text goes against the ever-increasing tendency to rely on statisti-
cal analysis within diffusion studies to illustrate the evermore common
S-shaped pattern of policy diffusion amongst localities and nations, either
voluntarily amongst advanced industrial nations or as a form of obligation
or coercion amongst less developed nations. By pulling us out of this narra-
tive, Osmany neatly and clearly demonstrates the importance of extensive
and high-quality qualitative research for merging macro- and micro-level
political processes that are occurring as ideas and policies diffuse across the
globe. His extensive use of multi-level interviewing and document analy-
sis presents a much more nuanced picture of the spread of participatory
budgeting across the globe than studies which rely on a more statistical
and quantitative analysis. More importantly by combining his qualita-
tive data to examine the role and interaction of agents and institutions at
the local, national and international level, International Policy Diffusion
and Participatory Budgeting offers a considerably more nuanced analysis
of participatory budgeting than any of the preceding studies, including
vii
viii Foreword
the highly commendable study by Jamie Peck and Nick Theodore, Fast
Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism (2015) or
Xiaojun Yan and Ge Xin’s 2016 article ‘Participatory policy making under
authoritarianism’.
Accessing international diffusion is no simple task. It means taking
huge strides to enter into uncommon places, characterized by multiple
interactions between actors from diverse geographies and cultures’. To
overcome these issues and produce his analysis Osmany completed over
120 interviews during a six-year period in which he travelled to a range
of places in the Americas, Europe and Africa. This allowed Osmany to
ascertain who the key actors and institutions were in the movement of
participatory budgeting within and across Brazil, South America, Europe
and subsequently Africa and the United States. This extensive process of
interview and document collection allowed Osmany to illustrate how key
actors worked both on their own and through regional, international and
transnational institutions and organizations to share information and ideas
related to participatory budgeting.
Just one of the factors making this text stand out as an exceptional
piece of research is the ability of Osmany to go beyond the all-to-often lip
service paid to the need to see diffusion in a wider context and in relation
to the networks of actors and governments. Osmany takes the reader on
a journey through the development of the range of different participatory
budgeting policies that have formed across the globe, illustrating where
and when one actor becomes more important than others or how they
move from one role and location to another across the local, national
and global interfaces. International Policy Diffusion and Participatory
Budgeting does not end here; it goes on to show how and when different
local, national and international institutions entered the process and how
they were fundamental for stimulating the co-operation necessary for the
spread of participatory budgeting. In other words the text focuses on “the
backstage of the globalization of public policies” where Brazil acted as the
initial laboratory from which others were able to borrow and adapt.
As anyone familiar with the diffusion literature will recognize, the pri-
mary focus tends to be on the Anglo-American English-speaking world.
Part of the uniqueness of this text is found in the fact that Osmany focuses
on a diffusion process that broke this pattern. Rather he focused on a dif-
fusion process primarily driven by the Francophone alliance of nations.
Or as Osmany states, “[i]t is possible to recognize that Europe and more
specifically the research of French academics was the locus of innovation
Foreword ix
in PB studies”. This is a refreshing new analysis, illustrating that once dif-

fusion studies expand beyond the Anglo-speaking world many new and
exciting findings will emerge.
Confirming the importance of Osmany’s analysis is the fact that it went
beyond diffusion to incorporate how the diffusion of participatory bud-
geting fits into the democratization literature. More specifically he dem-
onstrates how the diffusion of participatory budgeting is used to enhance
the spread of democratic innovations, even when used as democratic sub-
stitutes in more authoritarian regimes. Or as the old saying goes, while
nothing is the same across local and national borders everyone is capable
of borrowing. International Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting
is a prefect example of how it is possible to engage in qualitative research
to provide a depth of analysis that has been disappearing in the era of
quantitative meta-analysis. Everyone should take note of this rising star.
David Dolowitz
Department of Politics
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Note
1. Adapted version of this work was also published in Portuguese with
the title Ambassadors of Participation: The International Diffusion
of Participatory Budgeting by Editor Annablume, 2016.
References
Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the
Thresholds of Neoliberalism. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Yan, X., & Xin, G. (2016). Participatory Policy Making under Authoritarianism:
The Pathways of Local Budgetary Reform in the People’s Republic of China.
Policy & Politics, 44(2), 215–234.
Acknowledgements
Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting1 is a continuation from Le

transfert d’un modele de démocratie participative, a book published in
2010 in France as a result of my Master’s dissertation. This work is the
fruition of a long-term piece of research work for my doctorate carried
out for the University of São Paulo and the Institut des Hautes Études
de l’Amérique Latine (IHEAL), of the University Sorbonne Novelle in
France. The idea to investigate the international diffusion of Participatory
Budgeting goes back to the time I lived in France. There I was surprised to
learn that in Saint-Denis, a city on the outskirts of Paris, there was a policy
of participation stemming from Brazil, namely, Participatory Budgeting
from Porto Alegre. At that moment this was for me something unheard
of, as I did not know of any Brazilian public policies that were imple-
mented in Europe.
In that era there was almost nothing written about the international
diffusion of Participatory Budgeting. It was exactly because of this that
creativity was needed to construct my study. I prepared a transnational
field research project. From then onwards I travelled to different places
in the Americas, Europe and Africa conducting interviews, photograph-
ing, collecting documents, leaflets, newspaper clippings, bulletins, fold-
ers and various papers on Participatory Budgeting. I accumulated more
than 120 interviews, a fistful of Gigabytes in my computer and several
boxes of archives. I followed the tracks of the international trajectory of
Participatory Budgeting in the great hope to understand its journey and
explain its movement. Conducting research of this type is challenging as
xi
xii Acknowledgements
there are barriers at various levels to be overcome, including funding and

even acceptance from certain corners of academia.
There is an African proverb that says “Wisdom is like a baobab tree, one
person cannot embrace it alone”. I could not have embraced this book
and got this far without the help and care of many people. In academic
life, we cannot be afraid of seeking assistance to reach our goals as this is
the only way to embrace certain types of trees. The path to finish this work
was long and I have had the privilege of counting on good interlocutors
who helped me through all the difficulties and to overcome all obstacles.
I owe my sincere thanks to those people mentioned in the following para-
graphs. Any possible mistakes are entirely my responsibility.
In academia, various colleges read and commented on preliminary ver-
sions of my texts. I also spent hours debating the best ways to analyse
and think about the international diffusion of Participatory Budgeting.
Moreover, the trajectory and research of these interlocutors inspired me
greatly. I thank those colleagues, professors and researchers who helped with
my study at various different stages. In the department of Political Science
of the University of São Paulo, I am grateful to Adrian Gurza Lavalle,
Eduardo Marques, Matthew Taylor and Marta Arretche. At IHEAL in the
University of Sorbonne Nouvelle thanks to Yves Surel, David Dumoulin,
Renée Fregosi and Stéphane Velut. All the members of the Democracy
and Collective Action Nucleus of the Brazilian Center for Analysis and
Planning (CEBRAP), especially, Monika Dowbor, Maira Rodrigues, José
Szwako, Euzeneia Carlos, Wagner Romão and Hellen Guichney. I also
owe thanks to colleagues who discussed PB with me on different occa-
sions: Giovanni Allegretti, Yves Cabannes, Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Vanessa
Marx, Yanina Welp, Marcelo Kunrath Silva and Laurence Witehead.
A wide range of kind people helped me carry out intense field studies. To
them I owe my sincere gratitude. In Porto Alegre: Nice Araújo, Danielly
Fontoura, Letícia Almeida and those of the NGO Cidade, in particular
Sérgio Baierle and Marcia Tolfo. In Belo Horizonte: Verônica Campos
Salles, Maria Diana de Oliveira, Claudineia Jacinto and Maria Auxiliadora
Gomes. In Recife: Adelmo Araújo and Augusto Miranda. In Ecuador:
Coralia Barahona and Montse Ayats in Cotacachi, and Mónica Quintana
and Jaime Vásconez in Quito. In Peru: colleagues of the Institute of
Peruvian Studies, especially Patrícia Ames and Roberto Cuenca in Lima,
and Ramiro Garcia in Villa El Salvador. In Spain: Laia Vilademunt and
Eva Garcia Chueca in Barcelona. In France: Cathérine Gégout in Paris. In
Portugal: Nelson Dias in Lisbon. In the United States: Tiago Peixoto in
Acknowledgements xiii
Washington, and Josh Lerner in New York. In Senegal: Bachir Kanouté in

Dakar. In Mozambique: Laura Paruque and João Calenga in Maputo. In
South Africa: Mike Makwela.
I thank friends who made this journey a joy: Céline Raimbert, Elaini
Silva, Francesca Cricelli, Juliana Bueno, Letícia Lopes, Luz Adriana
Gonzales, Marília Ortiz, San Romanelli, Sérgio Simoni, Samuel Moura,
Thiago Nascimento, Pietro Rodrigues, Roberta Nicolette, Tiago Borges,
Rafael Magalhães, Bruno Hervé, Claudine Tomayo, Etienne Ferré, Nency
Nohilé, Tati Angelini, Melina Rocha and Carla Tomazini.
Special mention for certain people who helped complete this work, I
thank them warmly. David Dolowiz, who has invested so much energy on
policy transfer research and produced such inspiring work, for writing the
preface. Richard Stren, for his generous and interesting comments, which
contributed to improve this book. Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Carlos Aurélio
Pimenta de Faria, for stimulating conversations on Participatory Budgeting
and Public Policy respectively. My friends Mark Hughes for embarking on
this odyssey of translating the book and Gus Morais, a design genius,
who illustrated the cover. Jemima Warren, Editor of the area of Public
Policy for Palgrave Macmillan for her interest in my research, attention
and patience during the whole editing process. I would also like to thank
FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation) for providing the funding to
translate the book.
After years of study and research it must be said that I learned the most
precious things from my family. I learned that the richness of sprit is inalien-
able and that in those complicated moments one needs to believe in the
strength of perseverance. I also experienced that simplicity is sufficient to
go far and to be happy and understood the immeasurable force of a smile.
I express my gratitude to my father Marcius, my mother Léa, my sister
Lya, my little brother Pedro Henrique, my Grandmother Carminha and
my Grandfather Aurelino, as well as Kátia, Marco and Matheus. And finally
to Ana Luiza, my flower, companion and reader. Without the presence of
these people around me this work would not have seen the light of day.
Contents
Part I Dynamics 1
1 Accessing International Policy Diffusion 3
2 The Dynamics of the Process of Diffusion: Institutions,

Individuals and Mechanisms 39
Part II The Process 61
3 Ambassadors of Participation: The Internationalization

of PB 63
4 Promoting Transnational Connections: The Networks

of Participatory Democracy 99
5 The Cascade: From the Tipping Point to Mass Diffusion 129
xv
xvi Contents
Part III Effects 167
6 Mosaics of Participation: Participatory Budgeting in

Andean America and Transfers on a National Scale 169
7 Sowing Democratic Seeds in the Desert: The Diffusion

of PB in Sub-Saharan Africa 199
8 Conclusions and Implications229
Epilogue: The Arrival in North America 243
Appendix: List of Interviews Organized in Date Order 247
References 255
Index 265
About the Author
Osmany Porto de Oliveira is Professor of International Relations at the

Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP). He holds two PhDs in
Political Science, from the University of Sorbonne Nouvelle, France, and
the University of São Paulo, Brazil. He received his B.A. in International
Relations from the University of Bologna, Italy, and an M.A. in Sociétés
Contemporaines: Europe-Amériques from the University of Sorbonne
Nouvelle/IHEAL, France. He won the European Council for Social
Research on Latin America’s best young researcher award in 2013. His
previous book is Le transfert d’un modèle de démocratie participative:
Paradiplomatie entre Porto Alegre et Saint-Denis.
xvii
About the Translator
Mark Hughes graduated from Glasgow Caledonian University, UK, in

Public Administration and Management. He has an M.Sc. in Urban
Development from the University of Strathclyde, UK. He has translated
different academic works in Brazil.
xix
List of Tables
Table 1.1 The process of international circulation 23

Table 1.2 Trips for field research 28
Table 2.1 Definitions of transfer and diffusion 41
Table 3.1 Expansion of PB by region 1997–2008 67
Table 4.1 List of contacts by country in 2002 (RDD 2002) 107
Table 4.2 Characteristics of RDD and FLA networks 124
Table 5.1 Estimate of expansion of PB in the world 135
Table 7.1 Evolution of activities related to PB at Africités 206
xxi
PART I
Dynamics
CHAPTER 1
Accessing International Policy Diffusion
During a sunny week at the beginning of December in 2012 in Dakar, the

capital of Senegal, the biggest regional event for the collective territorialities
in Africa, the Africities Summit, took place. There were more than 5000
participants and innumerable workshops. Within the programme, a debate
between Africa and Latin America drew particular attention. Jean Pierre
Elong Mbassy, general secretary of the African Division of the international
association, United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), mediated the
session. The theme was Participatory Budgeting (PB). Yves Cabannes, pro-
fessor of University College London and one of the leading authorities on
PB, was present, as well as Bachir Kanouté and Jules Dumas, experts from
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) specializing in PB in Africa.
The session featured a wide variety of sessions on Latin American
and African experiences. Among the speakers were representatives from
Argentinian and Brazilian networks for PB, the secretary for international
relations from the City of Porto Alegre, the mayor of Yaoundé—5, in
Cameroons and a representative from a rural community in Madagascar.
The session rounded off with the signing of a protocol of international
co-operation between the municipalities of Porto Alegre and Yaoundé—5.
The signature occurred in the presence of the Brazilian Ambassador to
Senegal, and marked the start of a co-operation on the transfer of PB
between two local governments from the southern hemisphere. In 2012,
PB was consolidated in Latin America, Europe and was quickly spreading
across Sub-Saharan Africa.
© The Author(s) 2017 3

O. Porto de Oliveira, International Policy Diffusion and
Participatory Budgeting, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43337-0_1
4 O. PORTO DE OLIVEIRA
Accessing international diffusion is no simple task. It means taking

huge strides to enter into uncommon places, characterized by multiple
interactions between actors from diverse geographies and cultures. The
opening paragraph that introduces this chapter reveals a mere fragment
of the process of international diffusion of PB and the complexity of the
phenomenon that the researcher faces. To explain such a process is the
challenge set out in this book.
Studies on diffusion have become evermore frequent in recent years in
the areas of social and political science, as well as international relations.
In today’s world—in which globalization is increasingly intense—ideas,
models, institutions and social practices in general flow from one territory
to another with increasing ease. Diffusion processes are producing similar
public policies in different contexts, and, at the same time, sparking inno-
vations from the association of elements coming from very different ori-
gins. Recent literature on the subject of social movements and democracy
has insisted on the importance of integrating the analysis of diffusion in
order to have a deeper understanding of contemporary social and political
phenomena (Simmons et al. 2008; Givan et al. 2010).
Brazil has a history marked by the “import” of political institutions,
owing to the colonial legacy, as well as the influence of the public admin-
istration models from the United States and France, especially in the past
century. Nevertheless, in the recent period the country has become an
“exporter” of ideas and social policies. This is evident not only in the case
of PB, but also with other policies such as the Programa Bolsa Família
(PBF), Family Grant Program and the Programa Nacional de Alimentação
Escolar (PNAE), National School Feeding Program, for example.1
Analysing international diffusion is challenging. In fact, it is a complex
issue, which involves multiple levels and dimensions. The researcher who
plunges into it faces a sometimes overwhelming multitude of initial ques-
tions. There is no pre-established order of questions to be posed, but rather
perhaps the first one would be when does the diffusion start and end.
There is a time limitation to be set in order to analyse this phenomenon.
On one hand, taking a genealogical approach to the participatory gover-
nance policies could take us back to ancient Greece and witnessing key
moments in history, in which elements of innovation were incorporated to
different democratic methods. On the other hand, the pathway of diffu-
sion can be thought of as a constant movement of flux and reflux. In the
first instance, different political entities adopt a certain element, such as
a representative government or free elections. The opposite occurs when
ACCESSING INTERNATIONAL POLICY DIFFUSION 5
countries stop having free elections and governors are voted in by proxy,
thus shifting forwards and backwards, between democracy, anocracy and
autocracy, for example.
Besides this, it is necessary to understand the diffusion of what, or
rather, which are the objects that circle the globe and are being transferred
from one experience to another. It is essential to limit the elements that
are absorbed in a specific political system. In the area of public policy,
there are multiple dimensions such as ideas, models, institutions, norma-
tive devices, techniques, principles and so on. In order to gain a better
understanding of the process it is vital to distinguish the various objects in
circulation in different categories.
International diffusion does not necessarily occur in a free form. They
are processes involving agents interacting in different spaces, throughout
different entities and with different ways of operating, each one stimulat-
ing the phenomenon in its own way. Identifying the actors, institu-
tions and spaces of interaction is an important element of understanding
international diffusion. From the perspective of the actors, it is relevant
to question the motives for action, whether it be promoting or adopting
certain public policies. It goes beyond that: it is important to understand
when a certain actor counts more than another in deciding if a public
policy is adopted. It is vital to question when individuals make a difference
or when it is institutions that are more influential in the process of policy
adoption.
The flux of international diffusion involves a variety of forces, which
occur in different scales. A popular theme in contemporary political and
social sciences is the dimension of causal mechanisms, or rather, the
micro dimension, which connects to the causal process entities capable of
producing significant effects in certain phenomena. Identifying the causal
mechanisms, which lead to certain results of interest to the researcher and
observer of these processes, has been an emerging concern in different
areas of study. Furthermore, international policy diffusion also implies a
flow of political elements at different levels (global, regional and local)
and institutions (the state, international organizations and subnational
organization, NGOs, etc.).
To access international diffusion necessarily means recognizing this set
of problems, understanding different fluxes, identifying actors, observing
relations, which are established between actors, at different levels, in order
to try to understand the process. In short, these are part of the backstage
of the globalization of public policies.
This work regards areas such as public policy, international relations,

comparative politics, political sociology and urban politics. The research
involves widespread fieldwork research and gathering data in loco in a vari-
ety of countries across different continents. Research of this nature is still
uncommon. The work develops a blend of analysis of public policy2 and
the study of international relations, integrating theoretical contribution
and concepts from both disciplines. This research brings a combination of
research techniques which can help to offer answers to the range of chal-
lenges mentioned in the previous paragraphs. It presents a multifaceted
approach to international diffusion of a policy innovation on participa-
tory democracy that has had a worldwide repercussion in recent years:
Participatory Budgeting.
The main argument defended in this book is that in the process of the
international diffusion of PB individuals played a crucial role, especially
local Brazilian authorities in the beginning and then international experts.
These individuals were a group of PB militants, true “Ambassadors of
Participation”, who used their political, theoretical, technical and practical
authority, as well as their cosmopolitan skills, to defend in a transnational
form its adoption. The circulation of these people in one institution or the
other—whether a City Hall, an NGO, an international organization or
even academia—was central to the process of PB diffusion. These “ambas-
sadors of participation” are the agents who have brought PB from one
municipality to the other, from Porto Alegre in Brazil to Villa El Salvador
in Peru and from the World Social Forum (WSF) to the World Bank.
From the moment when PB gains recognition in the wider world, the
international institutions become influential actors in the diffusion pro-
cess. The United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the World
Bank were fundamental in stimulating co-operation between munici-
palities with the purpose of spreading PB. Moreover, these international
institutions also recognize that PB is a good practice to be followed, and
encourage, in certain cases, its introduction by producing didactic mate-
rial, training and also financing the development of new initiatives.
The role of individual agents and institutions is therefore defended
as an explanatory factor for the process of the international diffusion of
public policies in general and of PB in particular. This introductory chap-
ter presents a succinct contextualization of the new role of Brazil in the
scene of international co-operation and its relationship with policy diffu-
sion. Then the debate on policy diffusion and transfers is discussed. After
that, a discussion is presented on the international dimension of PB in
the literature. Next, the central argument is introduced. Later the reader
will find a section focusing on the transnational process and another on
research strategies. Finally, the narrative adopted in this book and its struc-
ture are described.
1.1 BRAZIL: FROM POLICY ADOPTION

TO POLICY DIFFUSION
Contemporary Brazil has become a laboratory of public policies from

which different innovations have emerged. If traditionally ideas and insti-
tutional policies were imported from developed countries, a new condi-
tion of Brazil as a producer of public policy changed this dynamic. The
country has now also become an exporter of its policies. Still, not all its
innovations were the object of international diffusion, as in the example of
PB. In the next paragraphs we will discuss the transition of Brazil from a
policy importer to an exporter.
1.1.1 Importing Models from the North

The story of Brazil is characterized by the presence of foreign political
ideas and models. European countries as well as the United States were
the main protagonists of this process. The legacy as a Portuguese colony,
Roman law and constitutional principles occurring in France and models
of public administration from the United States are examples of how this
influence came about at different moments and with varying intensities,
contributing to shape the Brazilian structure of the state and its legal sys-
tem. It is clear that these are not “certified copies”, insofar as adaptations
and transformations occurred when foreign institutions were incorpo-
rated into Brazil. Specific configurations of the Brazilian context, as well
as political dispute in different historical periods, have contributed to a
process of fusion and of innovation.
The concept of Moderator of Power, idealized by Benjamin Constant
and spread in revolutionary France for example, was one of the ideas
adopted by the Brazilian monarchy, between 1824 and 1829, in the first
constitution of the country. In synthesis, Constant saw in the figure of the
king an authority above the activities of government who should exercise
the function of controlling and mediating conflicts in the political system.
The proposal was to distance the king from administrative activities and
confer on him a moderating role. In Brazil in 1824 the Moderator of

Power was instituted in the constitution, but with different attributes from
those imagined by Constant. In fact, the emperor was not only a mediator
of political disputes, but also controlled important powers in the admin-
istration (Lynch 2005). In fact, the king could dissolve the chamber,
name senators and approve or veto legislative decisions. In this period the
Brazilian state was still being constituted and its bureaucracy was far from
being organized, which would only happen a century later in the 1930s.
If the influence of European ideas and political principles was strong
during the nineteenth century, at the same time models coming from
the United States were also gathering force. This is illustrated in the
construction of the Brazilian public administration during the gov-
ernance of Getúlio Vargas, with the project of the Department for
Administration and Public Service (DASP) in 1938. The project was
to organize the state and construct a Weberian type of bureaucracy
in Brazil, which aimed to break the clientalist structures and patron-
age that characterized the “modus operandi” of the public administra-
tion. The process was influenced by paradigms in vogue in the United
States such as the scientific management, which conferred identity to an
elite charged with taking forward administrative reform (Farah 2013,
p. 110; Rabelo 2011, p. 135). Scientific administration whose funda-
ments harked back to Taylorism had as its guiding principles ideas such
as rationality, neutrality and efficiency of public administration. In 1938
a programme of foreign missions was created, through which dozens
of staff of DASP participated in training courses in the United States,
especially in Washington—in particular at the American University—and
New York (Rabelo 2011, p. 136).
Decades later, in the 1990s, principles stemming from the so-called
Washington Consensus, which encouraged open trade and privatization
of state industries, were directed towards Brazil, as well as other coun-
tries in Latin America. Moreover, the ideas of New Public Management,
defended by institutions like the Inter-American Bank for Development
and the World Bank, and whose central points focused on increasing the
efficiency of public action and reducing transaction costs came to influ-
ence the structuring of the state. Brazil incorporated a reform programme
of the state based on this management model. At the same time, after
democratization there was a great space for innovation in the area of pub-
lic policy, above all in domestic issues which were slowly gaining force to
change this scenario.
1.1.2 The Transition to Democracy and

Social Policy Innovation
During the military regime, civil society and some local governments were
capable of constructing important spaces for experimentation and politi-
cal innovation. With democratization a range of ideas and practices were
institutionalized, especially in the Federal Constitution of 1988 and suc-
cessive laws, as well as with the decentralization process. More specifically,
two distinct movements were fostered. On the one hand, policies adopted
by the national government were imposed at other levels of the federation.
On the other hand, more power was given to subnational governments.
The first movement was driven by institutional inductive mechanisms
belonging to the federal government, which incentivized a series of
“top-down” vertical policies, mostly in the social sphere. In the Federal
Constitution, articles 194 (social security), 198 (healthcare), 204 (wel-
fare), 206 (education) and 227 (the child and adolescent) institutional-
ized participatory policy councils and decentralized management of policy
sectors. These councils are essentially joint committees between govern-
ment and civil society which are responsible for overseeing, monitoring
and executing public policies in certain areas. Councils account for those
areas linked to policies that are articulated at the federal level, and which
are often required by law as a condition for the implementation of a public
policy by the municipality.
Today, these councils are central to the process of decentralization, as
well as for the democratization of social policies. They are accordingly the
council on Healthcare, Welfare, Education and the Child and Adolescent.
They function as spaces for the expression of societal demands, negotia-
tion between social interest groups and inclusion of the voices of those
who have the least access to the State. These institutions also operate to
provide oversight and social control of public policies. The so-called Policy
Councils are the most broadly diffused institutions of social participation
at the municipal level in current-day Brazil. There are over 62,562 Policy
Councils distributed across 5565 municipalities (Brazil 2014). In spite of
their national diffusion and their importance, they didn’t have the same
international success, adoption and globalization as PB, and remained lim-
ited to Brazilian policy.
The essential difference between the diffusion of these two participa-
tory institutions is that Policy Councils were spread in municipalities across
the country through mechanisms of institutional induction deriving from
Brazilian law. Although institutionalized social participation had been a

demand from social movements, there was no action from the so-called
Ambassadors of Participation promoting this policy at an international
level. In the case of PB, which is not a policy guaranteed by law, its diffu-
sion in Brazil occurred above all through the action of mayors, activists,
networks linked to the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), the Workers Party,
and the action of civil society. In the case of international diffusion of PB
it counted on not only “Ambassadors of Participation”, but also a range
of actors, which will be detailed in this book, who endorsed the policy.
The second movement is due to the increase in the autonomy and
fund-raising ability of subnational entities. This increase allowed for more
innovation by local governments in various spheres and made the case of
Brazil exceptional. Municipal actors became very important in the process
of policy innovation and diffusion. Mayors were protagonists of a new way
of policymaking and governing throughout the 1990s in Brazil, creating
original ways of dealing with public problems, such as poverty, education,
healthcare, citizenship, human rights and so on. Innovations were pro-
duced not only in the content of policies, but also in the policy process,
in particular in changing the pattern of the State in public management,
with new forms of decision-making and service provision (Farah 1997).
A research project of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas and the Ford
Foundation, called “Public Management and Citizenship”, was conducted
to scan, analyse, award and disseminate policy innovations in subnational
governments in Brazil. In its very first year in 1996, the project analysed
more than 600 experiences of innovations (Farah 1997). Policy instru-
ments produced in subnational entities diffused horizontally among sub-
national government bodies according to geographical, socio-economic
or ideological proximity, such as PB. The Bolsa Escola School Scholarship
programme, which was instituted simultaneously in Campinas, in São
Paulo state, and in Brasília (the national capital), was adopted by more
than 100 municipalities between 1990 and 2000. This is an example of
how municipal innovations proliferated to other Brazilian cities governed
by mayors from ideologically different and distant parties.
Other pioneer cities, such as Curitiba in Paraná State, adopted a trans-
port policy which gained important international recognition, being a ref-
erence for Latin America (Mejia-Dugand et al. 2013, p. 86). Behind the
transport policy of this city was the architect and urbanist Jaime Lerner—
linked to conservative parties—who became a politician and was mayor
of Curitiba three times (1971–1975, 1979–1983 and 1989–1992) and
the governor of Paraná state twice (1995–1999 and 1999–2003). The

leadership of Lerner was decisive in the implementation of the aforemen-
tioned policy. Conceived in the 1970s, during the dictatorship, the trans-
port project of the city was innovative in implementing a system of express
buses—today identified as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)—from a form of plan-
ning, associating the use of spatial planning and a road-based system of
collective transport. The system was perfected and developed particularly
in the 1990s. Named the Integrated Network of Transport, this new form
of transport policy included tubular bus stations through which passen-
gers had better access to buses, as well as allowing bus drivers to drive
their vehicles more rapidly. The transport system was the symbol of the
city of Curitiba and inspired different models throughout the world, such
as Bogota, which from 1998 began to adapt this policy to local conditions
and produced the TransMilênio (Ardila-Gomez 2004, p. 12).
The strategy of city marketing used by Curitiba—which was also the
case for Porto Alegre in Brazil as we will see along the book—contributed
to urban management innovations becoming internationally renowned,
giving greater visibility to municipalities. This practice reached the national
government level and turned out to be part of the Brazilian strategy for
international insertion and recognition.
1.1.3 From Local to Global: Brazil Exporting Social Policies

If between 1980 and 1990 Brazil was still an “importer” of ideas, institu-
tions and public policies, the scenario changed in the new millennium.
The consensus forged in Washington, stating that countries of the South
should learn from the countries of the North and follow their steps and
instruction, was in decline. PB in Porto Alegre and the transport system
in Curitiba to a large extent had already blazed a different path, in show-
ing the local and global impact of municipal innovation. In particular, PB
was a pioneering case of international diffusion from Brazilian municipal
policies, which later became more important and took place also at the
national level.
This process occurred particularly during the government of PT from
2002, when innovations in the area of social policies in the federal gov-
ernment emerged as was the case in the aforementioned PBF. Moreover,
other older policies such as PNAE (which has existed since 1955) were
redesigned, reframed and became showcases of the new form of policy-
making in Brazil. The difference from municipal government was that
national government had resources and capability of wider action than the
municipalities, which required a lot of energy and creativity to internation-
alize their policies. In addition, the federal government could rely on the
Ministry of Foreign Relations, among other ministries and institutions,
such as the Brazilian Agency for Co-operation, to lever up a strategy for
international insertion through a form a diplomacy of social policies made
in Brazil (Faria 2012; Souza).3
The PBF is a social policy of conditional cash transfer whose objective is
the eradication of poverty and inequality in Brazil. The policy is managed
by the Ministry of Social Development and fight against hunger (MDS)
in Brazil and its execution is decentralized, passing responsibility to other
entities of the federal government, such as states and municipalities. The
programme functions as an income support aimed at families in poverty
and extreme poverty. Beneficiaries receive monthly funds transferred by
the federal government. In order to receive funding, families have to
meet certain conditions in the area of health and education. Firstly, preg-
nant recipients have to carry out prenatal exams and families with chil-
dren younger than 7 years have to have vaccination and nutritional advice
among other demands. In respect to education, children and adolescents
in families receiving benefits have to prove frequent attendance at school
as well as other requirements. Moreover, the PBF created an important
system of information and unique registration which has been reproduced
in other countries.
The international dimension of PBF is surprising. According to the
World Bank today 52 countries use the Brazilian model in their pro-
grammes of cash transfer. In addition, between 2011 and 2015 the MDS
received 406 delegations from 97 countries that had interest in better
understanding how the programme functioned (Brazil 2016). It is also
common for government staff to participate in workshops, seminars and
events in general to transfer instruments and social technologies related to
PBF. This is a characteristic also present in other policies spread through-
out Brazil. The PBF was adopted in various contexts from Ghana to
New York via Egypt and Turkey. The World Bank was one of the institu-
tions which incorporated PBF onto its agenda. This institution developed
expertise in the area of cash transfer policies, having learned much through
interchanges with Brazil, and nowadays stimulates the adoption of the
programme in various countries (Leite and Peres 2013; Mafra 2016).
The PNAE, which has existed since 1955, is the oldest food assistance
programme in Brazil and was redesigned in 2003. The innovation was in
establishing school feeding as a right for students at public schools and

producing a link between school meals and family farming, which became
a supplier for them. By this bound relation of exchange between fam-
ily farming and school feeding, the government created an institutional
public government market (Graziano et al. 2010, pp. 104–105). The pro-
gramme gained attention and was mentioned in an article in the New York
Times citing an interview with the Minister for Social Development Tereza
Campello, who stated that “leaving the hunger map is a historic milestone
for Brazil”; in her statement the minister referred to “investments made in
family farming, minimum wage increase and the Bolsa Famila” as well as
the “National School Meals Programme that provides meals to 43 million
children and youths every school day” (New York Times 2014).
A range of administrative techniques developed in the context of the
PNAE, especially the association between guaranteeing school meals by
the state and the public procurement of food from family farming, are
central to the process of diffusion. These instruments are the object of
two projects for school feeding in a form of trilateral co-operation. These
projects rely on Brazil, partner countries and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), with the executing institution being the Brazilian
National Fund for Development and Education (FNDE). Policies for
ensuring food and procurement of food inspired in recent Brazilian tech-
niques are growing fast in countries of Latin America and Sub-Saharan
Africa.
Since 2000 the list of Brazilian policies which are widely spread has
expanded. One of the contributing factors to this is also the fact that
Brazilian international co-operation is a function carried out very often by
civil servants. This signifies that in some of the cases it is Brazil with its own
public staff that is engaged in social technology transfer to other countries.
Brazil also finances trips for specialists and their participation in training
workshops. For example, the gains in know-how and techniques produced
a housing policy which culminated in the Programme Minha Casa Minha
Vida (My House, My Life), which has been transferred to Portuguese-
Speaking Countries led by the Brazilian Federal Bank (Caixa Econômica
Federal), a public institution. In the area of food a similar movement has
occurred. Other programmes in the area of agriculture and health have
also been transferred to Africa. Pro-Savannah in Mozambique is a project
inspired by “Pro-Cerrado” developed in Brazil and has Embrapa (Agency
for Technical Innovation in the agriculture and livestock linked to the
Ministry for Supply of Agriculture and Livestock) as a central actor for dif-
fusion (Cabral et al. 2013, p. 58). Moreover, policy transfers in the health
sector, such as knowledge for the combat of malaria and HIV, have been
operationalized by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation—Fiocruz (institution
for research in the area of public health, linked to the Ministry for Health).
Brazil has also for some years taken an emerging role in the interna-
tional sphere, leading projects in the UN and World Trade Organization.
Likewise, institutions such as the World Bank endorsed innovations in
Brazilian social policies, such as PBF and PB, as will be presented through-
out the book. Nowadays the link between policies of agriculture and food
provision such as PNAE in the ambit of the FAO has fostered fast develop-
ment. This proximity is also due to the fact that since 2011 the Brazilian
agronomist José Graziano is president of the FAO and is now in his sec-
ond mandate. In the new millennium a space has opened up for another
consensus, called the “Brazilia Consensus” by Michael Schifter, President
of the Centre of Research for Inter-American dialogue in 2011. This
counterpoises the “Washington Consensus” from the 1980s. In fact, the
new consensus acts as a sort of paradigm consisting of a moderate leftist
ideology, which combines social inclusion, macroeconomic stability and
state control of minerals or the creation of taxes for extraction. In 2016
Brazil is in fact an exporter of social policies. The case of PB proves to be
a precursor in this path. In the following section we will discuss a range of
theories in the debate on the field of diffusion that will allow us to intro-
duce the analysis of PB presented in this book.
1.2 BETWEEN (INTERNATIONAL) POLICY

TRANSFER AND DIFFUSION
The literature on policy transfer and diffusion draws in particular from the
fields of sociology, political science and international relations. The mate-
rial produced in this area of research allows us to separate a range of specific
elements present in the phenomenon: the empirical object (democracy,
repertoire of actions, macroeconomic paradigms, etc.), the variable under
analysis (independent—the process or dependent—the result), the differ-
ent approaches (cognitive, of actors, of mechanisms, etc.) and method-
ological strategies (qualitative, quantitative or mixed).
There is a barrier to be overcome in this field of research, characterized
by a variety of terminology and which creates a great deal of confusion.
In fact, diffusion and transfer are at times synonyms and at times hypero-
nyms. In fact, both are used to indicate closely related phenomena or even
very similar phenomena, but which are not always identical.4 To simplify
the narrative in this book, the term “diffusion” is used whenever there is
a reference to the collective adoption of a public policy, whereas the term
“transfer” coincides with a singular or punctual movement of adoption,
from one point to the other as shall be described in the next chapter.
The first signs of concern with this theme in political science5 arose at
the end of the 1960s, especially in the work of Jack Walker (1969), whose
studies were inspired from the diffusion of innovations, investigating the
speed and the spatial patterns of the adoption of services and programmes
of municipalities in the United States at that time. In the 1980’s, there
appeared important works focusing on the phenomenon of the diffusion
of ideas and political and economic models. Examples are Peter Hall’s
study (1989) of political power and economic ideas, in his book on the
diffusion of Keynesianism between countries, as well as the theory of mul-
tiple streams written by John Kingdon (1995). Both take into consider-
ation the dimension of ideas to study the agenda setting.6
The processes of democratization in Latin America and Europe in the
past century were important to pave the way for research on diffusion, in
particular with the work of Laurence Whitehead (1988), who sought to
understand the international dimension present in the transition to democ-
racy processes in Latin America. Likewise Samuel Huntington (1993) in
The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century sought to
define the causes, objects, periods and fluxes in the democratization pro-
cess. More recently, Kurt Weyland (2014) addressed the same issue on a
comparative historical perspective in Making Waves: Democratic Contention
in Europe and Latin America since the Revolutions of 1948. The diffusion of
electoral models—stemming from transitions which occurred after the end
of the Soviet bloc in East European countries—was also studied (Bunce
and Wolchik 2010) and gave continuity to this domain of research.
The analysis of diffusion can relate to an independent variable, or
rather the process, as well as to the dependent variable, that is, the result
(Dolowitz and Marsh 2000, p. 8). There are studies which concentrate on
one or the other variable. The neo-institutionalism perspective, especially
in its sociological strand, put particular emphasis on processes which make
organizations become similar in their bureaucratic dimension, named
institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). In the area of
comparative politics, studies on convergence aim to understand the causes
of the adoption of similar public policies in different states. From a broad
perspective, these studies were dedicated to understand the reasons which
lead countries to abandon their own home-grown public policies and fol-
low the lead of a more common direction (Bennett 1991; Rose 1991), as
for example the adoption of preconceived sectorial reforms, mentioned in
the previous section of this book.
If we take into account the contributions of international studies and
sociology, approaches to diffusion get even broader. International diffu-
sion of norms was an area of particular study. The life cycle of norms was
interpreted by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) as a process divided into
three phases: genesis, international acceptance or “norm cascade” and
internal transfer. Influenced by the Bourdieusan legacy, Yves Dezalay
and Brian Garth (2002) sought to understand how Latin American
elites from different countries imported judicial technologies, which
originated in prestigious American universities and powerful institu-
tions, to their respective States. Both studies focused on the process of
diffusion and analysed both the national and international levels as an
interwoven process.
The area of diffusion is divided into distinct ways to approach the phe-
nomenon. Kurt Weyland (2006), for example, considers the cognitive psy-
chology of actors as a basis for adoption. Others insist on the influence of
a range of different actors—collective or individuals—as an explanation
for diffusion. In other words, these authors emphasize the role played by
institutions (national and international), political parties, advocacy net-
works, think tanks and NGOs, among others (Finnemore 1993; Olivers
and Myers 2003; Stone 2001). It is worth noting that in the literature
there is a distinction between different individual actors participating in
diffusion, such as entrepreneurs (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p. 895),
mediators (Givan et al. 2010, p. 12) and adopters (McAdam and Rucht
1993, p. 58).
Moreover, there is a new tendency on diffusion studies to identify
mechanisms that facilitate or constrain the process (Simmons et al. 2008;
Graham et al. 2013). The purpose is to access an entity from which it’s
possible to attribute causal force to the diffusion process. Literature has
been pointing to different mechanisms operating in diffusion and four in
particular: (1) socialization (which induces actors to adopt certain mod-
els, techniques and norms); (2) coercion (which refers to institutional
imposition); (3) competition (which insists on the fact that governments
compete among themselves to obtain credits, external investments and
to host mega events); and (4) learning (when governments draw lessons
from other experiences). This book offers an important contribution to
the policy diffusion research field, insofar as it identifies different mecha-

nisms operating throughout the spread of PB and points out some of the
limits of the existing literature. These aspects will be developed in the
next chapter.
The analysis of the international diffusion of PB still lacks a clearly
defined theoretical analytical framework and dialogue among approaches.
Although, in the wide spectrum of forms, methods and objects of dif-
fusion, certain elements are central to my work. The first is that diffu-
sion should essentially be considered as an independent variable, in the
sense of Dolowitz and Marsh (2001). In other words, the analysis in
this book is concentrated on the process of PB diffusion. This choice
excludes from our research the analysis of the result in terms of success
or failure of PB, when implemented in other locations. In this book the
idea of “success” coincides with the arrival and implementation of PB
elsewhere. According to Dolowitz and Marsh (2001) the analysis of the
process of diffusion implies answering questions such as the following:
Who is involved in this process? What is being transferred from one place
to another? What is the origin of the transfer? These are the questions
explored in this research.
The second element is that analysing the process of diffusion requires
attention to the dimension of the actors involved. On the one hand,
literature on policy diffusion insists on the role of institutional actors,
such as the state, municipalities, international organizations, NGOs and
think tanks (Dolowitz and Marsh 2001; Simmons, Dobbin, and Garrett
2008). On the other hand, literature on diffusion of social movements
and the sociology of elites stresses the role of individuals (Givan, Roberts,
Soule 2012; Dezalay and Garth 2002). The proposal of this book draws
from the basis of both research fields and takes into account the role of
individual and institutional actors.
The third element is the cycle of diffusion. In theories of international
relations, much effort has been dedicated to the study of cycles of norms.
The contribution of Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) was fundamental in
developing the argument presented in this book. The proposal to analyse
the global process of PB diffusion made it necessary to have the support
of testable theories. In effect, our empirical observations on PB pointed
to a movement characterized by a tipping point and a spillover effect. The
tipping point, as will be discussed, can be considered as the point when
a critical mass accepts and recognizes PB as a positive public policy to be
adopted. Spillover will also be discussed later, and is the process when a
massive diffusion occurs and coincides with the movement of PB passing

quickly from one individual to the other, from one institution to another,
from one region to another and so forth.
This book therefore is placed in the literature on the diffusion of ideas,
public policies and social movements. This study is also part of a new
generation of research on the diffusion of democracy and democratic
innovations. It contemplates this literature, insofar as social participation
devices are being incorporated into contemporary constitutions (e.g. in
the cases of Ecuador and the Dominican Republic, PB has become a
constitutional principle). Besides that, a group of democratic countries
has undergone a process of deepening their resources, honing and inno-
vating with tools of social participation.7 There are even non-democratic
countries implementing PB at a sub-government level, building, in this
way, their democratic institutions “from the bottom up” as in the case of
Madagascar and China.
These theories, problems and concepts set by the policy diffusion litera-
ture served to inspire the development of a specific approach to analysing
PB. Before presenting our analytical strategy, it is important to understand
how PB was treated by contemporary scholars—who overlooked its inter-
national dimension—in its specific literature.
1.2.1 The International Dimension of PB in Literature

PB is one of the experiences which has most provoked studies on vari-
ous themes of participatory democracy.8 It is worthwhile distinguishing
between the different types of literature on PB. There are political works,
technical articles and academic literature. There are also hybrid publica-
tions, which combine political authors, technicians and academics. This
section does not offer an analysis of the whole work produced, but rather
focuses above all on the academic material in this area, as a means of show-
ing the insertion of this book into this field of research.
It needs to be recognized that the international diffusion of PB is
due to the translation and circulation of documents, which are important
vectors for the transfer of ideas and knowledge (Bourdieu 2002).9 The
reports and manuals produced by the UN-Habitat, in particular on the
Urban Management Program (UMP), the documents for the URB-AL
and World Bank publications were important sources of technical infor-
mation. A collection of monographies produced by academics have
become classic, such as the books by Rebecca Abers (2000),10 Santos
(2003) and Gret and Sintomer (2005) and have served as a source of
inspiration for intellectuals and activists alike, as well as being a testament
to the experience. The example par excellence of this dynamic between
literature and diffusion of ideas emerges in the political sphere. It is the
book by Genro and Souza (1997), which was translated into a variety of
languages and launched in many countries by its authors, as will be pre-
sented from Chap. 3 on.
In academia, the production of work on this theme has advanced greatly
in recent years, treating PB from important perspectives and consolidating
substantial volumes of heuristic material. There are writers of a normative
nature, emphasizing the positive effects of participatory devices, such as
Santos (2003), who sees PB as an alternative model that is considered
“counter-hegemonic”, and is eligible to amplify the democratic canon.
Other authors dedicate themselves to dealing with specific political sci-
ence themes coming out of PB, by studying the relationship between
institutional design and deepening of democracy, questioning the effects
on spaces for participation and democratization in public management
(Evans 2003; Fung and Wright 2002; Lubambo et al. 2005).
Case studies are numerous (Abers 2000; Avritzer 2002, 2003; Baiocchi
2005; Romão 2011), in large part covering PB in Porto Alegre and con-
sidering PB through diverse lenses. Leonardo Avritzer (2002), in par-
ticular, sought to show how previous existence of participation practices
in society contributed to the positive outcomes in the implementation
of participatory practices. From a long-term field research, Gianpaolo
Baiocchi (2005) produced an ethnography of PB associations operating
throughout its process.
The comparisons and regional studies in Latin America and Europe
raised new elements to the understanding of different experiences. The
study by Benjamin Goldfrank (2011) compared three cities, Caracas,
Montevideo and Porto Alegre, seeking to understand the element con-
tributing to the success or failure of cases of participatory democracy
devices which were introduced by left-wing administrations such as
PB. An ambitious study published by Yves Sintomer and his collaborators
(Sintomer et al. 2008a, b) presents research on PB in a dozen countries
across Europe. However, comparisons are still few in the literature.
In general, authors have overlooked the theme of international diffu-
sion. In fact, this issue was incorporated into the literature slowly, with
specific studies, which have only recently increased in number, despite
PB’s widespread adoption since 2000. Giovanni Allegretti and Carsten
Herzberg published in 2004 a pioneering article entitled “The Return

of the Caravels”. The article essentially defended the notion that mutual
experience in processes of international co-operation had allowed alterna-
tive models of democracy and social participation, developed in the South,
to migrate to European countries. Authors allude to the colonial legacy
and to the inversion in the direction of diffusion of public policies and
political institutions.
In France, Yves Cabannes (2006) wrote an article which analysed the
different paths to PB adoption in different Latin American countries,
pointing out the actors who had contributed to the implementation of it in
each country. Diana Burgos Vigna (2004) published an article in French,
analysing the adoption of PB in Peru. In my previous book, the case
study conducted was specifically dedicated to the theme of policy trans-
fer, defending the argument that PB had been transferred from Porto
Alegre to Saint-Denis, in the outskirts of Paris, for two complimentary
reasons: the aspiration of the first municipality to have an international
influence and to create a more direct link with the local population (Porto
de Oliveira 2010). This question was also posed by Marie-Hélène Bacqué
and Yves Sintomer (2010) in an anthology of diverse articles by European
authors, which explored the genesis and adaptation of models of PB in
different European countries, tracking the influences that had been taken
in by PB models from the old continent.
It is possible to recognize that Europe and more specifically the research
of French academics produced innovation in PB studies, inasmuch as
around 2000 there could be identified a watershed, when the theme was
tackled through the lens of diffusion by a few authors. Despite the build-
up of published works, which had the advantage of launching the theme of
diffusion, there was neither co-ordination between the productions nor a
coherent dialogue more in line with the specific literature of policy transfer
and diffusion, which was presented in the previous section. It was even
more unlikely for authors to defend arguments in respect of the causes of
diffusion.
The first survey of international experiences of PB was launched
in 2010,11 in a technical publication by the German “Service Agency
Communities in One World” written by Yves Sintomer, Carsten Herzberg
and Giovanni Allegretti. The first version of the study counted between
795 and 1469 cases of PB, while the updated version published in 2013
estimated 2788 experiences distributed in various corners of the globe. In
this study, Sintomer et al. (2013a, p. 15) developed a typology to organize
and classify the universe of PB cases.
From six social and political criteria Sintomer et al. (2013a, b) defined
different models which represented cases of PB: democratic participation,
democratic proximity, participative modernization, multi-stakeholder par-
ticipation, neo-corporatism and community development. Although the
models contained fragilities, since it is difficult to take into consideration
the amplitude and heterogeneity of a universe of more than two thousand
cases of PB, distributed in entirely different contexts around the world,
this was a great step for the understanding of PB worldwide. In fact, it
helped offer a global plan for the diffusion of PB and put the researcher
in front of the sheer variety of adaptations that existed. For these authors,
PB is a type of ideoscape, that is “a model which travels around the world
and only exists through its very different local implementations, which
continuously contribute to modifying the model itself” (Sintomer et al.
2013a, p. 13).
The publication presented a short section on the international diffu-
sion of PB (Sintomer et al. 2013a, pp. 11–13), with a descriptive narra-
tive about the process. The authors insisted that the WSF, local networks
and authorities were elements that facilitated the international diffusion
of PB. The narrative described how after the WSF in Porto Alegre, social
movements and representatives of left-wing administrations were inspired
by the idea of spreading PB to Europe. Networks such as the URB-AL
brought European and Latin American municipalities together. Moreover,
the role of the CGLUA in the process of adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa
was highlighted.
Two years later in December 2012, Brian Wampler co-edited an issue of
the publication Journal of Public Deliberation with the title “The Spread
of Participatory Budgeting Across the Globe: Adoption, Adaptation, and
Impacts”, which brought together case studies from different regions.
Two important new arguments were presented. The first was that of
Benjamin Goldfrank in respect to the involvement of the Word Bank in
the process of the international diffusion of PB. The second was that of
Ernesto Ganuza and Gianpaolo Baiocchi who insisted on the changing of
the meaning of PB.
The World Bank has become the biggest promoter of PB in recent
years—this is the central point of “The World Bank and the Globalization
of Participatory Budgeting” by Benjamin Goldfrank (2012). The author
saw the Brazilian Workers Party as the initial promotors of PB. Although
it was later substituted by the World Bank. He defended that the World
Bank had transformed PB in one of its Global Scripts, as a measure to be
recommended to all municipalities. The institution even reformulated PB
into a form of PB-Lite, eradicating its content for local transformation and
as an instrument of popular governance and inserting the idea of efficient
governance.
Goldfrank argued that there are two types of promoters of PB within
the World Bank, those who recognized the techniques as an instrument
capable of promoting a neo-liberal agenda and those who believed in its
potential for enhancing democracy. Goldfrank’s argument is interesting
and shows the role of the World Bank in the diffusion of PB. The author
defended that there were two strands of promotion of PB within the bank,
but is uncertain how these were composed or how PB even came to get on
the Bank’s agenda. In this book actors and actions connected to PB in the
World Bank are developed, as well as the first entrance of PB into this insti-
tution, which occurred in an event in 1996, complementing and deepen-
ing the evidence presented by Goldfrank. This process will be described at
length in Chap. 5.
Ernesto Ganuza and Gianpaolo Baiocchi (2012) emphasized the power
of ambiguity of PB as an element facilitating its diffusion. Their argument,
inspired by the legacy of Bruno Latour, insists on the fact that the diffu-
sion of PB is permeated with translations and its meaning may be trans-
formed throughout the process. In this sense, as it circulates PB becomes
malleable and absorbs different contents in each context. In fact, PB con-
tains an ideological component and a methodological one, both of which
are promoted. If Ganuza and Baiocchi advanced the understanding of the
international dimension of PB, both left open the role of actors, especially
the actions of individuals and of institutions, which are at the centre of the
analysis of this book.
Despite the progressive evolution on the theme in international litera-
ture there is still no precise argument on the diffusion of PB overall. It
is worth noting that the literature is recent and sketchy. In this context,
analysing the diffusion of PB at the start of the research (2008) meant
entering an area of information which was extremely fragile. This book is
complementary to previous research, including my case study from 2010
mentioned above.
1.3 THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

The research found different dynamics and mechanisms operating in the
diffusion of PB. The entrance of this device on the international agenda
and its spread are not merely by chance and neither can it be solely attrib-
uted to the promotion in the last few years by international organiza-
tions, such as the UN, the World Bank and the EU. The central argument
proposed defends that the interaction between individuals and institu-
tions (national and international) was a necessary condition to engender
a process of legitimization and circulation of PB which reached a certain
moment—known as the “tipping point—and such was this recognition
that it was considered an indispensable policy for modern cities.
We can verify the existence of at least three distinct moments from the
origin of PB in Porto Alegre and its international diffusion. At the moment
of the genesis in Porto Alegre, it was not known that PB would become
the “star in participation”. A first sign that would indicate its international
ascension was the award given by the UN in 1996 in Istanbul, during the
second UN-Habitat conference. Although, the success of this award was
not sufficient in itself to insert the PB of Porto Alegre onto the interna-
tional agenda.
It was only with the first WSF from 2001 that PB would become
part of the international agenda. The WSF not only gave visibility to
PB, but also launched this device as “the hope that another world was
possible”, through democracy. Besides that the WSF also functioned
as a meeting place for all those engaged in the processes of deepening
democracy. The transnational networks also performed an important
role not only by connecting individuals from different countries around
PB, but also by advocating the adoption of participatory democracy
devices (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 The process of international circulation

Process of international circulation
Year 1989 1990–2000 January 2001–2003 2003–2013

Stages Origin Legitimization Tipping point Spillover/mass
diffusion
Elements Porto 1. UN-Habitat II World Social More than 2700
Alegre (1996) Forum cases (Sintomer
2. Le Monde et al. 2013a, b)
Diplomatique (1998)
3. International
Seminar on
Participatory
Democracy (1999)
4. World Development
Report—World Bank
(2000)
From this point, international organizations such as the UN, the EU and
the World Bank began to promote PB in a more direct and intense fash-
ion, funding visits and transfers, in addition to producing research on the
subject. The transfers of PB multiplied, generating an intense movement of
diffusion, in which PB spilled over to a diverse range of local governments
across the world, as well as to the aforementioned institutions. Now, PB is
also present in several cities in Asian countries and in some local govern-
ments in North America, as will be presented in the Epilogue of this book.
At the same time as this macro process of international diffusion, regional
diffusions occurred in at least two different directions. The first followed
the movement from “bottom up” with the strong protaganism of local
actors. Put differently, diffusion began with emblematic local experiences,
then from these experiences reached the State level, and spread like wild-
fire throughout the region. This is the case in Andean America. Another
dynamic consists of a diverse movement in which diffusion is influenced
by a group of external actors, who operate regionally and contribute to
the diffusion of PB. This dynamic is present in Sub-Saharan Africa. In the
case of the Andes, the internal actors have greater weight than the interna-
tional ones; in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the international actors are
decisive to the detriment of internal actors.
The Andean region—Peru and Ecuador in particular—followed a
“trampoline” movement, in which they developed strong initial local
experiences and from there PB rose to a national scale. Peru became the
regional leader when in 2003 it created an innovative law on PB that
encouraged municipalities across the entire country to implement it.
Ecuador followed Peru by emulating the law and taking it one step fur-
ther, by officially introducing PB into its constitution in 2008.
Sub-Saharan Africa had a different path. There are pioneering cases
of PB, but external action coming from international co-operation is an
important element—in certain cases an indispensable component—in the
implementation and maintenance of experiences. The presence of regional
specialists is crucial, inasmuch as they serve as catalysts. They accelerate dif-
fusion by adapting PB techniques, travelling to offer training and capacity-
building. International co-operation is what finance projects, such as the
World Bank, are involved with in the different cases. Furthermore, Sub-
Saharan Africa is fertile territory for the association between technological
innovation and PB.
The diffusion of PB was engendered therefore through a combination
of groups of fluxes and the interactions between individuals and interna-
tional institutions. There have even been mechanisms which facilitated

this diffusion. Throughout the process, at the same time PB was becom-
ing internationalized and circulating between different regions around the
globe, a group of individuals became specialists and were capable of offer-
ing technical training, as well as promoting PB locally and internationally.
A movement of transnational collective action grew. I name these actors
the “Ambassadors of Participation”.
1.4 FOCUS ON THE TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL

PROCESS
The analytical priority is dedicated to the transnational process of diffu-
sion and not to the genesis of PB, nor to the effects or results caused
by international fluxes. The literature on policy analysis (Sabatier 2007)
and transnational social movements (Della Porta and Tarrow 2005) has
insisted on the process dimension in order to understand political phe-
nomena. Accessing the phenomena via the processual dimension means
that its results are not analysed (Shlager 2007, p. 293). We seek to identify
and present the unfolding of long-term actions and events crucial to PB
diffusion.
Understanding the transnational component of political processes
reveals the importance to identify a broader set of relations which have
influence over public policies. The process-tracing of the transfer is out-
lined from the transnational dimension of PB, or rather the part of the
process in the intermediate space between local and international. This
does not mean to say that internal dimensions should not be considered,
but that they will be taken into account at the lowest level in our analytical
focus. It is important to mention that the local context of cities where PB
was adopted will not be deepened within the chapters. The genesis and the
results of PB are simply used as a support to understand the process. The
efficiency of participatory devices, the role of participants, the institutional
design and the dimension of representation in PB are also not studied.
1.5 THE RESEARCH STRATEGY

How does one research the global diffusion of PB? Despite the fact that
diffusion studies has produced a lot of literature, few authors that inform
us on how to analyse diffusion itself. This research turned out to be a
pluralist strategy, structured from qualitative methodology, enabling the

understanding of diffusion on its different local, regional and global scales.
The method was designed based on a case study, in the sense adopted by
John Gerring (2004, p. 342). The author states that case studies can serve
to understand a wider class of similar phenomena, which in our case is
policy diffusion. The analysis was developed from techniques of process-
tracing (George and Bennett 2005; Hall 2006; Tilly 2006).12 We tried to
identify causal chains that lead to international diffusion. Carrying out a
task of this magnitude for the object under study in this book required an
enormous amount of information.
The empirical research was inspired by the French approach to studying
public policy, in particular the strand revealed by Patrick Hassenteufel. For
him, the analysis of the
operators of transferences needs to study the places and spaces of interaction

(fora, debates, seminars, meetings, etc.) in which transnational actors would
spread their views with other national actors. The direct observation and/
or participant observation is an important lead. (Hassenteufel 2005, p. 128)
If this author offers clues for the research objects, the analysis does not
offer information on the strategy to design field research.
Studies on the diffusion of new forms of culture, technological innova-
tions and transnational migration have developed a “multi-sited” ethnog-
raphy. George Marcus (1995) presented indicatives on how to study a
phenomenon which does not occur in one specific place but which could
be discovered in different places. The proposal of multi-sited ethnography
proposes advances in relation to the traditionally located ethnography to
enable the understanding of contemporary phenomena which come from
empirical transformations due to globalization and whose observance can-
not be restricted to a limited space. Diffusion is a phenomenon which
involves multiple spaces. Marcus insists on following objects as a research
strategy to trace the process. The idea is to follow the people involved in
the phenomenon, the objects in circulation, the symbols and metaphors,
the plot and the biography of the actors in conflict. Among the richness
of this nature of strategy is capturing communities which operate transna-
tionally and identifying their patterns of action.
Relying on these approaches we developed a strategy of “transnational
political ethnography” in order to understand PB. The research frame-
work to study the process of PB diffusion was developed on three fronts.
The first front was tracing the general process of diffusion and, following
on from this, identifying the principal stages of this movement. Three sig-
nificant stages of the international diffusion of PB were defined: interna-
tionalization, legitimization and large-scale diffusion. Internationalization
consists of the “departure” of PB from Brazil; legitimization refers to its
process of international recognition; and large-scale diffusion is seen as
the adoption of PB by a huge group of local authorities. The second front
was selecting units and subunits representative of the phenomenon which
could act as aids to understanding diffusion. It is worth noting that the
stages refer to the process, whereas units and subunits correspond to scales
of diffusion in the spatial sense: one unit corresponds to Andean America,
its subunits are Peru and Villa El Salvador. The third and final front was
to analyse the process of regional diffusion and some significant transfers.
The research methodology is essentially qualitative. The sheer lack of
reliable international information on PB still limits the possibility of quan-
titatively analysing the phenomenon of international diffusion. Qualitative
analysis in turn is also affected by the limited quality and quantity of
available information with respect to the experiences of PB in Brazil and
even more so at the international level. Effectively the case studies on
PB concentrate on “good examples” as in the case of Porto Alegre and
Belo Horizonte in Brazil. There is still a great gap in terms of studies on
failed PB projects and documents on these cases. Even in Recife (Brazil),
which is a state capital, there are limited consistent studies on its experi-
ences with PB and with the change of government in 2013—which will
be mentioned in Chap. 3—and access to old documentation for this case
is increasingly difficult.
In terms of international experiences, Andean America relies on a group
of academic studies on its experiences but these are not internationalized
and need bibliographic research in loco. Another part of the production is
technical in that it comes from reports compiled by international organi-
zations. In respect to Sub-Saharan Africa the bibliography is almost inex-
istent. Making it all the harder to obtain information is the fact that the
territories where PB is developed can be difficult to access. The first book
by the World Bank divulging experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa was pub-
lished in 2007; the report by Sintomer, Herzberg and Allegretti on the
experiences of PB in the world contains a section on the region and began
to circulate around the end of 2010.
The volatility of PB experiences of which the large part of cases depends
on the executive power to be maintained also makes the work of the
researcher difficult. As a consequence, several experiences of PB emerge

and are eclipsed, often in line with the electoral cycles of each country. The
documents in turn are often difficult to retrieve after PB has ceased to exist.
Information on local and international institutions is also difficult to
obtain. The UMP for Latin America and the Caribbean of the UN was
closed in 2004 and the Radically Democratize Democracy network ended
its activities in 2000. The technical units of the World Bank are in general
sited in its Washington Headquarters whilst their consultants are based in
their countries of origin in Africa, Latin America and Europe. To collect
sufficient information to produce this study it was necessary to go to a
variety of municipalities in three regions of the world as can be observed in
Table 1.2. On more than one occasion donations of documents of inter-
viewees and their institutions were received in order to have the necessary
material to complete the investigation.
To understand the first stage of the diffusion process, we selected three
Brazilian state capitals where PB was internationalized: the heartland of
PB Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and Recife. From the juxtaposition of
these three cities, it was possible to identify the elements which differenti-
ated Porto Alegre and made it the great “star” of participation. The pro-
cess of international legitimation was studied through three international
institutions, the UN, the World Bank and the EU, and two transnational
networks, the Radically Democratize Democracy network and the Forum
of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion and Participatory Democracy.
Table 1.2 Trips for field research

Research missions by region Countries/cities Period
Latin America (Brazil) Belém 2009

Porto Alegre 2011
Belo Horizonte 2013
Recife 2013
Latin America (Andes) Ecuador: Quito, Cotacachi 2012
Peru: Lima 2013
Sub-Saharan Africa Mozambique: Maputo 2012
South Africa: Johannesburg 2012
Senegal: Dakar 2012
Europe Spain: Madrid, Barcelona 2012
France: Saint-Denis, Paris 2008/2012
United States Washington 2013
Chicago
New York
Following on from this to understand large-scale diffusion, we choose

two regions in which PB had been widely adopted: Andean America and
Sub-Saharan Africa. In Andean America two countries were studied in
which PB was transferred on a national scale, Ecuador and Peru. These
countries have emblematic transfer experiences, respectively Cotacachi in
the first and Villa El Salvador in the latter. Sub-Saharan Africa was analysed
as a region in itself, in which there were four cases from Francophone,
Lusophone and Anglophone Africa: Ampassy Nahampoana (Madagascar),
Fissel (Senegal), Makhado (South Africa) and Maputo (Mozambique).
The research was accessed through various research missions in loco,
which have been taking place since 2007. This work, whose focus is con-
centrated on the international dimension, has accumulated dense material
from a variety of primary sources. The field trips served to collect three
types of information that composes the main sources used in this work.
They were carried out through 127 in-depth interviews, conducted in four
different languages (English, French, Portuguese and Spanish). On site,
official documents, publicity materials and diverse materials such as pam-
phlets, folders and hand-outs were collected. Participant observation was
undertaken in plenaries and assemblies on PB, Civil Society Organization
meetings and in a variety of international events: International Observatory
of Participatory Democracy, 2008 and 2012; Forum of Local Authorities,
2009; World Social Forum, 2009; Metropolis, 2012; Africities, 2012; and
Annual Meeting on Participatory Budgeting in the United States, 2013.
The secondary literature is used as a complementary source.
The processes of transfers and diffusion were traced and reconstructed
essentially from primary sources. The material collected varied according
to the field of study. The technique of saturation (Bleich and Pekkanen
2013, p. 97), that is, exploring a case until the point where the infor-
mation begins to be repeated and new discoveries become increasingly
hard to find was used in all the field missions. Still, there are cases which
have greater content in relation to others as a result of the availability of
information. The field of research in Sub-Saharan Africa is a case in point
as it was the hardest to carry out. Field trips to Africa are the most com-
plex both in terms of access to information as in being able to conduct
interviews. Moreover, field trips are more costly and involve greater risks
depending on where the information has to be collected. The Brazilian
fieldwork was the easiest to conduct as it provides the context to the book
and is the native country of the author.
The evidence obtained from such sources was systematically cross-
referenced with other sources—be they oral statements or written
documents—by means of triangulation (Gallagher 2013, p. 114). This

technique allows on the one hand assurance of factual consistency of evi-
dence presented by interviewees and on the other enriching the details of
the information found in documents, taking us continually to levels which
turn out to be ever-deeper research discoveries. The reconstruction of this
process is narrated in three parts, divided into two theoretical chapters,
five empirical chapters and one final chapter. The work also includes a brief
Epilogue.
1.6 THE NARRATIVE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK

The diffusion of PB consists of a broad-ranging and complex process,
which characterizes international relations and contemporary public
policy. The material collected over more than six years of research in
various countries allows the accumulation of dense information from
primary sources. The aim was to reconstruct the process from material
collected and was written directly by the author. The narrative describes
the process of PB diffusion. This movement was shown in individuals,
institutions which participated in the phenomenon, spaces in which it
operated, ways of operating and the mechanisms which were influential
in the diffusion. Excerpts of interviews were also included throughout
the whole book. The interviews cited and some documents are originally
in four different languages (Portuguese, Spanish, French and English).
To help the reader the author has translated all the citations in foreign
languages into English.
The following chapter is theoretical and conceptual. Developed con-
cepts are presented in order to assist the understanding of the process
of diffusion used in this book. In the first instance the principal move-
ments of the process are presented: circulation, diffusion and transfer.
Secondly, various institutions which influence diffusion are introduced.
We then go on to a description of developed categories to analyse indi-
vidual actors and lastly we consider the mechanisms which operate
throughout the process.
The third chapter opens the empirical part of the book. It describes
the macro processes involved in diffusion. The international trajectory of
Porto Alegre is presented together with other cases: Belo Horizonte and
Recife. This is the genesis of the diffusion process. Next, Chap. 4 is dedi-
cated exclusively to the analysis of two transnational networks that were
involved in the process. Chapter 5 closes the second part which analyses
the moment when PB gained international legitimacy and began to be

diffused on a massive scale. In this Chap. 5 international institutions are
analysed: WSF, UN, EU and World Bank.
The last part covers two regional chapters and a conclusion, which
presents the outcomes of the movement of international diffusion of
PB. Chapter 6 explores the adoption of the Porto Alegre model of PB
in Villa El Salvador and its transfer onto a national scale in Peru and
the spread of the same movement to Cotacachi in Ecuador. Chapter 7
describes diffusion in the African Sub-Saharan region. Chapter 8 revisits
the central element of the book, offering new pathways for future research
and proposing a reading list on the significance of the massive diffusion
of PB and its possible scenarios in the future. In the Epilogue we present
some evidence and reflections based on a small piece of fieldwork con-
ducted in the United States.
NOTES
1. The renowned magazine The Economist published materials on the
success of Bolsa Família, as well as Brazilian policies on participa-
tive governance, see in particular http://www.economist.com/
node/16690887 and http://www.economist.com/news/
international/21574454-internet-helps-politicians-listen-better-
their-electors-if-they-want-processing. Checked in October 2013.
2. Understood in its wider sense, to know everything about what a
government actor decides to do or not or even better those studies
on public policies in the French strand known as “The State in
Action” (Muller 1985).
3. See also the statement by Romulo Paes Souza in the article “Brazil’s
cash transfer scheme is improving the lives of the poorest”, pub-
lished in The Guardian, 19 November 2010. Available at http://
w w w. t h e g u a r d i a n . c o m / g l o b a l - d e v e l o p m e n t / p o v e r t y -
matters/2010/nov/19/brazil-cash-transfer-scheme, consulted
on 9 February 2016.
4. A selection carried out by Elkins and Simmons (2005, p. 37)
pointed to a group of terms associated with the phenomenon as a
result (isomorphism, convergence, waves, homofilia, homogene-
ity) and others to the process of diffusion (contagion, spatial auto-
correlation, demonstration effects, imitation, mimicry, emulation,
bandwagoning, transfer, Galton problem, cascading).
5. The sociologist Tarde and the anthropologist Malinowski deliver

this concern in greater depth.
6. It is worth noting that John Kingdon was inspired by Walker, in
Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Cf. Kingdon (1995),
footnote no. 8, p. 16.
7. The collection Kaleidoscope of Democratic Innovation in Latin
America, organized by Yanina Welp and Laurence Whitehead
(2011), presented more than one chapter on diffusion of elements
for deepening democracy in the region.
8. There are many ways in the literature to refer to this field of study,
such as participatory democracy, participatory governance, citizen
participation, participatory institutions, spaces for participation,
and so on.
9. This facet of diffusion will not be discussed in particular in this
book, although the author recognizes its importance.
10. In an intervention at the II Conference on PB in the USA in
Chicago, Daniel Schugurenski affirms that the introduction of PB
in Canada was due in large part to the previously mentioned book
by Rebecca Abers.
11. The Portuguese version was published in 2012.
12. The analytical techniques for understanding the process show sub-
tle differences. This book integrates elements of each of these
which were denominated in different ways by each author: George
and Bennett (2005) developed the notion of “process-tracing”,
Peter Hall (2006) defined “systematic analysis of the process” and
Charles Tilly (2006) dealt in general with “macro-historical com-
parison”, which focused on processual dimensions.
REFERENCES
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil. London:
Lynne Rienner.
Ardila-Gomez, A. (2004). Transit Planning in Curitiba and Bogotá. Roles in
Interaction, Risk, and Change. PhD thesis in Urban and Transportation
Planning, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Avritzer, L. (2002). O Orçamento Participativo: As experiências de Porto Alegre
e Belo Horizonte. In E. Dagnino, E. (Org.), Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos
no Brasil. Campinas: Paz e Terra.
Avritzer, L. (2003). Modelos de deliberação democrática: uma análise do
Orçamento Participativo no Brasil. In B. Santos (Dir.), Democratizar a
Democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa (pp. 561–598). Rio de

Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Bacqué, M.-H., & Sintomer, Y. (2010). La démocratie participative inachevée:
genese, adaptations et diffusions. Éditions Yves Michel: Saint-Etienne.
Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy
in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? British
Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215–233.
Bleich, E., & Pekkanen, R. (2013). How to Report Interview Data. In L. Mosley
(Ed.), Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des
idées. Actes de la recherche em sciences sociales, 145(1), 3.
Brazil. (2014). Participação Social no Brasil: entre conquistas e desafios. Secretaria-
Geral da Presidência da República, Brasília.
Brazil. (2016). Portal Brasil. http://www.brasil.gov.br/cidadania-e-justica/
2016/01/modelo-do-bolsa-familia-foi-exportado-para-52-paises, consulted
on April 2016.
Bunce, V., & Wolchik, S. (2010). Transnational Networks, Diffusion Dynamics,
and Electoral Change in the Postcommunist World. In R. Givan, K. Roberts,
& S. Soule (Eds.), The Diffusion of Social Movements: Actors, Mechanisms and
Political Effects (pp. 140–162). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burgos-Vigna, D. (2004). La circulation d’un modèle de démocratie locale en
Amérique latine: l’exemple du Budget participative. América, 33, 83–94.
Cabannes, Y. (2006). Les budgets participatifs en Amérique latine: de Porto
Alegre à l’Amérique Centrale, en passant par la zone andine, tendances, défis et
limites. Mouvements, (47/48), 128–138.
Cabral, L., Shankland, A., Favareto, A., & Vaz, A. (2014, July). Brazil–Africa
Agricultural Cooperation Encounters: Drivers, Narratives and Imaginaries of
Africa and Development. IDS Bulletin, 44(4), 53–68.
Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Orgs.). (2005). Transnational Protest and Global
Activism. Lanham: Rowman & Littfeld, 287 p.
Dezalay, Y., & Garth, B. (2002). La mondialisation des guerres de palais: la restruc-
turation du pouvoir d’Etat en Amérique latine. Entre notables du droit et
«Chicago boys». Paris: Seuil.
Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 1147–1160.
Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy
Transfer in Contemporary Policy Making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.
Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. (2005). On Waves, Clusters, and Diffusion: A

Conceptual Framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 598, 33–51.
Evans, P. (2003). Além da “Monocultura Institucional”: instituições, capacidades
e o desenvolvimento deliberativo. Sociologias, 9(5), 20–63.
Farah, M. F. S. (1997). Gestão pública e cidadania: iniciativas inovadoras na
administração subnacional no Brasil. Revista de Administração Pública, 31(4),
126–156.
Farah, M. F. S. (2013). A contribuição da Administração Pública para a constitu-
ição do campo de estudos de políticas públicas. In E. C. L. Marques & C. A.
P. Faria (Eds.), A Política pública como campo multidisciplinar (pp. 91–126).
São Paulo: Ed. Unesp.
Faria, C. A. (2012, dez). A difusão de políticas sociais como estratégia de inserção
internacional: Brasil e Venezuela comparados. Interseções, 14(2), 335–371.
Finnemore, M. (1993). International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The
United Nations Educational, Scientifica, and Cutural Organization and Science
Policy. International Organization, 47(4), 565–597.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political
Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Fung, A., & Wright, O. (Orgs.). (2002). Deeping Democracy: Institutionals
Innovations in Empowered Participatory Democracy. London: Verso Press.
Gallagher, M. (2013). Capturing Meaning and Confronting Measurement. In
L. Mosley (Ed.), Interview Research in Political Science. Cornell University
Press.
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012a). The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory
Budgeting Travels the Globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–12.
Genro, T., & Souza, U. (1997). Orçamento Participativo: A experiência de Porto
Alegre. São Paulo: Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo.
George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the
Social Sciences. Massachussets: MIT Press.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a Case Study and What is it Good for? American
Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354.
Givan, R., Roberts, K., & Soule, S. (2010). The Diffusion of Social Movements:
Actors, Mechanisms and Political Effects. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Goldfrank, B. (2011). Deepening Local Democracy in Latin America: Participation,
Decentralization, and the Left. University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Goldfrank, B. (2012). The World Bank and the Globalization of Participatory
Budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–14.
Graham, E., Schipan, C., & Volden, C. (2013a). The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion
Research in Political Science. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3),
673–701.
Graziano, J., Grossi, M., & França, C. (2010). Fome Zero: A experiência brasileira.
Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário.
Gret, M., & Sintomer, Y. (2005). Porto Alegre: l’espoir d’une autre démocratie.
Paris: La Découverte.
Hall, P. (1989). The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hall, P. (2006). Systematic Process Analysis: When and How to Use it. European
Management Review, 3, 24–31.
Hassenteufel, P. (2005). De la comparaison internationale à la comparaison trans-
nationale, les déplacements de la construction des objets comparatifs en
matière de politiques publiques. Revue Française de Science Politique, 55(1),
113–132.
Huntington, S. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. New York: Harper
Collins.
Leite, C. K. S., & Peres, U. D. (2013). Origem e disseminação do Programa Bolsa
Família: aproximações analíticas com o caso mexicano. Revista do Serviço
Público, 64, 351–376.
Lubambo, C., Coêlho, D., & Melo, M. A. (Orgs.). (2005). Desenho institucional
e participação política: experiências no Brasil contemporâneo. Petrópolis: Editora
Vozes.
Lynch, C. E. C. (2005). O Discurso Político Monarquiano e a Recepção do
Conceito de Poder Moderador no Brasil (1822–1824). Dados, 48(3),
611–654.
Mafra, J. (2016, February 11). Atuação do Banco Mundial na implementação do
Programa Bolsa Família: jogo cooperativo? Undergraduate thesis in Public
Policy and Management, University of São Paulo.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of
Multi-sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.
McAdam, D., & Rucht, D. (1993). The Cross-national Diffusion of Movement
Ideas. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 52,
56–74.
Mejía-Dugand, S., Olof, H., Leo, B., & Ríos, R. A. (2013). Lessons from the
Spread of Bus Rapid Transit in Latin America. Journal of Cleaner Production,
50, 82–90.
Muller, P. (1985). Un schéma d’analyse des politiques sectorielles. Revue Française
de Science Politique, 35(2), 165–189.
New York Times. (2014). Brazil Removed from UN World Hunger Map.
September 16.
Olivers, P., & Myers, D. (2003). Networks, Diffusion, and Cycles of Collective
Action. In D. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social Movements and Networks:
Relational Approaches to Collective Action (pp. 173–203). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2010). Le transfert d’un modèle de démocratie participative:
Paradiplomatie entre Porto Alegre et Saint-Denis. Paris: Collection Chrysallides,
IHEAL/CREDA.
Rabelo, F. L. (2011). O DASP e o combate à ineficiência nos serviços públicos: a
atuação de uma elite técnica na formação do funcionalismo público no Estado
Novo (1937–1945). Revista Brasileira de História e Ciências Sociais, 3(6),
132–142.
Romão, W. M. (2011). Conselheiros do Orçamento Participativo nas franjas da
sociedade política. Lua Nova, 84, 353–364.
Rose, R. (1991). What is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–30.
Sabatier, P. (Org.). (2007). Theories of Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, 344
p.
Santos, B. (Dir.). (2003). Democratizar a Democracia: os caminhos da democracia
participativa. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Shlager, E. (2007). A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy
Processes. In P. Sabatier (Org.), Theories of Policy Process (pp. 293–320).
Boulder: Westview Press.
Simmons, B., Garrett, F., & Dobbin, G. (2008). The Global Diffusion of Markets
and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, A., & Röcke, A. (2008a). Les Budgets Participatifs en
Europe. Paris: Recherches.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Allegretti, G. (2013). Participatory Budgeting
Worldwide – Updated Version. Dialog Global Study, Study No. 25. Bonn:
Engagement Global.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008a). Participatory Budgeting in
Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 32(1), 167–178.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008b). Les Budgets Participatifs en
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2013). Modelos transnacionais de par-
ticipação cidadã: o caso do OP. In N. Dias (Org.), Esperança Democrática: 25
anos de Orçamento Participativo no Mundo (pp. 26–44). São Brás de Alportel:
Editora In Loco.
Stone, D. (2001). Think Tanks, Global Lesson-Drawing and Networking Social
Policy Ideas. Global Social Policy, 1(3), 338–360.
Tilly, C. (2006). Afterword: Political Ethnography as Art and Science. Qual Sociol,
29, 409–412.
Walker, J. (1969). The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States. The
American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
Welp, Y., & Whitehead, L. (2011). Caleidoscopio de la inovacción democrática en

America Latina. Mexico: Flacso.
Weyland, K. (2006). Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion (p. 297). New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Weyland, K. (2014). Making Waves: Democratic Contention in Europe and Latin
America since the Revolutions of 1848. Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, L. (1988). Aspectos internacinales de la Democratizacion. In
G. O’Donnel, P. Schmitter, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transiciones desde un gobi-
erno autoritario (Vol. 3). Buenos Aires: Ed. Paidos.
World Bank. (2000). Entering the 21st Century: World Development Report
1999/2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CHAPTER 2
The Dynamics of the Process of Diffusion:

Institutions, Individuals and Mechanisms
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The experiences of participatory budgeting (PB) are progressively multi-
plying. It is possible to distinguish two movements in this process: new
waves of adoption as well as movements of abandonment. Moreover,
there are various elements circulating among the experiences of PB (ideas,
participatory methods, technologies, etc.). An effect of this flow is that
copies, emulations, syntheses and hybrids have been produced. Taking
this into account, the first difficulty which arises is to answer a simple, but
important, question: how to understand the dynamics of PB diffusion?
This chapter proposes an approach which allows us to capture the com-
plex range of fluxes and relations which make up this process. The ambi-
tion of this book is to understand the dynamics of diffusion, which means
to explain its movements and its relations with the forces that it produces.
In other words, it’s about understanding the different scales of the circu-
lation of PB, its actors and its mechanisms. This chapter has two dimen-
sions, theoretical and conceptual. The first section presents the concept
of PB, whereas the second deals with its international circulation and its
variations. The third section introduces the various actors and spaces pres-
ent in the process of circulation. The fourth section looks at individuals
and the last section introduces a range of mechanisms identified through-
out the process.

2.2 THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING:

THE OBJECT IN CIRCULATION
The universe of PBs is wide and heterogeneous. It is possible to find at
least six types of variations in different experiences. They differ in terms
of intensity, scale, normative devices, technique, technology and ideas.
There exist, for example, devices which are deliberative and others which
are merely consultative. Certain practices are at the municipal level, with
others applied at a regional or provincial level—a higher scale than the
municipal one. There are cases of PB which are regulated by law, oth-
ers which are internally regulated and others which are not. There are
innumerable combinations of the technical features on PBs, with respect
to methodology of participation (cyclical, micro-local, central, representa-
tive, etc.), to the form of participation (in presence, by telephone or digi-
tal) and to the savoir-faire of the form of administrative arrangement used
and, finally, to the use of Information and Communication Technology in
participatory processes.
As well as concrete dimensions of PB there is an abstract dimension. It
can be seen as an idea, understood in the sense of public policy literature
(Hall 1993; Howlett 2000; Majone 1996; Rose 1991; Palier and Surel
2005), that is, as principles, beliefs, world visions and so on. In this cat-
egory can be included the dimension of political projects (Dagnino et al.
2006) carried out by those who defend and promote PB. Effectively, PB
began in the confluence of ideas from social movements and from the gov-
ernment of the Popular Front of the Workers Party (PT) in Porto Alegre,
as we shall see in the following chapter. This device of participation was
appropriated by a variety of individuals, parties and institutions. Today PB
is used to defend ideas of a distinct nature. This signifies that PB can be
defended as a tool for social transformation or as a technical instrument
for fighting against corruption and improving social control, in order to
assure “good governance” in the sphere of public administration.
The definition of PB proposed in this work is minimalist in the sense
that it considers this device as a public policy aimed at including society
in the process of allocating public budgets. This way of understanding PB
includes and covers its diffusion in a number of heterogeneous cases
spread across the three continents studied. The objective of this definition
is therefore analytical and excludes normative proposals, in the sense that
PB is not being defended as a good or bad policy. The minimalist concept
serves to better understand the wide-ranging process of the international
circulation of PB.
THE DYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS OF DIFFUSION: INSTITUTIONS,... 41
2.3 CONCEPTUALIZING POLICY DIFFUSION

The definitions of diffusion proposed by the literature are different and
focus on the process, its causes or the communicative dimension of the
phenomenon. In this section, we put together elements from three differ-
ent definitions found in the policy transfer and diffusion studies.
Studies on policy transfer by Dolowitz and Marsh were inspired by
a series of works on learning and convergence at the start of the 1990s
(Bennett 1991; Rose 1991). These authors developed their concepts cen-
tred on the dimension of the transfer process. The classic study by Everett
Rogers (2003) on the diffusion of innovations defines the phenomenon
from the communication which is established with adopters and the mes-
sages which circulate from this flux.1 The definition proposed by Rogers
is one of the most adopted in the literature. In the area of diffusion of
democracies and market economies, Simmons et al. (2008) conceive
the phenomenon from the position of those conditions which influence
adopters. Table 2.1 presents the three definitions.
The definitions cited above can be understood as complementary and
allow us to extract a group of three pertinent elements to analyse: (1)
diffusion can be understood as a process; (2) it involves the communica-
tion of ideas and solutions of public action; (3) it can be intermediated by
actors of different natures.
In this research the phenomenon will be analysed considering the three
elements. Diffusion may be understood, therefore, as a process, mediated
Table 2.1 Definitions of transfer and diffusion

Authors Definition
Dolowitz and “The process by which knowledge about how policies, administrative
Marsh arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or
present) is used in the development of policies, administrative
arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting” (2000,
p. 5)
Rogers “The process in which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special
type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new
ideas” (2003, p. 5)
Simmons, “International policy diffusion occurs when government policy decisions
Dobbin and in a given country are systematically conditioned by prior choices made
Garrett in other countries (sometimes mediated by the behaviour of international
organizations or private actors and organizations)” (2008, p. 7)
or not, from which an element or range of political elements (e.g. ideas,

paradigms, institutions, solutions for public action, normative devices, pro-
grammes, models, technologies, etc.) situated somewhere—in time or space—
is adopted elsewhere.
Diffusion is not necessarily linear and is frequently permeated by diverse
actors, fluxes of distinct elements, as well as by different time scales of
adoption. To analyse the phenomenon it is necessary to fragment it. To
this end, three levels of diffusion are used: global, regional and national.
We can distinguish even more the process, in the following three ways:
circulation, diffusion and transfer. Circulation is the widest movement and
continues for the longest time. Diffusion refers to a group of medium-
range fluxes and in this study coincides with the collective adoption of a
public policy at a determined moment. Transfers are specific movements
of adoption as we shall see later. We propose to analyse diffusion by taking
into consideration the various levels and processes.
2.3.1 A Circular Movement

The international circulation of public policies in general and PB in partic-
ular can be conceived as a widespread movement both in time and space.
This term is present above all in the French debate across various disci-
plines of human sciences (history and its studies on culture in particular).
Thierry Delpeuch (2009), for example, deals with the circulation of “solu-
tions for public action”. The circulation can be expressed through waves,
involving dynamics of flux and reflux as defended by Samuel Huntington
in his study on the process of diffusion of democracies (1993).2
This means that, especially in the case of PB, it is possible to have a situa-
tion of flux in which this participatory governance policy is taken up or devel-
oped in certain places contemporaneously. The opposite is also possible, in
the sense that we can have movements of reflux which would coincide with
the abandonment of PB as happened in recent years in various Brazilian
municipalities, such as São Paulo (2005) and Recife (2013). Throughout
the movement of circulation the experiences do not necessarily follow the
original model but can also receive influences from various sources. The
learning process is mixed up making it possible for feedback dynamics to
emerge when, for example, the World Bank evaluated the experiences of
PB in Peru, after years of the implementation of the law, and made its rec-
ommendations for redesigning the model. The international circulation of
movement has its departure point in the case of PB in Porto Alegre.
2.3.2 Diffusion and Its Regions

The notion of diffusion is probably the most utilized in the debate.
Despite the diversity of terms associated with this phenomenon found in
literature, diffusion can be understood as a collective adoption. The idea
of diffusion can be connected to the notion of clusters, that is, groups
of sub-national governments or countries in the same region adopting
a policy. We can think of it as situations in which policies move tempo-
rally or spatially throughout Latin America or Europe. In the case of PB,
there was a first flux of adoptions in Latin America, which next arrived in
Europe and then extended to Africa, to finally arrive in Asia and North
America.
2.3.3 Transfers: Specific Movements

Deep-rooted in the Anglo-Saxon and French debate, the notion of trans-
fer indicates to us a specific movement in which a public policy travels
through time and space from one place to another, for example from
Porto Alegre to Maputo (Mozambique). Although there is still dispute
for different conceptual stances between strands of research as well as
uncertainty over its definitions, in the sense that often they are used as
synonyms in a random manner to mean that transfers show the same
phenomenon as diffusion or circulation: the dislocation in time and space
of an idea, public policy or innovation. In this book the three concepts
are conceived as part of a scale, in which the notion of circulation is
the broader movement, meanwhile diffusion is intermediate and transfer
more punctual.
2.4 ACTORS AND SPACES IN THE DIFFUSION PROCESS

The process of circulation is permeated by different actors such as indi-
viduals, institutions and networks. These actors interact in various spaces
and in many cases blur with these spaces. This occurs, for example, when a
network or city organizes an event and becomes simultaneously actor and
space. In this section we will present these actors. The analysis in the chap-
ters of the book will describe actors who are in constant connection and
interaction. In the next sections we will look at international institutions,
then sub-national institutions before moving on to considering transna-
tional spaces of circulation.
2.4.1 International Institutions

Nowadays international institutions operate at two or more levels
(international, national and sub-national).3 These institutions fre-
quently engage in the promotion of international public policy (Nay
and Petiteville 2011), spanning from peace operations to the eradication
of urban poverty policies, or the combat of AIDS4 and the protection
of refugees. PB does not escape this dynamic. The United Nations, the
World Bank and the European Union as well as national agencies for co-
operation of certain countries (e.g. Germany, Switzerland and Norway)
have had systematic intervention in the promotion of PB to sub-national
governments. This research considers the influence of international insti-
tutions and international agencies for co-operation in the process of dif-
fusing PB.
A range of international actors perform, each in their own way,
important roles in the process of the circulation of PB. These actors
are sometimes in co-operation and at other times in competition. We
identified a grouping of three collective actors which we can consider
international. They are international organizations, understood in a
complex system such as the UN and the World Bank; international
non-governmental organizations (International NGOs), such as the
International Centre for Urban Management (CIGU) in Ecuador or
the Environment and Development in the Third World (ENDA) in
Senegal; and lastly international associations organized in formal and
informal networks such as the Forum for Local Authorities for Social
Inclusion and Participatory Democracy (FLA) and the United Cities
and Local Governments (UCLG).
There are connections between these actors; for example, in the case
of the World Bank, which operates in an environment of relations with
sub-national actors and NGOs. As a consequence, policies which have the
objective of promoting PB, for example, reveal the amplitude and power-
ful reach of the institution (or rather, extend its actions from Washington
to the micro-territory in the countries it operates in, such as in neighbour-
ing Maputo). This signifies that actions promoted by the World Bank in
regions such as sub-Saharan Africa are inserted in an environment of diffu-
sion, having being idealized in Washington, whereas their implementation
on reaching sub-national governments is often mediated by local partners
such as international NGOs, civil society organizations and international
consultants.
2.4.2 Sub-National Institutions

Sub-national institutions are adopters of PB, as well as its promotors. In
general, they consist of territorial groups, rural communities, municipali-
ties, states, provinces and regions. In the case of PB diffusion, the sub-
national institutions involved are, in most cases, municipalities, as in the
case of Porto Alegre or Villa El Salvador (Peru), but also feature rural
communities, such as Fissel and Makhado (Senegal and South Africa
respectively) and regions, such as Poiou-Charentes (France). There are
cases in which the promotor is the State itself, for example in Peru, the
Dominican Republic and Ecuador where PB became a national law and
was constitutionalized in the latter two countries.
Sub-national institutions intervene frequently in the international
sphere. Among the forms of intervention are organizing networks, direct
action and co-operation. International associations of cities such as the
FLA, UCLG, Mercocities or Metropolis are forms of international inter-
vention by cities which also constitute loci of transfer of ideas on policies
for participatory governance. Moreover, they are also in constant dialogue
with international institutions and participate in programmes financed by
them.
At another level, we have the domain of grassroots organizations: civil
society organizations, which operate at a micro-local level and play an
important role in the process of circulating PB, especially in its reception.
Organizations like the Federation of Organs for Social and Educational
Assistance (FASE) in Recife, the Centre for Studies and Promotion of
Development (DESCO) in Villa El Salvador, or Planact in South Africa
are involved in advising on and developing the models of PB. Unlike inter-
national NGOs, their area of action is primarily local.
2.4.3 Transnational Spaces of Circulation

Meeting spaces are fundamental in the process of the international cir-
culation of PB. It is important to reinforce here the contribution of
Hassenteufel (2005) who insisted on the direct observation of spaces
where public policies circulate and where the operators of diffusion act.
These are named transnational spaces due to the fact that they reflect the
national diversity of their participants. Events, seminars, forums, among
other meeting places which bring together actors coming from different
countries and institutions, are crucial for new ideas, agendas and interests
to emerge and be later followed up. These spaces are characterized by

their transnational nature and act as a locus for discussion, innovation and
co-ordination of action in relation to the circulation of PB.
Spaces, events and networks are also very often blurred or overlap. The
first consists of a locus for action and discussion. The second is a specific
moment which characterizes a point in history or changes on the trajec-
tory of a process. The third are the structures and ties between actors par-
ticipating in these spaces and events, as well as between them and actors
who do not participate physically. These concepts serve to identify impor-
tant moments in the process, which will be considered throughout the
coming chapters.
In Porto Alegre, the I International Seminar on Participatory
Democracy (1999) was important to groups of actors from Latin America,
Europe and Africa and launched a precursory agenda on the theme.
Shortly afterwards in Andean America in Villa El Salvador, occurred the
I International Meeting on Participatory Budgeting, which gave impetus
to the theme in the Andean region. The social forum in its world versions
in Porto Alegre, in its European versions in Paris and Saint-Denis or even
during the African editions in Nairobi and Dakar also served to increase
the worldwide and regional spread of PB.
2.5 THE DIMENSION OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE PROCESS

OF INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES
The Diffusion of PB in the world is due to five people

International Consultant
The diffusion of PB is immersed in a complex web of relations established

among a plethora of actors participating in various moments and spaces.
The action of individuals and their circulation between various institu-
tions are crucial to this process. There is a diversified group of individuals
participating in the promotion, legitimation, mediation and adoption of
PB. The individuals involved in the process of the circulation of PB are
in general people related to public policy in sub-national governments.
They are mayors, secretaries, municipal teams, academics (urbanists, polit-
ical scientists and sociologists) and staff from international organizations,
NGOs, militants and so on. This can be seen as a core of individuals who
circulated across diverse institutions during the process and who acted
within and without the same institutions.
We will not produce a taxonomy of all the individuals involved in the

process of the international diffusion of PB. From our field research we
can track certain individuals whose role was considered important to this
process. The purpose of the analysis was to understand the nature of indi-
vidual action, its incidence in diffusion and when their action was promi-
nent in relation to other political agents, such as institutions, for example.
This is an important element for the literature on diffusion and we pro-
pose to advance this issue.
The literature in social sciences draws together different categories to
understand individual action in political phenomena. Still, there is dif-
ficulty in resorting to one current of research or another to analyse this,
as there is great heterogeneity of actors, areas of operation and forms of
action. To take into account this complexity we have sought a solution
inspiring our proposal on the body of work and debates on individual
action in public policy analysis, the study of international relations and
theories of social movement. These are areas whose dialogue is infrequent,
but when brought together can reap significant benefits in studying con-
temporary political issues.
Individual action in the political sphere is analysed by certain authors,
through the lens of the action of elites, whose pioneering study was con-
ducted by Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Roberto Michels, with the
celebrated “Theory of Elites”. The actions of individuals are also studied
from the point of view of the other extremity of public policies, through
the observations of Lipsky, who insists on the power of “Street Level
Bureaucracy” (2010). The policy analysis field is stamped by the concept
of the “policy entrepreneur” developed by John Kingdon (1995), to des-
ignate fundamental individuals in the process of agenda setting. In inter-
national relations, Peter Haas (1992) develops the concept of “Epistemic
Communities” to understand the role of “Knowledge Specialists”, com-
ing from the scientific area in the co-ordination of global politics. Sidney
Tarrow and McAdam (2005) presents the notion of a “broker”, who is
an individual serving as a connection point in transnational contentions.
These categories consider specific types of individuals essentially char-
acterized by the nature of action they display at specific points in political
processes, be they domestic or international. The analysis of individual
action can increase the explicative potential if it is considered not only as
a form of action, but also by the attributes of individuals and the spaces
in which they operate. It is hard to establish attributes which character-
ize types of individuals as they often exercise more than one function
throughout the process. In other cases, for example, individuals in their

trajectories can encompass academics who leave university to join teams
in international organizations. In other cases, there are individuals who
develop different activities in parallel, acting as consultants or as academics
at the same time. Besides that, an individual’s action in a certain domain or
in the promotion of a certain cause is not necessarily continuous, but can
be interrupted or occurs in different punctual moments.
Having said that, we can establish at least four dimensions which dis-
tinguish individuals and their actions: (1) space of action (institutional/
extra-institutional); (2) longevity of action in the process (specific/con-
tinuous); (3) range of action (global, local, inter-regional, regional); and
(4) nature of action (mediation or brokerage, technical assistance, finan-
cial support, etc.). It is also important to add that, in the case of PB, these
actors’ legitimacy—insofar as they are mayors, academics, NGO specialists
and so on—can rely on political, as well as theoretical, technical and practi-
cal, authority.
Considering these elements and having taken inspiration from the
existing literature, we have conceived three types of actors to understand
the international diffusion on PB: “ambassadors of PB”, “paradiplomats”
and “takers”.
The “ambassadors of PB” are at the high level of those continually pro-
moting this policy; they speak different languages and, as some of them
have lived in different parts of the world, they are also cosmopolitan. Put
succinctly, their action is determinant in inserting PB into the agenda of
local, national and international institutions. They have certain typical
attributes: (1) they have authority in relation to PB which can be political,
knowledgeable or technical in nature; (2) they promote PB independently
of the institution in which they operate; and (3) they have continued action
throughout the process. They are individuals operating in the context of
municipalities such as mayors, secretaries, academics, teams of interna-
tional organizations, executives of NGOs and so on who sometimes oper-
ate within and sometimes without institutions. The “ambassadors of PB”
can perform the role of entrepreneurs of public policy and mediators as
they promote PB internationally in events, technical consultancies, acting
in international organizations, NGOs and in municipalities without neces-
sarily having formal ties to institutions. These actors are frequently aca-
demics and they publish books and manuals on participatory democracy,
as well as advising Masters and PhDs on the subject, performing in this
way the role of a PB teacher. The “ambassadors of PB” are true militants
for the cause of participatory democracy and this is one of the main quali-
ties that differentiates them from the other actors.
The “paradiplomats”5 are individuals who have specialized knowledge
when it comes to PB. They are operators of transfers as they design models
to be implemented, hold training workshops and also produce technical
material. They are facilitators in the sense that they play a fundamental role
in “passing on” PB from one context to another.
The “takers” are those who play the role of takers or adopters on the
one hand and, on the other, also facilitate the introduction of PB in a
determined political system or, put differently, they bring PB from the
external plan into the internal plan. The name is inspired from the notion
of “norm takers” present in the literature on international relations to
define states which adopt the rules of international law (Krasner 1977).
They are individuals based in institutions, local governments or interna-
tional organizations. Takers can be mayors who adopt PB as well as teams
which introduce the method into the agenda of institutions. There still
exist local actors who contribute by “taking” in the sense of adopting or
receiving PB.
The types of individuals mentioned above operate with varying levels
of continuity and intensity throughout the process; they have specialized
knowledge and are often actors with important positions in transnational
networks, in the sense that they promote connections among people and
influence the content of information in international circulation. The
individuals participating in the international process of PB circulation
are numerous and cannot be covered in their entirety in this research as
already mentioned. Throughout the analysis carried out in the other chap-
ters, individuals of all categories will be presented, even though priority
will be given to the “ambassadors of PB”.
2.6 CAUSAL MECHANISMS

Circulation in its diverse levels and dynamics is facilitated by a range of
stimuli which intervene throughout the process. They are transformative
forces called causal mechanisms, which due to a range initial conditions
produce determined effects (Weyland 2006, p. 58). To be more precise,
James Mahoney defines a causal mechanism as “an unobserved entity
that—when activated—generates an outcome of interest” (2003, p. 580).
The notion proposed by Mahoney has two elements. The first is that if
causal mechanisms operate, it is sufficient to produce a result of interest.
The second is that mechanisms are non-observed entities, that is, they
consist of “relations or processes that the researcher imagines to exist;
they do not refer to any particular set of empirical conditions” (Mahoney
2003, p. 581).
If the second element is pertinent to the analysis of diffusion, the same
is not true of the first. The idea of sufficiency is problematic in that the
mechanisms are applied in different contexts. According to Kurt Weyland,
“the causal mechanisms do not necessarily produce the same end result
under all circumstances; rather, they tend to bring about different out-
comes in different settings” (Weyland 2006, p. 59). Concretely, this signi-
fies that international induction can be sufficient to produce a PB transfer
in Mozambique, but the same is not necessarily valid in neighbouring
South Africa. Considering the contextual heterogeneity of places where PB
is diffused, it is appropriate to redefine the notion proposed by Mahoney.
Causal mechanisms are therefore understood as postulate relations or
processes which, when activated, can produce a result of interest to the
researcher. In other words, mechanisms are entities which facilitate the dif-
fusion and transfer, but are not necessarily sufficient for the phenomenon to
occur. It is worth noting that contextual diversity is an important element
not only to increase the inventory of causal mechanisms which occur in
processes of diffusion but also to enable to test them.
Carrying out an analysis of the phenomenon using the notion of causal
mechanisms deserves an important safeguard. The use of causal mecha-
nisms as an explicative entity does not imply a mechanistic view of political
phenomena. The frontiers between mechanisms are not clearly delineated
and neither do mechanisms operate singularly in processes. There is a plu-
rality of mechanisms in action in several cases, which infers the complex
causality. Thus, the combination of more than one mechanism can pro-
duce an effect of interest.
In the literature on diffusion there are authors, respectively working in
the area of social movements and public policy, who utilize the notion of
mechanisms. By studying the diffusion of social movements Givan et al.
(2010, p. 9) understand that mechanisms can be classified into three cat-
egories: relational, non-relational and mediated. This group of authors
utilizes a soft and broad definition of mechanisms, as they understand the
latter as a type of communication which leads to diffusion. The studies
on transnational collective action identified specific mechanisms such as
the already mentioned “brokerage” (Tarrow and McAdam 2005), “scale-
shift” (Tarrow and McAdam 2005), “boomerang effect” (Keck and
Sikkink 1998) and internalization (Della Porta and Tarrow 2005), among
others.6 More precisely Simmons et al. (2008) highlight four mechanisms
operating in the process of international diffusion of liberal democracy and
market economics: coercion, competition, learning and copying. In this
sense, mechanisms are different processes which bring valuable results.
The notion of mechanisms that will be used follows the definition high-
lighted above. Mechanisms are not necessarily independent in the sense
of operating singularly in several cases, but can occur in an overlapping
form with greater or lesser presence in each case or even operating at
another point throughout the trajectory of diffusion. Still, we comple-
ment the definition by the support from specific literature. A range of
causal mechanisms will be distinguished as we continue through the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Construction: This mechanism stems from the sociological approach to
diffusion which insists on the process of social construction (Strang and
Meyer 1993; Simmons et al. 2008, p. 31; Strang and Soule 1998). Three
arguments present in the literature are important to develop this category.
The first is the fact that the production of theories, paradigms and thesis,
in general, can be a mechanism of diffusion in the sense that they postulate
relations of cause and effect (Strang and Meyer 1993, p. 498; Hall 1993).
An example is normative arguments which can be found in the technical
and academic literature, such as the fact that PB promotes social justice
and combats corruption.
The second argument regards the situation in which a practice acquires
respect and recognition and becomes a source of influence for adoption
(Soule and Strang 1998, pp. 274–275). Experiences with an elevated level
of acceptance in a community tend to be replicated. Ownership by a par-
ticular group also encourages adoption. It’s common that within mem-
bers of “political communities” there is a belief in respect of the most
“appropriate” form or pathway to reach a result (Hall 1993, p. 279;
Simmons et al. 2010, p. 32).
A third argument is that, cultural proximity may also enhance diffusion,
as well as when individuals or groups tend to perceive identity in terms
of sharing similar characteristics, such as belonging to Southern, Latin
American society or Portuguese-speaking countries.
Construction consists for us, therefore, a process characterized by two
dimensions: one abstract and the other concrete. Construction is produc-
ing a respected image, for example, which can be the template of “Porto
Alegre as the capital of participative democracy” or “Recife as the best
PB in the world”. The abstract dimension or, rather, the construction of

a political idea is in the definition of PB as best practice or the model of
anti–hegemony democracy. Belonging to a community can be the filiation
to networks connected to the World Social Forum or to trends in public
administration suggested by the World Bank. In respect of the concrete
elements there are actions, events or facts in general which are specific
and serve to name, divulge and legitimate PB. These can be recognized in
the awards for “Best Practices”, as well as by international organizations’
recommendation for PB adoption.
Induction: The notion underpinning the mechanism of induction is
inspired by the work of Dolowitz and Marsh (2001, p. 8) that puts the
adoption of a public policy on a continual axis which has on its extremities
a voluntary component on the left and a coercive component on the right.
It can be seen, on the one hand, where an institution wishes to adopt a
public policy because it has learned about it from another institution, in
a form of perfect rationality. On the other extremity of the axis, it can be
seen when a government adopts a public policy due to the imposition of
an actor. When we consider the induction as a mechanism it is understood
as a process of adoption which receives an external influence. International
organizations can explicitly or implicitly influence the adoption of public
policies (Simmons et al. 2010).
It is possible to allude to the role of the International Monetary Fund
in the structural reforms in the State of Latin America in the 1980s and
1990s, as already mentioned in the introduction. In its turn, the literature
on federalism insists on the idea of vertical diffusion, when the federal
government imposes policy adoption by laws and other normative devices
to sub-national governments, as well as in cases where it uses financial
incentives to shape policy programmes (Dorothy and Garand 2005). The
idea of condition is also present in studies of Europeanization and refers to
the imposition of norms from the European Union to other community
members (Saurugger and Surel 2006, p. 195).
Induction is defined as a type of process which can operate with more
or less influence on the adoption of PB. Induction is generally associated
with the actions of international organizations or even national laws which
incur on sub-national governments, stimulating the adoption of PB. It is
possible to distinguish three types of induction: incentive, condition and
coercion. The first is a general incentive occurring with voluntary adoption
and is possible to be recognized through analysis of reports and manuals
recommending PB. Following this, we can recognize induction directed
or imposed as a condition. In his work Benjamin Goldfrank (2012, p. 3)

estimated that the World Bank granted loans or funds of at least 280 mil-
lion dollars to support PB projects or in which PB was involved in 15
countries since 2002. Thirdly, there exists coercion, which is imposition
via a legal link for the adoption of PB as was the case of laws which obliged
municipalities in Peru and Ecuador to implement PB.
Co-operation: This is a mechanism deriving from empirical verification
and insists on the fact that amplified co-operation widens the capacity for
diffusion. For co-operation we understand a process which stimulates dif-
fusion by means of an exchange of ideas and technologies of participatory
governance. Co-operation can be institutionalized by means of interna-
tional agreements (as in the case of the URB-AL programme), protocols
of intentions or established in an informal manner. Another form of creat-
ing co-operation is the non-institutionalized manner as in the case of the
many formal relations and informal relations created around PB.
Networking: The literature on analysing networks contributes to out-
line this mechanism. These studies on networks can be understood, on the
one hand, as a structure, a range of informal relations, decentralized and
horizontal between actors (Adam and Kriesi 2007) or, on the other hand,
as actors themselves (Keck and Sikkink 1998). Networks as an actor will
be described in Chap. 4, but the analysis goes far beyond this. Networks
are understood as channels through which information is conducted from
one place to another, from one group to another and from one person to
another (Simmons and Elkins 2004; Rogers 2003). Networks are impor-
tant transmitters of innovations. They are also spaces for communication
and places for creating relations. In addition, networks are the locus for
construction of prestige and legitimacy (Porto de Oliveira 2010).
The notion of networking is not confined to the network itself, but
the action of producing new connections between people, establishing
relations between groups and bringing together different actors. Sikkink
and Keck (1999, p. 89) insist that this activity “multiplies the opportuni-
ties for dialogue and exchange”. The mechanism of networking serves as
an amplifier of diffusion in the way it potentializes possible adopters of
PB such as municipal governments, and followers such as individuals or
organizations. Concretely, it is possible to identify the actions of network-
ing in the organization of events such as the World Social Forum, in the
participation in international meetings such as Africities, in the construc-
tion of informal networks of co-operation such as the network Radically
Democratise Democracy (RDD).
Leadership: Leadership is a role attributed to the innovator. It is a

mechanism deriving from the empirical observation of a process. It occurs
in certain cases such as Porto Alegre, which created the model of PB, and
in Peru, which produced a national law. Leadership consists of a process in
which through an innovation carried out in a determined context follow-
ers emerge who rally around the same path and, in this sense, “follow the
leader”. The case of Porto Alegre is evident, but the case of Peru is not.
The constitutionalization of PB in Ecuador is influenced by the pioneering
action of its neighbour Peru in transforming PB into national law. It is not
possible to affirm with certainty that if Ecuador did not have any example
it would have followed the path of institutionalization. It is worth noting
that in Brazil PB is not a law and relies on the will of the government to
be implemented.
External scanning7: This mechanism was developed from the empirical
observation of the diffusion process of PB. Throughout the research, it
was verified that international organizations seek successful experiences,
often through their own staff. The giving of awards is a form of doing this.
Invitations to participate in events or to co-operate with them is another.
From the analytical perspective emphasizing this mechanism is important
by the fact that it changes the idea that experiences arrive directly and win
over institutions. Scanning suggests that there exists a movement from
institutions or external actors, which seek successful experiences or prac-
tices with the potential to be replicated. The scanning process is defined,
therefore, as a movement through which experiences are localized and
carried out in general by international institutions, be they international
organizations, foundations or agencies of co-operation. Best practices and
innovative policies are tracked, serving as a beacon or as a guide.
Translation: The definition of this mechanism is inspired in the homony-
mous notion by Bruno Latour (2005)8 and consists of a process of interpre-
tation which can be adapted to the interests of an individual or institution.
This is a process which has already started to be explored in the specific
literature on PB when Goldfrank (2012) refers to the transformation which
PB underwent when entering the World Bank and which Ganuza and
Baiocchi (2012) allude to explicitly, when considering the power of PB’s
ambiguity. For analytical purposes, we define translation in two ways.
The first is related to how translation can accompany the literal action
of translating a text or piece of work. The second is when the idea, espe-
cially the political idea, behind a book or a practice is translated. In other
words, translation adapts the content of a book or model, aspiring to fit in
the best way possible into the interests of a certain institution. To observe
translation signifies, on the one hand, understanding those who are pos-
sible recipients of the message of PB. For example, the book by Tarso
Genro and Ubiratan de Souza was translated not only into French, but
also into Arabic and other languages. On the other hand, to identify the
translation consists of monitoring the adaptations of the meanings of PB,
as well as the individuals performing this task.
Institutional circulation of individuals: The sociology of elites empha-
sizes the importance of individuals who move from one place to another
or from one institution to another in the process of diffusion. Yves Dezalay
and Briant Garth (Dezalay and Garth 2002) in La Mondialisation des
Guerres de Palays insist on the circulation of elites as one of the elements
which influences structural reform in the State of Latin America. For ana-
lytical purposes institutional circulation is defined as a process by which
individuals established in a determined institution move to other institu-
tions and thus facilitate diffusion. This mechanism operates in the recur-
ring form in the process of PB diffusion.
In effect, in various stages of diffusion, the “ambassadors of participa-
tion” on migrating from the municipal level to the state, from the national
level to the international, from NGOs to academia, take with them the
aspiration to implement PB. Institutional circulation of individuals facili-
tates moving PB from one place to another. When we identify the pres-
ence of this mechanism in operation it is possible to monitor the process
of the entrance of PB into an institution. The case of PB transfer to the
national scale in Peru is an example of when militants of PB cease to be
mayors and become members of the Congress, as described in Chap. 6.
Political renovation: This mechanism does not only relate to a specific
literature but to a process of political change, in which elites or groups in
government are substituted by new ones as in the transitions to democracy
or in processes of reformation. This mechanism is evident in the case of
Peru and Ecuador where processes for political change involved alteration
of groups within the state. In Peru, the period post-Fujimori is character-
ized by the renovation of politicians who were in power which, in turn, pro-
moted a change in the sense of ideas entering the state. On the agenda there
were themes such as decentralization and the fight against corruption. The
same occurred in Ecuador with the constitution put forth by Rafael Correa.
Scale transfer: This idea derives from the body of work on social move-
ments and relates to movements of diffusion at different levels. Sidney
Tarrow (2005) deals with “scale-shift” referring to the diffusion of forms

of contention in the processes of collective action. This change may occur
declining “from the top” or rising “from the bottom”. According to the
author, when there is a “scale-up” there is co-ordination of collective
action at the highest level in relation to its origin which can be translated
into change at a regional, national or international level. Meanwhile, when
there is a “scale-down”, the co-ordination of collective action occurs at a
more local level than from its origin.
This concept of “scale transfer” will be used to designate the process of
the ascension of PB from local to national level. Different forms of coercion
which imply an external or institutional mechanism which stimulates the
adoption of a public policy, the scale-up transfer, is a process in which PB
is transferred to a supramunicipal level or, in other words, migrates from
the municipality to the state performing a bottom-up movement. This also
happens when PB descends from a higher level influencing its adoption.
Capacity-building: This is a mechanism constructed from empirical
observation. It can be seen as a process from which new specialists regard-
ing PB emerge and are charged with implementing the device elsewhere.
Capacity-building multiplies the operators of PB transfer in the way
groups of specialists in PB are increased and facilitate its circulation. The
fact of having many groups working with PB allows easy access to infor-
mation, know-how and methodologies. More precisely, workshops and
training seminars are crucial to capacitate new actors for developing and
implementing PB. This mechanism is seen above all in sub-Saharan Africa,
where the NGO Enda for example offered training in different countries
of the Francophone Africa, expanding the number of experts capable of
developing PB in different municipalities of the continent.
In order to assist the reader, these mechanisms are not mentioned
throughout the narrative of each chapter, but are presented in the intro-
duction and returned to in the conclusion. Only those mechanisms that
come out in the process described in each chapter will be highlighted.
In the conclusion there is a concise recapitulation of the most recurrent
mechanisms operating throughout the whole PB diffusion process.
NOTES
1. Everett Rogers developed a study on the diffusion of innovations,
first published in 1962, which was re-edited several times and
became a classic in the field.
2. Huntington (1993) uses the term diffusion for this phenomenon.
3. Regarding institutional action at different levels, refer to Putnam

(1988); Hooghe and Mark (2001); Dezalay and Garth (2002);
Porto de Oliveira (2010).
4. Brazil, through the Brazilian agency for co-operation and other
partners, built a factory of antivirals in Mozambique.
5. The concept is inspired by Aldecoa and Keating (1999) and Porto
de Oliveira (2010).
6. For a more detailed discussion on mechanisms of transnational col-
lection action, refer to Von Büllow (2010).
7. The term scanning was adopted taking into account its use by
Etzioni’s classical article “Mixed-Scannint: A ‘Third’ Approach to
Decision-Making” (1967), in which the author refers to the action
of seeking and collecting information by policymakers.
8. Translation for Latour (2005) is a central concept for the under-
standing of the scientific fact and corresponds to the “interpretation
given by those who build the facts, their interests and those who
recruit them” (pp. 260–261).
REFERENCES
Adam, S., & Kriesi, H. (2007). The Network Approach. In P. Sabatier (Org.),
Theories of Policy Process (pp. 129–154). Boulder: Westview Press.
Aldecoa, F., & Keating, M. (1999). Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relaitons
of Subnational Governements. London: Frank Cass.
Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It? British
Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215–233.
Büllow, M. V. (2010). Building Transnational Networks: Civil Society and the
Politics of Trade in the Americas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dagnino, E., Olvera, E., & Panfichi, A. (Orgs.). (2006). A disputa pela construção
democrática na América latina. Campinas: Paz e Terra.
Della Porta, D., & Tarrow, S. (Orgs.). (2005). Transnational Protest and Global
Activism. Lanham: Rowman & Littfeld, 287 p.
Delpeuch, T. (2009). Comprendre la circulation internationale des solutions de
l’action publique: panorama des policy transfer studies. Critique Internationale,
(43), 153–165.
Dezalay, Y., & Garth, B. (2002). La mondialisation des guerres de palais: la restruc-
turation du pouvoir d’Etat en Amérique latine. Entre notables du droit et
«Chicago boys». Paris: Seuil.
Dorothy, D., & Garand, J. (2005). Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and
Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking, 1989–1998. American
Politics Research, 33(5), 615–644.
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-Scanning: A ‘Third’ Approach to Decision-Making.
Public Administration Review, 27(5), 385–392.
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012b). The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory
Givan, R., Roberts, K., & Soule, S. (2010). The Diffusion of Social Movements:
Actors, Mechanisms and Political Effects. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy
Coordination. International Organization, 1(46), 1–35.
Hall, P. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of
Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.
Hassenteufel, P. (2005). De la comparaison internationale à la comparaison trans-
nationale, les déplacements de la construction des objets comparatifs en matière
de politiques publiques. Revue Française de Science Politique, 55(1), 113–132.
Hooghe, L, & Mark, S. (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Integration.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 272 p.
Howlett, M. (2000). Beyond Legalism? Policy Ideas, Implementation Styles and
Emulation-Based Convergence in Canadian and U.S. Environmental Policy.
Journal of Public Policy, 3(20), 305–329.
Huntington, S. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century. University of Oklahoma Press.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in
International and Regional Politics (pp. 89–101). Unesco, Blackwell Publishers.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. New York: Harper
Collins.
Krasner, S. (1977). US Commercial and Monetary Policy: Unravelling the Paradox
of External Strength and Internal Weakness. International Organization,
31(4), 635–671.
Latour, B. (2005). La Science en action: introduction à la sociologie des sciences.
Paris: La Découverte, p. 664.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public
Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 275 p.
Mahoney, J. (2003). Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory
and Method. Sociological Forum, 16(3), 575–593.
Majone, G. (1996). Public Policy and Administration: Ideas, Interests and

Institutions. In R. E. Goodin & K. Hand-Dieter (Eds.), A New Handbook of
Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nay, O., & Petiteville, F. (2011). Élements pour une sociologie du changement
dans les organizations internationales. Critique Internationale, 4(53), 9–22.
Palier, B., & Surel, Y. (2005). Les “trois i” et l’analyse de l’État en action. Revue
Française de Science Politique, 55(1), 7–32.
IHEAL/CREDA.
Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level
Games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rose, R. (1991). What is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–30.
Saurugger, S., & Surel, Y. (2006). L’Européanisation comme processus de trans-
fert de politique publique. Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée, 13(2),
179–211.
Simmons, B. Garrett, F., & Dobbin, G. (2008). The Global Diffusion of Markets
and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 384 p.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. Theory
and Society, 22(4), 487–511.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. (1998). Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements:
From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.
Tarrow, S, & McAdam, D. (2005). Scale Shift in Transnational Contention. In
D. Della Porta & S. Tarrow (Orgs.), Transnational Protest and Global Activism
(pp. 121–150). Lanham: Rowman & Littfeld.
Weyland, K. (2006). Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion (p. 297). New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
PART II
The Process
CHAPTER 3
Ambassadors of Participation:
The Internationalization of PB
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The PT government in Porto Alegre lasted for 16 years, that is, four con-
secutive terms. In the 1988 elections, Olivio Dutra (WP) won with 34 %
of the votes with vice-mayor Tarso Genro, also of the same party. One year
later, the administration implemented a public policy that would change
the life of the city: Participatory Budgeting (PB). At the end of the 1980s
it was not yet known that PB would have international repercussions and
that Porto Alegre would become known worldwide as the “Capital of
Participative Democracy”.
This chapter presents the process of internationalization of PB through
an analysis of the international trajectory of three cities: Porto Alegre,
Belo Horizonte (in the State of Minas Gerais) and Recife (in the State of
Pernambuco). One of the questions that emerge to the scholar of policy
diffusion is why is it that some experiences spread massively whilst others
do not. At the end of the twentieth century, several ideas and techniques
for participatory governance spread around the world, but few have taken
hold quite like PB in Porto Alegre.
The argument presented in this chapter is that the interaction among a
group of individuals—such as local authorities and staff from the depart-
ments of the Porto Alegre Council—and institutions, both local and inter-
national, was indispensable in establishing PB on the international agenda.
The strategy of analysis is developed on two levels (local and international)
comparing PB genesis and internationalization in Porto Alegre, Belo

Horizonte and Recife. The comparison allows us to observe constant ele-

ments in all three experiences and highlight those which stood out in par-
ticular cases. Considering that the focus of this chapter is the international
dimension of cities and, therefore, the internal dynamics of participatory
governance policies, the characteristics of PB models and the local political
disputes shall not be scrutinized.
The city of Porto Alegre is the home of the PB model, which has been
adapted, emulated or transformed into a hybrid throughout its numerous
transfers. The action of the “ambassadors of participation” was a key fac-
tor to globalize PB. Besides that, the international pioneering spirit from
Porto Alegre, with the organization of events and developing networks,
and the innovation and the plasticity of the PB model, associated with scan-
ning from international institutions, are distinct elements which appear to
be at the base of this success. In this sense, it was possible to identify the
following mechanisms operating throughout the process described in this
chapter: (1) construction, such as building up prestige by winning awards;
(2) international co-operation by means of institutional and informal net-
works; and (3) networking, stemming from the promotion of events.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first considers the local
dimension of PB in the three municipalities and describes the genesis and
functioning of the models. The second section is dedicated to the interna-
tional action of the cases being studied.
3.2 THE GENESIS OF PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES
3.2.1 Porto Alegre

PB was born in 1989 in Porto Alegre under the management of Olivio
Dutra1 in a coalition called Popular Front. Active citizen participation is a
distinctive characteristic of society in Porto Alegre (Abers 2000; Fedozzi
2000; Santos 2003). The initial form of PB was that institutions would allow
decision making in a shared manner. Inspired by the principles of the Paris
Commune and the Soviets in Russia, more than in “actual experiences from
local reality” (Genro and Souza 1997, p. 23), PB in Porto Alegre was ideal-
ized along the general lines of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT). In the
party’s manifesto there was already a pledge stating “the commitment to a
full democracy and run directly by the masses” (Partido dos Trabalhadores
1980). It is worth noting that Porto Alegre was not the first experience of
social inclusion in budgetary allocations. There are previous examples such
AMBASSADORS OF PARTICIPATION: THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PB 65
as the experience in Vila Velha (in the state of Espirito Santo) between 1986
and 1988 (Ribeiro and Grazia 2003; Teixeira and Albuquerque 2006).
The idea of governance by the masses is an element which is reiterated
in the so-called WP way of governance, whose guiding principles are based
on five points, among which the first states that “popular participation is
decisive to guarantee the implementation of the plan of government as
much as, mainly, to sustain the expression between representative democ-
racy and the forms of direct participation of civil society” (Bittar 1992,
p. 22). The underpinning ideal of this model was to create a form of joint
management of the local municipality2 as a means of “radically democra-
tising democracy and to create mechanisms which could correspond to the
interests of the vast majority of the population and create new institutions”
(Genro and Souza 1997, p 18).
In its first years PB was an experimental participatory governance policy
with an uncertain future and an institutional design that was prepared in
dialogue with the community movement (Fedozzi 2000). The first meet-
ing happened in the North Side at the Steel Workers Union and had 200
participants (Cidade, Undated Document).3 Close to ten years later, in
1998, PB numbered more than 13,000 people participating through-
out its processes (Coordenação De Relações Com A Comunidade, apud
Avritzer 2003, p. 584).
Initially, the municipality was divided into 16 regions. PB was under
the responsibility of the Co-ordination of Relations with the Community
(CRC). Moreover, the newly created Planning Cabinet (GAPLAN) was
responsible for budgetary planning. Both of these were directly linked to
the Local Government Cabinet (Cidade, Undated Document). Even in
the first mandate of the Popular Front the criteria for the distribution of
resources were being established.
Despite efforts with the initial design of PB, its managers encountered
difficulty in including the middle class in the participative process.4 In
1993, when Tarso Genro took over the mayor’s office, with Raul Pont as
vice-mayor, PB continued to be developed. At this stage, a range of insti-
tutional innovations were introduced, one of which was the creation of
“Thematic Assemblies” in an attempt to widen the public participating in
PB, especially to the middle classes.5 Tarso Genro was aided by Ubiratan
de Souza, the Co-ordinator General of the Cabinet for Planning in Porto
Alegre GAPLAN, who oversaw the technical aspects of PB.
The first years of experimentation and institutional innovation were
fundamental to the development of the model of participation in Porto
Alegre. Indeed, this city created for itself a methodology of participation

for public budgeting that had no theoretical precedent, but rather one
which came about from the interaction between government and com-
munity, through a participatory practice. This movement is clearly seen
not only in the excerpt from Genro and Souza (1997, p. 23), quoted
above, but also in the affirmation of Sergio Baierle6 who closely followed
the evolution of PB from Cidade (city), a non-governmental organiza-
tion (NGO) from Porto Alegre, stating that “PB did not begin from a
theory, it began from a method and this method is this tool for organizing
meetings, and taking decisions from community assemblies or thematic
groups”.7
The methodology developed in Porto Alegre is capable of spanning a
municipality, taking into account its diverse regions and still including the-
matic interests specific to heterogeneous social groups. These two dimen-
sions are registered in an annual participation cycle, associating direct
participation and representation by means of counsellors and delegates.
PB is a device capable of adapting to different political parties. Continuing
from the previous excerpt Sergio Baierle affirms that
[t]his method, as a tool, can be used for anything whatsoever. Let’s say
that it is a knife that may be used to spread honey on bread and also to kill
someone. In truth, this flexibility helps us to better understand the het-
erogeneous nature of the supports for PB as it is as much supported by
sectors held to be radically left wing as it is by ultra conservative sectors. It is
equally defended by [Hugo] Chavez, for example, as […] by supporters of
the Uribe government in Colombia.8
The Porto Alegre method is understood by the interviewee as a device

which can be used in different forms or independently appropriated from
political views, and is therefore is capable of absorbing heterogeneous ideo-
logical contents. The expansion of PB in Brazil begins from the experience
of Porto Alegre—even though there were similar practices seen in other
cities—and increases progressively in the following years with PB being
implemented not only by the PT administration and other left-wing par-
ties but by other parties such as Partido da Frente Liberal (Liberal Front
Party, PFL, a conservative party), Partido do Movimento Democrático
Brasileiro (Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement, PMDB, a cen-
tre party) and the Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (Party of the
Brazilian Social Democracy, PSDB, a centre-right party).
Information about PB prior to 1997 is imprecise. It is estimated that

between 1989 and 1992 there were more than 10 municipal administra-
tions which had implemented PB. In the following period, from 1993 to
1996, 36 municipal administrations described themselves as implementers
of PB (Ribeiro and Grazia 2003, p. 19). From 1997, information on the
subject became clearer, especially with the study developed by Ana Clara
Torres Ribeiro and Grazia de Grazia (2003), for the National Forum for
Popular Participation. From this study, researchers could systematically
collect data on PB in the whole country, allowing the development of
Table 3.1 on the expansion of PB by regions in Brazil.
The experiences of PB in Brazil were largely inspired by the Porto
Alegre model, but there were also other experiences, as will be presented,
such as in Belo Horizonte and Recife. The Porto Alegre model had the
greatest visibility but other municipalities such as Ipatinga, Belem and
Santo Andre also developed noteworthy models of PB. One of the inter-
viewees in Porto Alegre recounts the search by other municipalities for
this city experience in the following way:
From the experience of our first administration, our experience began to be

sought by other local governments in the country who came here to learn
from our experiences as much in the term of Olivio [Dutra] […] and later
in the term of Tarso [Genro] and so on. Then, not only local governments
run by WP, but also from other parties, as well as foreign local governments,
academic researchers, newspapers.9
Table 3.1 Expansion of PB by region 1997–2008

Brazilian 1997–2000 Percentage 2001–2004 Percentage 2005–2008 Percentage 2009–2012 Percentage
region
Central-west 0 0 8 4 12 6 9 2.5
Northeast 14 13.6 45 22.6 45 22.4 80 22.5
North 3 3 11 5.5 17 8.4 13 3.7
Southeast 47 45.6 90 45.2 83 41.3 152 42.8
South 47 37.8 45 22.7 44 21.9 101 28.5
Total 120 100 199 100 201 100 355 100
Note: Available data by region start in 1997; the table was created from Ribeiro and Grazia (2003) for the
period 1997–2000. It is important to consider that there are no figures for Central-west; Avritzer and
Wampler (2008) for the periods 2001–2004 and 2005–2008; Fedozzi and Lima (2013) for the period
2009–2012
The continuity of PB in the municipality allows its referencing and affirma-

tion in the Brazilian context. As we will go on to describe in further detail,
Belo Horizonte, as well as Recife, continually looked to Porto Alegre and
other experiences of PB to learn lessons and continue building their own
models and adapting PB to the demands and local contexts of their cities.
3.2.2 Belo Horizonte

The municipality of Belo Horizonte, capital of the state of Minas Gerais,
adopted PB four years after the initial experiences in Porto Alegre.
Implementation came with the election of Patrus Ananias (PT) in the
1992 election with the “Popular Belo Horizonte Front”, which was led
by his party and aimed to include citizens in the management of the city.
The adoption of PB was based on “experiences that had already been
developed in other administrations in the popular-democracy vein of the
same party, in the region of the Steel Valley,10 in Porto Alegre and other
cities” (Ananias 2005, p. 40). The political actors involved in the adop-
tion of this device in the municipality took inspiration from other cases, as
the above excerpt illustrates, to shape their own model. The result of this
transfer was an emulation of the original model from Porto Alegre, that is,
a copy with adaptations.
Throughout the years, PB in Belo Horizonte, as in other cases, was per-
fected with a conjunction of institutional innovations. In the words of one
of its mayors, PB was “the principal instrument for collective construc-
tion” of the local governments, which is “in its essence, the democratic
form for the city that we desire” (Pimentel 2005, p. 11). PB in this city
was developed in three stages. These stages can be referred to as moments
of institutional innovation, which are the Territorial (1993), Housing
(1996) and finally Digital (2006) dimensions of PB.
In Belo Horizonte the start of PB took place at a territorial level. PB
was initially established in the Secretariat for Municipal Planning11 and was
developed over a structured cycle in regional assemblies which were decen-
tralized in administrative units defined by the city council.12 From 1999,
the cycle became biannual in order to allow the process to adapt to “the
time needed for planning through to the conclusion of projects” (Azevedo
and Gomes 2008, p. 69). Distribution of resources was carried out “in a
form which was directly proportional to the population and inversely pro-
portional to the Index of the Quality of Urban Life”, an indicator created
by the local government to measure quality of life in different parts of the
city (Azevedo and Gomes 2009, p. 69). PB in Belo Horizonte registered

15,216 participants for the year 1994, which rose to 43,350 in the years
2000/2001 (Prefeitura Municipal de Belo Horizonte, S/D, p. 17).
A new strand for PB emerged in the area of Housing in 1996. The
programme had its own funding and was aimed at the construction of
housing units for homeless families. This unit of PB was allocated in the
Municipal Housing Department and its meetings, at the outset, were held
in local areas, to be then concluded in the Municipal Housing Forum.
The third great innovation for PB in Belo Horizonte was the imple-
mentation of PB Digital in 2006. Access to participation via new digital
technology was aimed at increasing the involvement of the middle class
and young people in the PB process and spreading digital inclusion. The
objective of PB Digital was to define resources for infrastructure works for
the municipality in general and not only for one specific region. PB Digital
managed to gather 503,266 votes in its first phase.
The evolutionary and innovative nature of the movement in Belo
Horizonte was also present in the state capital of Pernambuco. This ele-
ment allowed for a differentiated form of PB, in regard to Porto Alegre. The
specialization of PB turned into a comparative advantage in international
terms as will be described in the following section which deals with Recife.
3.2.3 Recife
“In PB, we took on things as if we were at
war”13
Ex-PB staff member in Recife
Recife, the capital of the state of Pernambuco, has an old tradition of

participatory governance. The adoption of PB here differs from the other
cases studied, insofar as it was not implemented by the WP, as was the case
in Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte. PB was implemented by the Brazilian
Democratic Movement Party, PMDB, with governor Jarbas Vasconcelos
in 1993, as a simplified emulation or, rather, an abbreviated adaptation of
some of the elements of the model that originated in Porto Alegre.14
The adoption process here differed from that in Belo Horizonte and as
such the Recife experience of PB had two dimensions. If, on the one hand,
there was exogenous learning stemming from the Porto Alegre experi-
ence, on the other, the administration took on endogenous elements,
that is, from the experience of participative programmes that were already
in operation. Two devices characterize participatory policies in Recife

between 1980 and 1990: “The Plan for Regulation of Zones of Special
Social Interest” (Prezeis) and the Programa Prefeitura nos Bairros (City
Hall in Neighbourhoods Programme).15
The City Hall in Neighbourhoods Programme was implemented by
Governor Jarbas Vasconcelos who was elected in the last phase of the
Military Regime in 1986 as a centrepiece of the administration, with the
aim of intensifying popular participation in local public management.16
Vasconcelos was succeeded by Joaquim Francisco Cavalcanti, in 1989,
who stayed in power for just one year having stood down in order to
run for state governor, with his mandate continued by Gilberto Marques
Paulo. In 1992, Jarbas Vasconcelos was once more re-elected. In the man-
date which began the following year, “the regionalization of actions from
the municipal executive was a landmark of the administration” (Arlindo
and Gondim 1998, p. 71), which gave continuity to the City Hall in the
Neighbourhoods Programme, “but seeking to join it with programmes
able to overcome demands from local neighbourhood associations in a
way to tackle structural issues in the city” (Arlindo and Gondim 1998,
ibid.).
The Vaconcelos administration transformed the City Hall in
Neighbourhoods Programme into a hybrid experience, as it merged with
a limited form of PB. A cycle of meetings and plenaries were realized,
delegates were named to act in colleges and discuss financial resources
and, moreover, a consultative platform was created for debating the pro-
posals for being included in budgetary plans and law guidelines (Fundação
Getúlio Vargas 2009, p. 6). The City Hall in Neighbourhoods Programme
was continued under the administration of Roberto Magalhães (PFL), from
1997 to 2000, and was based on the same methodological administration
of the previous governor (Silva 2003), but the programme was entitled
City Hall in Neighbourhoods Programme/Participatory Budgeting (Silva
2003). During the period of Magalhães as Mayor, the participatory pro-
gramme was the responsibility of the Secretary for Social Policy and was a
secondary programme (Silva 2003, p. 21).17
The administration that followed Jarbas Vasconcelos saw 12 years of
PT mayors: João Paulo, who stayed in power from 2001 to 2008, and
João da Costa, who governed from 2009 to 2013. With the entrance of
the WP mayors there was a reform in the participatory process in Recife.
It created the “New Participatory Budgeting” (from now on simply PB),
with its own place in the “Secretary for Participatory Budgeting and City
Management” (Silva 2003, p. 23). This new position within the structure
of the municipal government machine drew PB closer to the executive
power giving it an important role in public actions in Recife.
Aiming to break the link between the City Hall in Neighbourhoods
Programme and PB, the new version was amplified, deepened and became
the main reference for participation in the municipality to the detriment
of other participative platforms.18 The discourse emphasized by the new
administration is that PB should be “a democratic platform where the
people of the city of Recife go to, little by little, winning new ways to
relate with local government and discuss public policies” (Bararbosa Silva
2003, p. 14).19 PB in Recife stands out for featuring intense participation
from the population throughout annual cycles. In the words of one of
our interviewees, “PB in Recife is a sign of direct participation from the
masses”.20
In Porto Alegre participation throughout the 2000 cycle of PB was
more than 13,000 people, in Belo Horizonte between 1999 and 2000
it reached more than 22,000 and, in the following period between 2001
and 2002, more than 43,000. In Recife these numbers were beaten, as PB
registered, in 2001, 42,800 people participating throughout the different
meetings along the cycle, that is, Regional Plenaries (27,000), Thematic
(3800) and Intermediary (12,000) and this number grew even more,
reaching 69,500 participants in 2003.21 Between 2009 and 2012, more
than 417,000 participations were registered across all the stages of the
process (Prefeitura Municipal de Recife, Undated Document, p. 95).
PB became the main channel for participation in public policies in the
city of Recife and a priority for Governor João Paulo (Silva 2003). As a
consequence, PB took up an important part of the institutional design of
the municipality and was co-ordinated by João da Costa. Later, he ran for
election in 2008 and won, entering office in 2009. At that stage, a process
of displacement of participation began in Recife, of Prezeis and other par-
ticipative settings for PB. The participation in public policy, which previ-
ously occurred by means of associations, under Prezeis, as well as with the
City Hall in Neighbourhoods Programme, began to diversify and with
the introduction of PB “every individual could participate”. There was
a displacement from participation by means of representation to direct
participation in the local government of Recife.22
The administration of Recife continues to invest in innovations includ-
ing PB Children and a digital strand. PB Children, created in 2011, has
a biannual cycle of votes and has participation of young people from 5 to
16 years of age. In the 221 public state schools in Recife, two students (a
girl and a boy) named youth delegates have the role of “identifying, debat-
ing and proposing actions to improve the school and the community”.23
After this stage, the four leading proposals were included in a report to
the Secretary for Education. Another innovation was allowing voting on
two successive days for the regional plenaries in electronic voting booths
available in neighbourhood centres. As well as electronic voting booths
those who did not participate in the plenaries could vote via the Internet.
While PB circulates, the polymorphism of its models increases. This is
a process in which the policy of participatory governance is being defined
throughout its process of diffusion, producing emulations, imitations and
hybrid models. There is a shift from the Porto Alegre model although it
continues to be the main reference point of the movement.
3.3 INTERNATIONAL ACTION AND PB IN PORTO ALEGRE

“The contacts of Tarso [Genro], the contacts
of Raul [Pont] really intensified this thing.”
Ex-Mayor of Porto Alegre
The entrance of PB on the international agenda is associated with two

main elements: on the one hand, the action of a group of individuals
rooted in the Porto Alegre local government and its international pio-
neering spirit and, on the other, the scanning and recognition given by
international organizations, which began to award and increasingly rec-
ommend PB. Porto Alegre is the municipality with the longest life and
greatest international activity, followed by Belo Horizonte and Recife.
The proportion of the narrative dedicated to each municipality illustrates
their international action, beginning with Porto Alegre.
3.3.1 The Construction of International Relations

The external actions of Porto Alegre took off with Tarso Genro, who
contributed to the construction of relations with local authorities in the
Southern Cone and in Europe, such as Montevideo in Uruguay and
Barcelona in Spain. From then on, PB took its first steps towards interna-
tionalization. According to one of our interviewees, on taking power, the
mayor could count on the support of Raul Pont in internal activities, as he
was vice-mayor at the time, and could thus focus on building international
relations.24
Since the 1990s, there have been French intellectuals such as Cornelius
Castordias and local government representatives visiting PB projects. On
one occasion, the French philosopher was taken to see up close one of the
PB assemblies.25 At this time, however, the repercussions of PB were still
of little significance. This movement became a frequent occurrence as one
of our interviewees affirms:
[T]he mandate of Tarso and after of Raul allowed this to happen a lot,
they met lots of people […] delegations of intellectuals, researchers, social
movements, vanguards, parties, representatives of left-wing parties from
Latin America and Europe. Mainly they wanted to know [about the expe-
rience], because they had already heard about, they had access to sto-
ries that were following this experience in development and a victorious
renovation, the re-elections of projects, the quantitative growth of popular
participation of PB, the gains in legitimacy, the conditions for a leftist
democratic hegemony in the capital, the most southern state capital in the
country.26
Individual action is present, in this period, in the external projection of

PB. Mercosur, the process of regional integration which advanced during
the 1990s between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, also served
to promote the expansion of international relations of Porto Alegre. Under
the leadership of the local government of Porto Alegre in 1995, the net-
work Mercocities was created, a mimetism of the network Eurocities. The
process of regional integration was taken up by a group of presidents with
a neoliberalist mindset (such as Fernando Collor de Mello representing
Brazil).
The geographic position of Porto Alegre in relation to its neighbour-
ing countries in the Southern Cone favoured its role in the transnational
network. The motto of the Mercocities was to advocate the inclusion of
the participation of cities in the integration of economic markets between
countries in the Southern Cone. It initially created a small network of
cities which, besides putting pressure on Mercosur, could share experi-
ences about urban management. PB took on this strand of the network
in a fundamental role. Pioneering experiences emulating PB began to
appear at the end of the 1990s in Southern Cone cities, such as Rosario,
Montevideo and Cordoba (Porto de Oliveira 2010, 2011).
The international relations promoted by Tarso Genro transcend the
Southern Cone and extend to the Old Continent, above all Barcelona.
There, in the first half of the 1990s, representatives of Porto Alegre partici-
pated in a large-scale congress on Technological Metropolis (Technopolis).
PB, in events such as these, was always a showcase for Porto Alegre. In
France, relations also became closer with Saint-Denis, which in 2000
adopted PB in a process of informal exchange, which began at the UN
Conference in Istanbul in 1996 when heads of both municipalities started
a dialogue (Porto de Oliveira 2010).
3.3.2 The Confluence Between Fund-Raising

and International Scanning
PB was not only present in international exhibition stands and rela-
tions between municipal governments; it was also an object of relations
with local and international institutions. In 1993, in Porto Alegre, an
Extraordinary Secretariat for Fund-Raising was created in order to identify
external funding, both national and international. It was also in charge of
developing local government projects, which would allow access to these
resources. This institution can be seen as one of the first experiences of
sub-national Brazilian government operating with international relations
(National Conference of Municipalities 2011). On this subject our inter-
viewee affirms that an integral part of strategies to value projects for raising
resources was to emphasize in funding bids the existence of PB.27 More
than US$240 million were secured (both national and international) for
the construction of infrastructure, between 1993 and 1998, 150 million
being in the form of loans (Fernandes 2000, p. 49).
The Interamerican Development Bank financed in this period, for
example, public works such as expressways in the city and “III Perimetal”
which included social participation in the process. One of our interviews
revealed that when the Mayor’s Office sought funding from international
organizations, it was always mentioned that public policy went through a
process of participatory governance, that is, PB. While Porto Alegre was
presenting projects to gain resources from international institutions, rela-
tions with other municipalities went on being spun and public policies in
the city kept evolving. By taking this road, PB gained attention and was
introduced to international organizations, which went on to view Porto
Alegre as a model for the innovative way public policy was managed. The
Interamerican Development Bank in one of the funding packages granted
to Porto Alegre included a component destined for building basic infra-
structure, in which about US$21 million were designated to the local
government to carry out PB-related works (Fernandes 2000, p. 54).
The first major step towards internationalization for PB happened when,

under the administration of Tarso Genro, in 1995, PB was shortlisted for
an award for best practice for a United Nations programme for urban
settlements—UN-Habitat. The PB of Porto Alegre won the award of
“best practice” for urban management, attributed to 40 experiences from
around the world during the International Conference on UN-Habitat
II in Istanbul, held in 1996. The award was received by Tarso Genro and
Ubiratan de Souza. It is possible to say that it was at this moment that
Porto Alegre—or to be more precise PB—entered the world stage, as is
borne out by one of our interviewees:
The official entrance of Porto Alegre on the World Map of international

relations happened at the Istanbul Conference in 1996. Really there, those
who didn’t know it, but had heard about it, finally saw it, and then you have
the UN official seal.28
The award contributes to the internal promotion of PB, as the political

elites of Porto Alegre seek international legitimation to gain local cred-
ibility of this participatory policy.
The following year, in 1997, a book was published Orçamento
Participativo: A experiência de Porto Alegre (Participatory Budgeting:
The Experience of Porto Alegre) by the Brazilian publishing house Perseu
Abramo Foundation, which is connected to the PT. It was a concise
monograph in a pocket book format narrated by Tarso Genro and Ubirtan
de Souza in a little more than 90 pages the experience of PB, its ideas in
relation to democracy, its implementation and difficulties in Porto Alegre,
as well as describing the processes of participation and the international
repercussions of PB. The work became a mini-classic and was translated
into various languages and gained worldwide recognition. This short book
by Genro and de Souza became one of the main sources of inspiration for
PB as much for militants as for technocrats in many countries.
In turn, the World Bank already in the 1990s was involved in the pro-
cess of recognizing PB. The regional policy of this institution at that time
was oriented towards the promotion of decentralization, one of the agen-
cy’s priorities for Latin America, Africa and Asia. On covering municipali-
ties, the theme of decentralization touched on urban policies and above all
innovations. In 1997, there was a significant event in Caracas, which was
important not only to push PB onto the agenda of international organiza-
tions, but also to open up dialogue between international elites, especially

in Latin America and Europe. The meeting in Venezuela reinforced the
place of the PB experience as one of the most valued practices for urban
management (Navarro 2003, p. 92).
The same year, a work published by the World Bank Decentralization in
Latin America Learning through Experience (Peterson, 1997) encouraged
decentralization by looking at successful examples. One of the sections
includes the need to bring people together from citizens to governors and
another collates the Brazil experience of PB. In the same vein, the World
Bank, shortly afterwards, recommended PB in its report and on the cusp
of the twenty-first century insisted on the need for cities to be more proac-
tive in the creation of policies for participatory governance, following the
model of Porto Alegre (World Bank 2000). The role of the World Bank
with PB will be presented in detail in Chap. 5.
Despite the recognition from the UN, the incentives from Interamerican
Development Bank and the mention given by the World Bank in its report,
PB was not yet anchored in the international agenda. A peculiar episode
in the story of PB was the contentious event which occurred in the first
phase of the URB-AL programme created by the European Union, within
a wider agenda which emerged around 1990 and aimed to bring together
regions of Europe and Latin America.29 The episode involving this pro-
gramme was evidence that PB still needed to gain international prestige
to enter the agenda of large institutions. The European Union created
several projects for inter-regional co-operation in several areas, in some
cases with decentralized co-operation.
The aim of the URB-AL project is to promote the exchange of know-
how in the area of urban management by means of partnerships between
European and Latin American cities. This focused on thematic areas with
one city of a pilot (such as PB for Porto Alegre or Social Inclusion for
São Paulo). The URB-AL programme was financed by cities from both
regions with the greatest parts of the funding coming from the European
municipalities. The programme went through three phases, of which the
first two are of interest for our study.
The first phase saw a call for eight thematic projects within which
there was network-3 entitled “Democracy in the City”. Porto Alegre was
the favourite candidate but ended up not getting the co-ordination of
the project. The co-ordinator position was instead awarded to the small
French city of Issy-les-Moulineaux. This fact put to the test the interna-
tional prestige and technical capacity of Porto Alegre to take on a project
of this magnitude. This contentious issue will be described in detail in

Chap. 5.
By the end of the 1990s, especially under the management of Raul
Pont, in Porto Alegre, a process was started to imbue the municipality
with the stamp of “Capital of Participative Democracy” and with the expe-
rience of PB as a fundamental element of this.30
3.3.3 The Organization of Events

In 1999, a large-scale event was organized in Porto Alegre entitled the 1st
International Seminar on Participatory Democracy (SIDP). The seminar
had the objective of bringing together specialists, local authorities and
experiences of participatory democracy from diverse places in the world,
from international credit institutions, International Organizations to
local governments. The seminar did not remain exempt from criticism
by the opposition, which also presented a dossier to representatives of
the Interamerican Development Bank and the World Bank accusing the
municipality of Porto Alegre of not meeting the demands voted for under
PB (Zero Hora 1999, p. 8). Despite the criticism, the reporting of the
seminar in the press and its perception by foreign participants seemed
overwhelmingly positive.
The SIDP was important as it brought together for the first time an
international municipalist movement around one theme: participatory
democracy. The city was Porto Alegre and the star of the meeting was
PB. To a certain extent, this event was the precursor to the World Social
Forum, which labelled Porto Alegre with the image of the “capital of
participatory democracy”. Moreover, the SIDP allowed for the meet-
ing of representatives from four important international institutions: the
World Federation of United Cities, the United Nations, the Interamerican
Development Bank and the World Bank. The event gained attention in
the local press with three major papers from Porto Alegre: the Correio do
Povo (Peoples Post), Zero Hora (Zero Hour) and the Jornal do Comercio
(Commercial Journal) covering the advances made at the seminar.
There were three positions of international institutions with respect
to PB respectively of the World Federation of United Cities, the United
Nations and the World Bank. We can affirm that this seminar was a cru-
cial event as, for the first time, it brought together a group of actors to
carry out the internationalization of PB in municipalities and international
institutions. The representative of the World Federation of United Cities,
Marcelo Nowerstein, insisted on the co-operation between cities as a form

of disseminating the so-called participatory forms of management, in
general, and PB, in particular. On his part, the UN representative, Yves
Cabannes, emphasized the value of social participation in the eradication
of poverty and for a peaceful administration within its environment, recov-
ering the need to continue Agenda-21 and the UN-Habitat Programme.
The contribution from the representative of the World Bank, Victor
Vergara, focused on the innovative nature of PB and the importance of
learning with this tool, which, in his own words, “is the best example in
Latin America of a process of continuous learning, refining and compro-
mise, as much in terms of politics as technical, from municipal authorities
and with a parallel commitment to civil society” (Vergara 2000, p. 229).
The three declarations expressed the will and, to a certain extent, the
need to disseminate PB to the world. The discourse offered by the mem-
bers of the international institutions had a technical approach and were
in line with the institutions in question. Despite the differences between
the implicit ideas of the discourses, in this event, an international network
was brought together, composed of staff from municipal governments,
specialists from international organizations and militants, who shared the
urge to expand social participation and had PB as a reference to reach such
an end.
With the succession of the Social Forums in Porto Alegre, PB progres-
sively gained greater visibility and started to be diffused on a massive scale
as will be presented in Chap. 5. Parallel to the World Social Forum, under
the leadership of Tarso Genro, the Local Authorities Forum for Social
Inclusion and Participatory Democracy (FAL) was created. This structure
was aimed at providing progressive local authorities a platform to discuss
themes of local urban administration. PB held a prominent position within
FAL and the network served as a vector to stimulate the international flux
of PB.
The mayors of Porto Alegre also participated in organizing an interna-
tional municipalist movement with the most important role on the agenda
of participatory democracy and social inclusion, as will be presented in
greater detail in the following chapter. This municipalist movement orga-
nized itself in the process of unifying the World Federation of United
Cities and the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), which
culminated in the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), based
in Barcelona. It is important to highlight that the UCLG contained a sec-
tion on the theme of participation—“The Commission on Social Inclusion
and Participatory Democracy” (CSIPD). This commission began in 2004

from work originating with the FAL and had as its first co-ordinator an
ex-co-ordinator from the International Co-operation of Porto Alegre.
In this period, Porto Alegre presented itself for candidacy for the new
phase of the URB-AL programme, which had launched a new official
announcement for a network entitled “Local Financing and Participatory
Budgeting”—network number 9. Co-ordination for this network was
given to the municipality of Porto Alegre which, in this case, took control
of a multimillion pound project focused on developing the interchange
of experiences regarding PB. The project began in 2004, the year in
which the Workers Party lost the elections to the candidate of the Popular
Socialist Party (PPS), José Fogaça. By this time, however, PB had already
entered onto the international agenda.
3.3.4 The Effects of Political Change

The political change, with the new Mayor, in Porto Alegre directly affected
international relations and the progressive municipalist movement which
had been gaining force. In effect, the local authorities in Porto Alegre
made great efforts for the construction of an external agenda. Since the
control of the local government had passed on to the PPS, a grouping
of cities suspended relations with Porto Alegre, such as Saint-Denis.31
The same thing happened with FLA, which suffered a crisis and, from
that moment on, was led by European politicians, especially the Spanish,
who were connected to the Andalusian Fund for Municipalities (FAMSI).
There was also a branch of FLA in Latin America, based in the municipal-
ity of Guarulhos, in São Paulo (Marx 2008; Porto de Oliveira 2011).
Political change did not, however, herald the end of PB in Porto
Alegre. On the contrary, even if the model had modifications, the main-
tenance of PB was still an important element in the election campaign
of 2004 (Louault 2006; Porto de Oliveira 2010; Ribeiro Dias 2008).
The brief absence of Porto Alegre in the international scene, in particular
in progressive networks, did little to stifle the external search for PB.32
The municipality continued to be a reference point for PB and a “myth”
for foreigners. Delegations continued visiting the city and the city co-
ordinated the Network-9 of the URB-AL programme. In turn, relations
with some municipalities of other countries, which shared the political
views followed by WP in Porto Alegre, were damaged in certain cases and,
in cases such as Saint-Denis, they were ended.
The local government sought to get the World Bank to carry out an
evaluation of PB in the municipality. Gradually, the new administration of
Porto Alegre recommenced the activities which had characterized political
life in the city during the WP term. For example, carrying out interna-
tional events for cities made a comeback. In November 2011, Porto Alegre
hosted the world meeting of the network Metropolis, having more than
one intervention on PB. At this event, those present included Councilman
Joe More, presenting the experience of PB in Chicago, and Councilwoman
Melissa Mark-Viverito, responsible for having implemented PB in a dis-
trict of New York; both experiences from the United States will be pre-
sented in the Epilogue of the book. As well as these participants, there
were Mamadou Bachir-Kanouté, specialist in Sub-Saharan Africa, and
Maria Hadden from NGO Participatory Budgeting Project of the United
States.33 In January of the following year, the World Social Forum was held
and in June of the same year Porto Alegre hosted the international meet-
ing of the International Observatory on Participatory Democracy (IOPD)
and carried out the first edition of DEMOCRACINE, a cinema festival on
the theme of democracy organized by Giovanni Allegretti, researcher at
the Centre for Social Studies in Coimbra.
Despite the continuity of PB in Porto Alegre and the recommenc-
ing of actions of the municipality at an international level, the change
in government had opened a gap for other progressively oriented local
authorities to take roles in leading the international scene in relation to the
debate around PB. Belo Horizonte, for example, intensified its external
relations and began to internationalize its take on PB in this period.
3.4 BELO HORIZONTE AND RECIFE: DELAYED

INTERNATIONALIZATION
The municipal governments of Belo Horizonte and Recife began their
processes of internationalization after Porto Alegre. From the start of its
internationalization, Porto Alegre invested in the creation of a brand and
the city became known as the capital of participatory democracy. Belo
Horizonte and Recife had not only to differentiate themselves from Porto
Alegre, but also to spread their experiences of PB. The two cities created
secretariats to deal with external questions. They also invested in events on
democracy and social participation and were followed attentively by inter-
national institutions. Although, different from Porto Alegre, the involve-
ment of mayors in international action was less in the other two cities. In
the following paragraphs we will describe the international trajectories of

Belo Horizonte and Recife.
3.4.1 Belo Horizonte and International Relations

Four years passed between the pioneering implementation of PB in Porto
Alegre and its rise in Belo Horizonte in the early 1990s, the equivalent
of an electoral mandate. However, the process of internationalization of
PB in Belo Horizonte comparatively took much longer to start. In fact,
Belo Horizonte only began to invest in the international dimension of its
local government and PB at the start of 2000. This movement only set
off with the URB-AL programme. In the beginning, the municipality’s
attention was focused on the internal dimension of the model to the detri-
ment of external promotion. The innovations from Belo Horizonte with
the construction of the Index of the Quality of Urban Life as an indicator
to secure the inversion of priorities and the housing dimension and the
emphasis on PB as an instrument for urban planning were elements which
highlighted its different approach to Porto Alegre and, also, helped gain
international recognition.
The entrance of Belo Horizonte in international networks was
“activated” in 2003 with a national event for municipalities—called
URBIS—which was promoted by the São Paulo municipality during the
administration of Marty Suplicy (PT).34 Until then, Belo Horizonte had
not participated in a systematic manner in the international municipal-
ist movement or in transnational networks of this type. The relationship
was established via the co-ordinator for PB in Belo Horizonte, Maria
Auxiliadora Gomes, who attended the URBIS event in São Paulo, and
Yves Cabannes, co-ordinator of the Urban Management Program for
Latin America and the Caribeen (UMP-LAC) of the UN.
The international action of promoting PB from Belo Horizonte was
carried out, on the one hand, by successive PB co-ordinators, such as Maria
Auxiliadora Gomes (2003–2009), Ana Luiza Nabuco (2009–2012) and
by the co-ordinator of the Brazilian Network for Participatory Budgeting,
Claudinéia Jacinto (2009–2012). The work was assisted, wherever pos-
sible, by the Secretary for International Relations. The municipality of
Belo Horizonte—despite not having published much about PB in the first
years—began to launch various books about their experience from 2000
onwards. The Adjunct-Secretariat of International Relations was struc-
tured in 2005 essentially to answer the demands from the URB-AL. From
this programme, the city government established closer relations with a

variety of other local governments which were members of the network.
The specialist Yves Cabannes, who wrote part of the Network-9 Base
Document for the URB-AL programme, was often cited in our inter-
views. He is pivotal to the internationalization of PB—as we will see in
the following chapters—and plays an important role during this period,
as does Giovanni Allegretti, whose actions were central for the URB-AL
programme among other international activities.
Technical co-operation was among the activities of the URB-AL pro-
gramme which enhanced the sharing of experiences through case stud-
ies and promoted a range of evaluations of PB in Belo Horizonte. From
this point on, Belo Horizonte progressively became an international
hallmark regarding PB. As was described in the previous section, PB
in Belo Horizonte was associated with management of territories and
municipal planning. In 2004, the mayor’s office won an award from the
Division for Public Administration and Development Management from
the UN: “Award for Public Service of the United Nations” in recogni-
tion of PB. After the creation of Digital PB, the local government was
praised in 2007 for this specific programme and received the distinction
of “Best Practice” from the International Observatory for Participatory
Democracy (IODP). This award was conferred in Nanterre, France, in
2008, at the annual meeting for IODP.35 Furthermore, in 2001, it was
placed third among the candidates for the Reinhard Mohn Foundation
award from Germany. This award went in fact to Recife, which we will look
at in more detail in the following section. Around 2000, an agreement was
made with Harvard University to develop an interchange of urbanists from
the USA to get to know PB in the municipality of Belo Horizonte.36
3.4.2 The Gap Left by Porto Alegre

Belo Horizonte launched the promotion of PB onto the international
stage more intensively, at the exact same time as the political vacuum was
left in Porto Alegre after the PT defeat in the 2004 election.37 This can be
seen as a window of opportunity for Belo Horizonte to enter the inter-
national scene and increase its visibility. At the same moment, progressive
cities from abroad were seeking an alternative to Porto Alegre, which had
ceased to be considered a political partner.38 Even though it is impossible
to establish a direct relation of causality, the momentary withdrawal from
international relations by Porto Alegre coincided with the international

ascension of Belo Horizonte and other Brazilian cities such as Recife.
When Belo Horizonte began to insert itself into the international PB
scene, participatory democracy was firmly established on the international
agenda. Important steps had already been achieved with UN awards, rec-
ommendations from the World Bank and the URB-AL programme. This
was already the period of massive diffusion. Moreover, PB transfers in local
governments of Latin America and Europe were also taking place for a few
years. The action carried out by Network-9 favoured technical production
on PB, as well as knowledge-gathering on transfer. A set of groups were
trained and specialized in decentralized co-operation and PB. This pro-
duced case studies and documents bringing together a variety of thematic
experiences on PB. Some of the current technical staff from international
institutions—such as the World Bank and other NGOs—were consultants
on the URB-AL programme, at the very start of their careers.
Among the important offshoots of the URB-AL programme with
Network-9 was the creation of the International Observatory for
Participatory Democracy and the Brazilian Network for Participatory
Budgeting. The first was based in Barcelona and the second in Belo
Horizonte.39 With the end of the URB-AL programme, the decision was
taken to create a Brazilian Network of Participatory Budgeting. The net-
work was envisioned by a team from Belo Horizonte with the help of
the co-coordinator of International Centre for Urban Management, Jaime
Vásconez. The proposal was to create a horizontal space of interchanges
and activities between Brazilian experiences. The network started its work
in 2007, with close to 30 members. The network also served as a pilot for
the creation of an international network of PB projects, which would work
in the same way and had strong involvement from the Spanish, in par-
ticular, from the Andulcian Municipal Fund for International Solidarity,
as will be presented in the next chapter. The international network of PB
did not perform as well as the Brazilian one and did not continue to the
end of its term.40
Around the mid-2000s PB entered into a process of diffusion at a
global scale, transcending the initial relations that had been established
between Latin America and European cities. With the management of
Ana Luiza Nabuco heading the Secretariat for Planning (2006–2010), vis-
its from international delegations to Belo Horizonte41 became evermore
frequent. In addition to receiving foreign visits, the municipal groups also
took themselves abroad to carry out activities in which PB was promoted.
In a dialogue with those responsible for PB in Belo Horizonte, we can

note the diversity of the visitors looking into PB in the municipality, by the
following excerpt of the conversation:
The Filipinos that came here, there were more than 50 of them. Last year
[…], there was an event to which came a delegation of almost 60 people
[from Korea, including mayors and secretaries].42
In an interview with an ex-co-ordinator of PB the same situation is con-

firmed as we can understand from their statement:
There was a period of great intensity on co-operation […], we received in a

systematic way international missions to Belo Horizonte to get to know PB.
[…] I believe that there was an intentional and propositive movement, from
the part of the administration in Belo Horizonte, to discuss Participatory
Budgeting. The proposal was not clearly of internationalization, but to cre-
ate instances for the reflection and discussion of Participatory Budgeting,
not only with Brazilian cities – and the Brazilian Network for Participatory
Budgeting functions as this space – but also internationally.43
The participation of members from the Belo Horizonte municipal staff

in the meeting organized by the Municipal Development Partnership for
Eastern and Southern Africa (MDP-ESA), with support from the World
Bank in Durban in 2008, was fundamental in building co-operative South–
South relations for PB transfer. From this meeting came the proposal to
create an agreement between Belo Horizonte and Maputo (Mozambique),
financed by the World Bank and mediated by André Herzog for the pro-
duction of a guidebook to facilitate the implementation of PB in African
municipalities. This guidebook would be based on the accumulation of
expertise from Belo Horizonte (Municipal Locality of Belo Horizonte,
2009).44 The guidebook was produced in partnership with researchers
from the Federal University of Minas Gerais.
3.4.3 The Events: Belo Horizonte between Brazil and France

In 2008, the municipality of Belo Horizonte organized a large-scale event:
the 15 years of PB Seminar. This event brought together close to 300
participants and served to publicize PB in Belo Horizonte. An accord
with the University of Harvard in the USA and relations established with
France also seemed to have produced similar results. Delegations from
Belo Horizonte participated in events organized by Science Po in Poitiers,

France, on participatory democracy. This local administration was, for a
certain time, an international partner of the region of Poiou-Charentes,
one of the few experiences of PB at a regional level. The event held in Belo
Horizonte on PB in the year of France in Brazil, in 2009, was joined by
the head of the region Ségoléne Royal, via video conference.
In summary, the internationalization of PB by Belo Horizonte occurred
at a moment of mass diffusion of PB, whose initial point was in 2003 at the
meeting of URBIS in São Paulo. It was a growing process that joined the
URB-AL programme and advanced effective investments in the promo-
tion of experience, from 2008 onwards, and a movement towards South–
South co-operation with the support of the World Bank. The difference
between Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte was that in Belo Horizonte
there were no local authorities such as mayors promoting PB in a direct
and systematic form. The internationalization of this participatory device
came much later and did not seem to be a priority in the local govern-
ment’s agenda, especially at the start of the process, but rather an action
taken up by the co-ordinators of PB.
3.4.4 Recife: “The Best PB in the World”

Policies for participatory governance in the Recife Local Government
began with renewed vigour in the 1980s. Even though this area had been
a part of the political agenda for many years, there had been no invest-
ments in the international promotion of PB as a brand for the city, except
in the latest years. Recife had been part of the Mercocities Network since
1995 (National Confederation of Municipalities 2011), but increased its
actions from 2004 onwards, when it began to participate in five Thematic
Units.45 The Secretary for International Relations, however, was struc-
tured at the same time as that of Belo Horizonte, but with a different
format. Public action in relation to PB concentrates, to a large extent,
on the internal plan. As had happened in Belo Horizonte, PB in Recife
had late internationalization and this process was helped by actions from
external actors.
The concern to advance strategies for fund-raising rose in the Recife
Mayors Office with the victory of WP in the 2000 elections.46 However,
in the first mandate, international action lacked institutional struc-
ture in the municipality. In the second term of PT, the Co-ordination
for International Relations was created, in 2005, and was linked to the
Secretary for Strategic Management and Social Communication. Its mis-

sion was to “co-ordinate the processes of international relations, looking
for interchanges, twin cities, investments and participation in international
city networks to amplify tourist, cultural, social and economic develop-
ment of Recife”.47
The initial guidance of the Secretary was to secure resources from inter-
national institutions such as the Interamerican Development Bank, the
World Bank and the Brazilian Development Bank.48 The management
board of international relations did not operate directly with PB. They,
however, offered advice for organizing international action, which was
taken up by those responsible for PB.
German institutions were particularly interested in the Recife experi-
ence and by the possibility of replicating the model in Germany. With
the binomial PB and Prezeis, Recife had been recognized by the German
Friedrich Ebert Foundation at the beginning of the 2000s as having “nota-
ble experiences of citizen participation”, in a Programme for Information
and Exchange among 20 experiences of this nature in the Southern Cone
(Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay). The objective was to balance in
two years of this programme “the establishment of informal networks and
of supply and demand between professionals” participating in the pro-
gramme (Friedrich Ebert Foundation 2003, p. 5). The municipality of
Recife was a full partner of the URB-AL programme and was one of the
case studies for the Base Document.
The process of political internationalization of Recife associated with
results achieved from the first years of PB, during the mandate of João
Paulo, contributed to one of the most prestigious international events on
participatory democracy to be held there. It was the Annual Meeting of
the International Observatory on Participatory Democracy, which hap-
pened on this occasion for the first time in Brazil.49 According to the
Daily Bulletin of the Secretary for Communication in Recife, published
on 29 November 2006, “the Pernambuco state capital was unanimously
chosen at the fifth conference of the IOPD, held in 2005 in San Sebastian
(Spain), defeating bids such as Porto Alegre, Puebla (Mexico), Villa Gessel
(Argentina) and El Bosque (Chile)”. Among the participants highlighted
by the press on the programme were various Brazilian intellectuals, as well
as other international experts such as the specialist Yves Cabannes and
Andre Herzog of the World Bank Institute.50
Another important achievement was winning the German award.
The Recife administration built relations with the School of Public
Administration of the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo (FGV-

EASP) for students to visit and see PB first hand. Moreover, the cen-
tre for Studies in Public Administration and Governance (CEAPG) of
FGV-EASP recommended PB for the International Reinhard Mohn
award of the German Bertelsmann foundation. Competing against more
than a thousand experiences from different countries, PB in Recife was
victorious. Chosen by popular vote it received 21.96 % of the 14,000
votes in Germany.51 The objective of the award was to bring attention to
innovative practices under the theme of “Vitalizing Democracy through
Participation” and its criteria were the innovative dimension of the experi-
ence and its replicability in the German context.
The Bertelsmann foundation has a singular weight in the European
context, due to its association with the media. In fact, it is one of the big-
gest TV channels and radio stations of the region. The award was given to
João da Costa directly from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,52 and
included a junior delegate from PB Children, Keila Pessoa, aged 13, who
had given a remarkable statement on video broadcast in support of the
bid (Recife, s/d, p. 96).53 The presence of PB Children, in general, and
the charisma of Keila Pessoa, in particular, were important in winning the
award, according to one of the interviewees, who were part of the team of
the Secretary for International Relations in Recife at that time.54
Winning the international award strengthened PB and gave the oppor-
tunity for the municipality to engage in a marketing campaign supporting
such phrases as “the Best PB in the World” and the “National Capital of
Participatory Democracy”.55 Relations with Germany, above all with the
institution involved in the award, strengthened the transfer of PB from
Recife to 22 German municipalities.
3.4.5 Effects of Political Change in Recife

At the height of the international acclaim for PB in Recife, the PT candi-
date João da Costa, who ended his first mandate in the mayor’s office and
had been the PB co-ordinator in the previous mandate, lost the 2012 elec-
tions. The international work of Recife suffered a reorientation, under the
new administration of Geraldo Julio of the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB).
Before leaving power, João da Costa had established the counsellors of
PB for the year 2013. Still, with the entrance of the new administration
right at the start of the year, there was a marked reticence and silence about
the future of PB.56 The counsellors and PB in general remained inactive
for more than 300 days. In July, the new mayor Geraldo Julio announced
to the press that PB would be ending in the city of Recife. According to
the newspaper (Jornal do Comércio 2013, p. 16), the mayor affirmed that
it was needed to “‘clear the air’ on the debate about priorities for the city”.
PB was substituted by a new model of participation, reflecting a
statewide programme “All for Pernambuco” with meetings, fora, the-
matic areas and debates on priorities, but without a voting system and
annual cycle. The programme “All for Pernambuco” sought governance
with social participation consisting of a form of democratic management
focused on results. This episode occurred in Recife and showed the fragil-
ity of the politics of participatory governance with strong party political
ties and without normative regulation.
3.5 CONCLUSION
The three cases analysed are representative of state capitals from which PB
became internationalized. The municipalities have a range of similarities.
Despite Porto Alegre being the home of PB, Belo Horizonte and Recife
introduced important institutional innovations and gained their own rec-
ognition. In respect of international relations, the state capitals created
internal institutions or, rather, secretariats for fund-raising or interna-
tional relations to better insert themselves into a global context, gaining
resources and participating in the ambit of “city diplomacy”. Even if these
cases present several similar elements, there is a difference in terms of
results, that is, Porto Alegre was internationally legitimized and engen-
dered a process of mass diffusion, which then passed on to Belo Horizonte
and Recife.
The actions of individuals were decisive. In Porto Alegre, mayors such
as Tarso Genro and Raul Pont as well as Ubiratan de Souza and other
teams within the municipality were constantly involved in international
activities for the promotion of PB and militancy for the ideal of participa-
tory democracy. This international action truly established them as the
first “Ambassadors of PB”. The fact that they were high-ranking teams
of the City Hall promoting PB internationally made a difference. They
were personalities with political legitimacy in the areas of social participa-
tion and technical know-how. Furthermore, they were present at the very
outset of PB and with it throughout its evolution.
The continued militancy from this group of politicians from Porto
Alegre was crucial for the insertion of PB onto the international agenda.
In comparison, in the cases of Belo Horizonte and Recife this type of

action was carried out by internal teams, generally within the secretariats
in which these governance policies were allocated, such as in the case of
Maria Auxiliadora Gomes in Belo Horizonte. Moreover, in Porto Alegre,
there was international pioneering, whether in the creation of a secre-
tariat to raise resources or in the organization of events which operated
as mechanisms which contributed to the process of internationalization.
A range of mechanisms operating along the process of internationaliza-
tion of PB were identified. It is important to insist upon the fact that those
mechanisms did not represent a mechanical vision of the process. These
are overlapping and operate together, often simultaneously, with different
levels and in the ambit of international institution programmes. In the
case of Porto Alegre, the pioneering efforts occurred with the Mercocities
network back in 1995. This was followed by relations established with the
Radically Democratize Democracy network a few years later and amplified
with the FLA network at the start of the 2000s, as will be detailed in the
next chapter.
The co-operation of international institutions occurred with the Urban
Management Programme of the UN, the URB-AL programme from the
European Union and also the World Bank. Belo Horizonte and Recife
also participated in such programmes. The difference, though, is that
Porto Alegre is to a certain extent the leader in all these cases. It is the
first city to build relations with UMP-LAC, to co-ordinate Network-9 of
the URB-AL and have a prominent position in World Bank programmes.
Belo Horizonte focused on the construction of an internal network—the
Brazilian Network for Participatory Budgeting—and began to grow inter-
nationally after the political changes in Porto Alegre and established rela-
tions with Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asian countries and became a
reference point. Recife had one unique feature—it developed direct rela-
tions with Germany.
The mechanism of construction came from producing an image of the
city, underpinned by PB, which involved international promotion of the
device and produced technical material promoting the positive results of
PB. Action was initiated by a group of individuals linked to the local gov-
ernment of Porto Alegre who began to promote PB and forge an image
of the municipality, having this policy as background. This movement
started from the Mercocities network, extended with the publication and
promotion of the book by Genro and Souza (1997) and was followed
by the SIPD and then the WSF as will be described in Chaps. 4 and 5.
Moreover, the winning of awards helped construct a prestigious image

for Porto Alegre with the distinction of “Best Practice” given by the UN
in 1996. The international awards had the effect of potentializing, legiti-
mizing and giving visibility to a local experience. This range of elements
allowed Porto Alegre to progressively become embedded as the “Capital
of Participatory Democracy” as we will consider in the next chapter.
Individual action in promoting PB is also presented, although at a later
stage, in Belo Horizonte and Recife. The latter was different from Porto
Alegre by claiming to be the “Best PB in the World”.
It is certain that PB would not have been recognized if not for the
proliferation of pioneering experiences in Brazil and, above all, for its
continuity and successful cases. The experiences of Porto Alegre, Belo
Horizonte and Recife brought a range of concrete results which pro-
vided examples, inspiring the whole world. Without the effectiveness of
PB in these municipalities, the “ambassadors” would not have had suf-
ficient arguments to defend it. The work of individuals who made these
things happen on the ground is not the principal objective of this book,
but it is impossible to overlook the actions of those who dedicated their
energy at the local level, in order for these experiences to occur. The
success of the experience serves as an element which allows PB support-
ers to attribute relations of cause and effect. This element also serves
to justify the adoption and promotion of PB by other individuals and
institutions.
External scanning is a mechanism present in all three cases. It can be
seen as a process which groups together with others. The monitoring of
some international institutions certainly contributed to the internation-
alization. It is known that PB in Porto Alegre was not the first in Brazil,
but it was the one which gained the greatest attention. The UN and the
World Bank by their tracking—through the staff mentioned in the chap-
ter—were pioneers in identifying from abroad PB in Porto Alegre and
recognizing its potential. The role of Yves Cabannes in UMP-LAC and of
Victor Vergara of the World Bank was important to put PB on the agenda
of these institutions.
International diffusion is amplified by means of networking. It can be
seen as a practice which expresses itself by the latency and international
regularity of the promotion of connections among individuals, groups
and institutions. The three municipalities organized events nationally
and internationally to promote PB. Its supporters also promoted PB in
meetings such as Mercocities, RDD, FAL, IOPD and others. The con-
tinuous action in these meetings served, as will be described in the chapter
specifically on networks, to amplify the number of converts and specialists
in PB, as well as reinforcing the mechanism to strengthen evermore the
prestige and legitimacy of the experience.
It is possible to affirm, therefore, that there was a confluence between
international action of political teams on the one hand and international
scanning and recognition on the other. These were necessary conditions
for PB to internationalize. The case of Porto Alegre stands out for being
a pioneering effort in international actions; there was political investment
when it came to international relations. The “Ambassadors of participa-
tion”, mayors and high-level teams of the municipality, circulated and
offered lectures abroad on the experience of Porto Alegre. These activities
continued throughout the mandate of the WP. The promotion of events,
as well as the building of networks, is also crucial in this sense. These
elements, combined, helped PB in Porto Alegre to become a reference
point when it came to participatory governance policies at the interna-
tional level. This effect was amplified further with the successive World
Social Forums.
NOTES
1. There is a belief that Olívio Dutra would have got inspiration from
the same device as Local Municipalities in the Districts, which we
will see next, implemented in Recife in 1986 to prepare PB in Porto
Alegre, cf. Melo (2000), (apud, Azevedo and Guia 2005, p. 78).
2. Interview in Porto Alegre in June 2011.
3. CIDADE, UNDATED DOCUMENT. “History of Participative
Budgeting in Porto Alegre” available on http://www.ongcidade.org/
site/arquivos/biblioteca/historico.pdf, accessed in October 2013.
4. Interview, Porto Alegre, 2011.
10. The region of the Steel Valley is a metropolitan area, composed of
cities located in the State of Minas Gerais, about 200 m from Belo
Horizonte. The region became well known principally due to the

prosperous enterprises that were installed in the area, increasing
international exports.
11. Which from 2005 was allocated to Municipal Secretariat of
Planning, Budgeting and Information, following reformulation of
the municipal administrative structure.
12. There are nine administrative regions, re-divided into 41 sub-
regions and 81 planning units.
13. Term used to describe the works of PB in Recife.
14. The genealogy of OP is hard to be established from technical and
specialized literature, as both are controversial regarding its
origins.
15. The first Zeis in Recife happened in 1983, which was the second in
Brazil, preceded by Curitiba. The Prezeis experience of 1987 was
successful in Recife and became a national reference point, and
went through transference of supra-municipal scale (scale-up),
besides remaining in Recife.
16. The administration was characterized by the “dividing of the city
in administrative and political regions; the discussion and
negotiation of priorities by means of popular organized plenaries”
(Arlindo 1998, p. 65).
17. It is worth noting that the first PB experience in Recife is a simpli-
fied emulation of the Porto Alegre model, contrary to Belo
Horizonte, which adopts at the beginning of the process a similar
model. Both PBs in Belo Horizonte and Recife were, throughout
the years, intensified and expanded.
18. Interviews with members of civil society emphasized the with-
drawal of other participation devices, such as Prezeis, with the
strong emergence of PB.
19. Statement by João da Costa, in 2003, who was, at the time,
Secretary for Participative Budgeting and Citizens Management in
Recife.
20. Interview with José Augusto Miranda and Recife (2013).
21. Source: Municipality of Recife. Although there may still be issues
with double counting, the number is considerably higher than that.
22. Various interviews in Recife, in 2013.
23. http://www2.recife.pe.gov.br/lancado-o-ciclo-2012-2014-do-
op-da-crianca-e-do-adolescente/. Accessed in May 2013.
24. Interview, Porto Alegre (2011).
25. Cornelius Castoriadis (1922–1997), economist and philosopher,

of Greek origin and living in Paris, was one of the greatest thinkers
in the last century. Castoriadis went to Brazil to take part in a phi-
losophy event organized by the Pontifical Catholic University of
Rio Grande do Sul in 1991. He was taken to PB along with
Professor Denis Rosenfeld.
29. The moment the United States became the main partner in the
region, relations that had been established with the old continent
deteriorated.
30. It is worth noting that the organization of events is a way of gath-
ering people, promoting the exchange of ideas and experiences,
widening the connections among individuals, besides projecting
the image of a local government. This practice was often adopted
in every case studied.
31. Participant observation and off-record interviews, in Saint-Denis
(2008).
32. Only to illustrate, in one of my missions of field research in Porto
Alegre, in 2011, there was a South Korean journalist doing a report
on PB.
33. Participative observation was carried out during the event.
34. Interview, Belo Horizonte, 2013.
35. Participative observation at an event in Nanterre, 2008.
36. In this period, Yves Cabannes had become a lecturer at Harvard.
37. Other active municipalities externally, such as São Paulo, also
stepped down from the progressivist international scene after PT
lost local elections.
38. Different interviews, Belo Horizonte, 2013.
39. The Brazilian Network for Participatory Budgeting has been previ-
ously co-ordinated by the municipality of Guarulhos (São Paulo
State) and is currently co-ordinated by Canoas (Rio Grande do Sul
State).
40. The Brazilian Network of Participative Budgeting carries on with
its activities, its co-ordination carried out by the Local Government
of Guarulhos. PB has a lesser role on the international agenda due
to the crisis in Europe and budget cuts for international
co-operation.
41. The delegations who visit Belo Horizonte come from all over the
world, from Latin America to South Korea, including Africa, the
Philippines and Europe.
43. Collective chat with individuals currently responsible for PB,
Veronica Campos Salles, Claudineia Jacinto and Maria Diana de
Oliveira, Belo Horizonte, 2013.
44. Interview with staff from PBH, Belo Horizonte, 2013, and the
World Bank, Washington, 2013.
45. Interview, Recife, 2013. The themes for the units are, respectively,
Education, Culture, Human Rights, Participative Democracy and
Youth.
46. Ibid.
47. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF RECIFE: http://www.recife.
pe.gov.br/pr/secestrategica/relacoes_int.php. Accessed in 2013.
48. Ibid.
49. The meeting was only held in Brazil again in 2012, in the city of
Porto Alegre.
50. Ermínia Maricato (USP), Maria da Glória Gohn (Unicamp), Rudá
Ricci (UFMG), Luís de la Mora and Suely Leal (UFPE), Alejandro
Socorro (Universidade de Cienfuegos, Cuba), Yves Cabannes,
(University College London) and André Herzog (Banco Mundial).
51. http://www.recife.pe.gov.br/2011/06/09/prefeito_joao_da_
costa_recebe_premio_e_assina_acordo_de_cooperacao_na_
europa_177152.php. Accessed in May 2013.
52. The award-winning ceremony may be accessed, from minute 39, at
the ceremony video available on http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=CaMSM01xX74. Accessed in May 2013.
53. Keila Pessoa’s statement may be viewed in the video on the candi-
dacy of the Municipality of Recife http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=UHxVj4IyWFo. Accessed in May 2013.
54. Interview, Recife, 2013.
55. Interview, Recife, 2013.
56. During field research in Recife in 2013, it was not possible to verify
whether PB would be kept or supressed. At a meeting at the FIJ
Association, in the district of Ibura, citizens were concerned about
the continuity of PB.
REFERENCES
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil. London:
Lynne Rienner.
Ananias, P. (2005). Orçamento Participativo – Por que o implantamos em Belo
Horizonte? In S. Azevedo & R. B. Fernandes (Eds.), Orçamento Participativo:
construindo a democracia (pp. 33–48). Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Arlindo, J., & Gondim, L. (1998). Novos Modelos de Gestão: lições que vêm do
poder local. In J. Arlindo & S. Caccia-Bava (Orgs.), Os desafios da gestão munic-
ipal democrática (p. 192). São Paulo: Editora Cortez.
Avritzer, L., & Wampler, B. (2008). The Expansion of Participatory Budgeting in
Brazil: An Analysis of the Successful Cases Based upon Design and Socio-economic
Indicators. Report.
Azevedo, N. D., & Gomes, M. A. (2008). Um balanço das produções acadêmicas
sobre o Orçamento Participativo de Belo Horizonte. In S. Azevedo & A. L.
Nabuco (Eds.), Democracia Participativa: a experiência de Belo Horizonte (pp.
67–88). Belo Horizonte: Editora Leitura.
Azevedo, N. D., & Gomes, M. A. (2009). Um balanço das produções acadêmicas
sobre o Orçamento Participativo de Belo Horizonte. In S. Azevedo & A. L.
Nabuco (Eds.), Democracia Participativa: a experiência de Belo Horizonte
(pp. 67–88). Belo Horizonte: Editora Leitura.
Azevedo, S., & Fernandes, R. B. (2005). Orçamento Participativo: construindo a
democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 224 p.
Bittar, J. (Org.). (1992). O modo petista de governar. São Paulo: Partido dos
Trabalhadores, 324 p.
Dias, M. R. (2008). Desejo de mudança: Das motivações e razões que levaram à
derrota do PT em Porto Alegre nas eleições de 2004. Civitas, 8(2), 237–257.
Fedozzi, L. (2000). O poder da aldeia: gênese e história do Orçamento Participativo
de Porto Alegre. Porto Alegre: Tomo.
Fedozzi, L. J., & Lima, K. C. P. (2013). Os OP no Brasil. In N. Dias (Coord.),
Esperança democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no Mundo
(pp. 156–162). Lisbon: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Fernandes, J. H. P. (2000). Porto Alegre: processo, projeto e inserção internacio-
nal. In R. A. Pont (Coord.) & A. Barcelos (Org.), Porto Alegre: uma cidade que
conquista: a terceira gestão do PT no governo municipal (pp. 45–54). Porto
Alegre: Arte e Ofícios.
Fundação Friedrich Ebert. (2003). Gestão municipal participativa: experiências de
Argentina - Brasil - Chile - Uruguay. Santiago: Fundação Friedrich Ebert.
Fundação Getúlio Vargas. (2009). Relatório final: Projeto Conexão Local Orçamento
Participativo, s/d, 20 p.
Jornal do Comércio. (2013). PSB acaba com OP e cria novo modelo. Recife, 16 de
Julho de 2013, p. 3.
Louault, F. (2006). Coups et coûts d’un échec électoral : La défaite du Parti des
Travailleurs à Porto Alegre (octobre 2004). Lusotopie, 13(2), 73–90.
Marx, V. (2008). Las Ciudades como Actores Políticos en las Relaciones
Internacionales. PhD thesis in Political Science, Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, Barcelona.
Melo, M. A. (2005). Instituições orçamentárias municipais e o processo legislativo
em Recife – 1988–2000. In C. Lubambo, D. B. Coêlho, & M. A. Melo (Orgs.),
Desenho institucional e participação política: experiências no Brasil contemporâ-
neo (pp. 186–220). Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Navarro, Z. O. (2003). “Orçamento Participativo” de Porto Alegre (1989–2002):
um conciso comentário crítico. In L. Avritzer & Z. Navarro (Orgs.), A inova-
ção democrática no Brasil: O Orçamento Participativo (pp. 89–128). São Paulo:
Cortez.
Partido dos Trabalhadores. (1980). Manifesto. Diário Oficial da União, 21 de
outubro de 1980.
Peterson, G. E. (1997). Decentralization in Latin America: Learning through
Experience. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 45 p.
Pimentel, F. (2005). Apresentação. In S. Azevedo & R. B. Fernandes (Eds.),
Orçamento Participativo: construindo a democracia (pp. 9–12). Rio de Janeiro:
Revan.
IHEAL/CREDA.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2011). L’implication des réseaux dans la circulation des
politiques de gouvernance participative: Le cas du Forum des Autorités Locales.
In XIème Congrès de l’Association Française de Science Politique. Section
Thématique – 26 “Agir par réseaux: Les réseaux en science politique: méthodes et
objets. Estrasburgo.
Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte. (2009). Guia passo-a-passo para a implementação do
Orçamento Participativo em municípios africanos. Relatório Técnico [2008].
Ribeiro, A. C. T., & Grazia, G. D. (2003). Experiências de Orçamento Participativo
no Brasil: Período de 1997 à 2000. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Silva, E. B. (2003). Das tensões às intenções: gestão do planejamento urbano, OP
e participação popular no Recife (1997 a 2002). Dissertação de mestrado.
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Programa de pós-graduação em desen-

volvimento urbano e regional. Recife.
Teixeira, A. C., & Albuquerque, M. (2006). do C. Orçamentos Participativos:
Projetos políticos, partilha de poder e alcance democrático. In E. Dagnino,
O. Olvera, & P. Aldo (Orgs.), A disputa pela construção democrática na América
Latina. Campinas: Paz e Terra.
Vergara, V. (2000). As inovações no âmbito da gestão municipal. In A. J. Becker
(Ed.), A cidade reinventa a democracia (pp. 127–229). Porto Alegre: Prefeitura
Municipal de Porto Alegre.
Zero Hora. (1999). November 13, p. 8.
CHAPTER 4
Promoting Transnational Connections:

The Networks of Participatory Democracy
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Throughout the 1990s, the local authorities of Porto Alegre entered
into dialogue with their progressive partners in other countries of Latin
America and Europe. A variety of themes concerning urban management,
which included PB, were part of these relations. Among these partners,
the exchange of ideas and techniques for public administration were fre-
quent. International events became spaces of specific meeting, focused
on the international organization and promotion of sub-national public
policies. Little by little, PB gained more prominence at these meetings
as, on the one hand, the representatives from Porto Alegre had an inter-
est in widening it and, on the other, many municipalities, above all from
Europe, were clearly concerned about renewing practices in local gover-
nance. In this movement diverse networks were made up and their action
resulted in producing transnational connections between individuals in
Latin America, Europe and, on a smaller scale, Africa.
At the same time there was a growing international municipalist move-
ment—with claims, forms of action and diverse objectives—which was
formed and spread gradually across the planet. This process was insti-
tutionalized with the fusion of the World Federation of United Cities
(WFUC, already mentioned in the previous chapter) with the International
Union of Local Authorities (IULA), which, in 2004, in Paris, gave birth to
the Cities and Local Governors United (CGLU). Associations of mayors,

as well as networks of Latin American municipalities participated actively

in this movement, such as the Latin American Federation of Cities, and
Municipalities and Associations of Local Governors (FLACMA), based
in Quito.1 The authorities from Porto Alegre were also involved in this
effort, and likewise other important municipalities, of different sizes,
with progressive mayors from various parts of Europe. Among these were
Barcelona, Catalonian Spain and Saint-Denis, a region in the metropolitan
area of Paris in France.
In Europe, intellectuals and politicians insisted on the existence of
a crisis or, in the words of Pierre Rosanvallon, the “malaise of democ-
racy” (Rosanvallon 2002; Santos 2003; Sintomer et al. 2008), and the
need for reforms that could improve its quality and, more importantly,
increase social participation.2 At the same time in Latin America, dic-
tatorships had already fallen and others were on the verge of falling. In
this region, new forms of democracy emerged, as well as innovations
in institutionalized forms of political participation. This can be seen
as a European crisis, whose “hope”3 for a solution was found in Latin
America, or more precisely in the policies of participatory governance
developed in Porto Alegre. Already in the 1990s intellectuals, activists
and politicians were travelling to Latin America, to Porto Alegre to
familiarize themselves with PB. A pioneering transnational network was
created in France called “Radically Democratize Democracy” (RDD),
whose activity was, essentially, to disseminate PB from Porto Alegre
across the Old Continent.
In 2000, a process of adopting PB in a variety of European countries
began. Relations between a few progressive local municipalities were set-
tled around the debate on democracy and social participation, construct-
ing a locus for dialogue and social relations. In this discussion, PB had
a privileged place. At the intersection between these events and diverse
networks was the Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion and
Participatory Democracy (FLA),4 which was created in parallel with the
World Social Forum (WSF), as a place for discussion among authorities
from sub-national governments, in general, and mayors, in particular. This
was a meeting space for a variety of initiatives started by the international
municipalist movement, above all those with a progressive strand. The
FLA is a constant in the process of circulation of PB since its creation in
2001. This network played a fundamental role in the diffusion of PB in
operating international articulations for its adoption.
PROMOTING TRANSNATIONAL CONNECTIONS: THE NETWORKS... 101
The previous chapter presented the external projection of Porto Alegre,

comparing two other Brazilian municipalities: Belo Horizonte and Recife.
This chapter covers the first transnational connections established between
representatives of sub-national governments in Latin America and Europe,
from where transfers of PB occurred. Two networks in particular will be
analysed: RDD, in France, and Forum of Local Authorities for Social
Inclusion and Participatory Democracy, with the greatest attention dedi-
cated to the latter.
The argument proposed in this chapter defends that the networks cre-
ated to connect Latin America and Europe to Porto Alegre, in particular,
and to the themes of democracy and social inclusion, in general, were an
initiative taken up by individuals strongly motivated to spread the idea of
PB and its techniques. It can be stated that the networks assumed two
functions: as actors of diffusion and as spaces for discussion with respect
to PB.
At the heart of these transnational networks were five mechanisms: con-
struction, leadership, co-operation, networking, translating and capacity-
building. The role of a group of “ambassadors for participation” (local
authorities, NGO activists and journalists), especially French and Brazilian
ones, is determinant in the maintenance of networks and consequently in
the process of diffusing PB.
Keck and Sikkink (1998) refer to networks as communicative struc-
tures, which can also be understood as political spaces. The idea of trans-
national networks serves to “evoke structured and structuring dimensions
in the action of these complex agents”, who not only participate in new
arenas of politics but also shape them” and affirm that “on importing
the network concept from sociology and applying it transnationally, we
bridge the increasingly artificial divide between international and national
realms” (Keck and Sikkink 1998, passim). It is worth noting that both the
FLA and RDD describe themselves as networks. Their action not only
contributed to the diffusion of PB, but also to confer legitimacy to it and
to serve as a space for agenda-setting and interchange of experiences.
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first deals with the RDD,
emphasizing the process of forming the network in France and the first
transfers of PB to the Paris region. The second considers the FLA network
under the leadership of Porto Alegre, its connections with other interna-
tional networks and the moment when the PT lost the elections in the
capital of Rio Grande do Sul.
4.2 RADICALLY DEMOCRATIZE DEMOCRACY:

THE NETWORK
At the start of the diffusion process of PB in Europe there was a range
of individuals who exercised a determinant role in the process.5 The
RDD network and a group of mayors, especially from the French
Communist Party (FCP), installed in the suburbs of Paris, played a
leading role in the process of adoption of PB in France, opening the
door for the entry of this policy into the Old Continent and connect-
ing Latin America and Europe. It is certain that each European country
had its own dynamic of adoption. Still, France and Spain, in particular,
were pioneers in establishing relations with Porto Alegre, which gave a
spark to the diffusion process. In this section, the action of RDD will be
analysed, as well as the adoption of PB in the outskirts of Paris, in the
city of Saint-Denis, in particular, which played an important role in the
diffusion process in Europe.
4.2.1 The RDD Network and PB in France

The pathways leading to the entry of PB into Europe are multiple and
involve diverse actors, with each country following its own dynamic. There
are indications of cases of PB since 1994, but the first body of transfer
occurred only around the start of 2000, with 6 cases, which grew to approx-
imately 20 in 2003 and, later in 2005, to around 50 cases (Sintomer et al.
2008, p. 38). France, with the experiences of Saint-Denis and Bobigny in
2001, in the so-called red suburbs of Paris, saw one of the first countries
with PB transfer. There are other cities in Germany, Spain, Great Britain,
Italy and Portugal which also followed their own paths in this period.
In recent years, PB has also been adopted in Nordic countries such as
Sweden and Norway (Langlet and Allegretti 2013; Porto de Oliveira and
Allegretti 2013), as well as in Eastern Europe—Poland is an illustrative
case where a law was introduced in order to stimulate PB. Besides that, PB
transfers occurred in the Balkans, in Bosnia for example, with the involve-
ment of the World Bank, as will be highlighted in the next chapter. In
this movement of introducing PB into Europe, networks are particularly
important, insofar as they allow connections between people, intensifica-
tion of the flux of ideas and legitimation of experiences.
France is one of the pioneering countries when it comes to PB adoption
and has had active members in the FLA network since its inception. In
Europe, the French are not the only ones to participate in FLA and conduct
initial transfers. In Spain, and above all Barcelona, and in the Andalucia
region there was also similar activity. The working-class outskirts of Paris—
la banlieu rouge—where the FCP has been a stronghold since the 1960s,
became the focus of adoptions from 2000 onwards. The French case is
illustrative in respect to the rapprochement of Europe and Latin America,
which brought together progressive local authorities, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and activists. This movement was built up around
the WSF and reached its height in the URB-AL programme.
Municipalities like Saint-Denis and Bobigny, in particular, have had
limited emulations of PB and have acted as a portal for the device to
enter France (Porto de Oliveira 2010). This country also carried out a
bold experience in PB scaling up transfer at a supra-municipal level in the
region of Poiou-Charentes. With Ségoléne Royal of the French Socialist
Party (PS) in power, this region produced a hybrid version of PB, focused
on discussing expenditure in regional education policy.
The diffusion of PB in France also counts on the action of militants,
NGOs and newspapers. The journalist Bernard Cassen from Le Monde
Diplomatique and the NGO Association for the Taxation of financial
Transactions and Aid to Citizens (ATTAC) and the editor of Le Monde,
Ignacio Ramonet, wrote more than one article in the 1990s about PB in
France. In the edition of August 1998, Bernard Cassen entitled his article
“An exemplary experience in Brazil”, in which he affirmed that PB is “not
only an exercise in the distribution of revenues and expenses of munici-
palities by the population itself. By its amplitude and rigorous methodol-
ogy […] this represents an experience of direct democracy with no other
equivalent in the world” (Cassen 1998). One year later, in October 1999,
the communist oriented paper L’Humanité published in France an article
by Tarso Genro on PB emphasizing that when
[t]he left won elections, we thought about transforming Porto Alegre into
a type of Paris Commune, or rather, a city of direct democracy. The political
reality taught us that this was impossible, it was needed to find a subtle and
complex combination of direct democracy with representative democracy.
(Genro 1999)
The information channels of the French progressive press are active and
highlight the innovative experience from Porto Alegre, as well as other
actors, such as international networks intersecting in this process.
The RDD network exercised an important role in the diffusion of PB in

the French political scene and in the establishment of connections between
Porto Alegre, France and Francophone Africa. The network, whose action
was pioneering, was articulated by a range of progressive activists,6 with
the aim of promoting “active citizenship” based primarily on the experi-
ence of PB in Porto Alegre. In the Document of Constitution of RDD,
the network is described as a group of
citizens of different countries, deeply concerned about seeing the breathless-

ness of representative democracy in our respective countries and, therefore,
engaged for different reasons, personal, militants, trade unionists, political,
professionals, academics, in the search for active citizenship. We found an
opening in the totally innovative process of Participatory Budgeting from
Porto Alegre. […] The process undertaken in Porto Alegre allows to revi-
talize representative democracy, […], throughout participatory democracy,
guaranteeing active citizenship. On retaining certain fundamental ideas
from the initiative in Porto Alegre, we founded in July 1999, the net-
work “Radically Democratise Democracy”. (Démocratiser radicalement la
démocratie 2000, p. 1)
The RDD network began to operate in 1997, after the publication of the
book by Tarso Genro and Ubiratan de Souza, Participatory Budgeting:
The Porto Alegre Experience, already mentioned in the previous chap-
ter. Martine Toulette and Jean-Blaise Picheral promoted the translation
of the book into French which was done by Eliane Costa Guerra and
published by the Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme (Foundation for
Human Progress—FPH), with the French title Quand les habitants gèrent
vraiment leur ville: le Budget Participatif, l’expérience de Porto Alegre au
Brésil (When the Inhabitants Truly Manage Their Town: Participatory
Budgeting, the experience of Porto Alegre in Brazil) (RDD 2000, P3).
Catherine Gegou, one of the founders of the network, and at that time
councillor for the 20° district of Paris, described her involvement and the
creation of the network in these words:
I was a Councillor in Paris since 1995 and, for a Councillor, the question
[…] of its legitimacy, and of its relations with the population, beyond its
simple election, is in each case a question, completely essential. And I read
the book by Tarso Genro on Porto Alegre, translated by Jean-Blaise Picheral
and Martine Toulotte. And when I read it, I thought I had to absolutely
meet these people and try to understand more in this respect, as at this time
Participatory Budgeting was unknown in France. I had never heard of it. I
made this connection together with my friend Pierre Masat, who was also
a Councillor in Paris […] and thus we met Martine [Toulotte] and Jean-
Blaise [Picheral] and, later, other people took the same initiative and we
rapidly reached a dozen people and created a network. [RDD]7
After the publication of his book in France, around 1998, Ubiratan

de Souza was invited to talk about the theme at several municipalities,
among which were Paris, Lille, Marseille, Lyon, Besançon and Nantes
(Démocratiser radicalement la démocratie 2000, p. 3). The registers in the
archives of the RDD confirm this episode, as well as Ubiratan de Souza
himself, who describes his visits in this way:
It was when Tarso and I launched a book in France […] When the Inhabitants
Truly Manage the Town. I travelled to various places in France at the invite of
the organisers of the launch of the book. […] I visited the City Hall of Saint-
Denis, I was met by Patrick [Braouezec] and others. They were interested
in producing the experience of PB and also invited Raul [Pont]. […] From
1997 Raul [Pont] is the mayor and […] was also invited for the starting
match of the World Cup, which was in Saint-Denis […] in France. I have a
role [in PB promotion], because I literally travelled from the north to the
south of the country, from Lille to Marseille.8
In addition to launching the book by Genro and de Souza, the RDD

network collaborated on the publication in France of a book and pho-
tographic reporting Porto Alegre les voix de la démocratie: vivre le Budget
Participatif (Porto Alegre the Voice of Democracy: Living Participative
Budgeting 2003), with statements from the inhabitants of Porto Alegre.
The author, journalist Estelle Granet, selected a range of interviews about
PB carried out in loco in Porto Alegre during a three-month stay in the city.
The interviews were accompanied by images by Jacques Windenberger.
The project received support from the NGO Solidariedade (Solidarity).
This NGO based in Porto Alegre was the principal point of contact for the
RDD network in the state capital.
This work by Estelle Granet helped to publicize PB in France, by show-
ing how it was a part of the daily lives of Porto Alegre citizens.9 By the
end of the 1990s, and the start of the following decade, ideas from Porto
Alegre were brought into France from a variety of publications, such as the
photo journalism of Estelle Granet, the writings of Cassen in the Le Monde

Diplomatique and the article by Tarso Genro in l’Humanité which helped
spread PB in the country.
Between 1998 and 1999 the RDD network was officially launched.
PB was promoted in periodicals such as the newspapers Territoires and
Regards in France. The first magazine, in particular, was published by
the NGO Association pour la démocratie et l’éducation locale et sociale
(Association for Local and Social Democracy and Education—Adels),
which, since 1959, has been active in the area of popular education and
defends citizenship as well as deepening democracy, by means of social
participation, especially around these three axes: political equality, social
justice and self-organization.10 Around the year 2000, PB also became one
of the themes of this organization, and was published in Territoires and
other newspapers.
The RDD functioned in a fairly informal manner. There were assemblies
and meetings. According to its annual report, in September 2001, and
also in the same month the following year, the leadership of the network
rested mostly on Jean-Blaise Picheral. The report states the following:
“[W]e found a dysfunctional element in the network, which concentrated
excessively on Jean-Blaise [Picheral], this dysfunction owed especially to
the fact that no other member took on such responsibility” (Démocratiser
radicalement la démocratie, undated document).
In February 1999 there was a seminar on PB in Senegal, in the suburbs of
Dakar, with the participation of a variety of local authorities (Démocratiser
radicalement la démocratie 2000, p. 3). Following on from this, at the
SIDP in Porto Alegre, mentioned in the previous chapter, a delegation
from the network participated in the event.11 The idea of constructing an
international network was gaining shape in the proposal for action of the
RDD at the start of 2000 (Démocratiser radicalement la démocratie, s/d).
In 2002, the network already included members from eight countries in
Europe, five in Latin America, at least three in Sub-Saharan Africa and
one in Asia. The 2002 edition of the WSF was an opportunity used for a
meeting of the members of the RDD. Attending this event were delegates
of the RDD network, such as Martine Toulotte and Giovanni Allegretti,
with other members also present at the event (Démocratiser radicalement
la démocratie 2002).
The workshop organized by the RDD had the participation of close
to 80 people, who discussed a variety of themes, among which were the
underlying strategies for promoting PB. In the words of Martine Toulette

we can observe that at this meeting were presented.
the operational concepts taken from the process in Porto Alegre, which
allowed to make advances for a true participatory democracy, as much in
Northern countries, as in Southern countries. We showed how much these
key ideas, which are based on the autonomy of citizen movement, con-
nects both the local and global, favours the distribution of wealth, allow us
to differentiate these initiatives from the caricatures put in practice by the
World Bank, which end up by absorbing exclusively on the aspect of “good
governance” and not on the truly liberating side of it” (Démocratiser radi-
calement la démocratie 2002, unpaged document).
Participation at the WSF allowed contacts to be made across this net-

work with Latin America. In this way RDD was able to extend itself; it
already had ties with Brazil, but now also with representatives from other
European and African cities, as can be seen in the list of contacts presented
in Table 4.1.
The network, therefore, did not just extend between Porto Alegre and
France, but covered countries in Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. In 2002,
for example, the network promoted a training workshop in Italy, under
the scientific direction of Giovanni Allegretti and with assistance from Yves
Cabannes, representatives from Porto Alegre, the Cameroons, Spain and
France, among other countries. Giovanni Allegretti played an important
role in the introduction of PB in Italy. He carried out, as well as form-
ing the Italian grouping, the translation and publication of the book by
Genro and Souza (1997) about PB in Porto Alegre in Italian, together
with Salvatore Ricciardi, and launched, in 2002, by Edizioni La Ginestra.
Table 4.1 List of con-

Country Contact
tacts by country in 2002
(RDD 2002) International Jean-Blaise Picheral
France Martine Toulotte
Belgium Patrucj Senelart
Italy Giovanni Allegretti; Salvatore Ricciardi
Spain Oriol Canals; Carme Padilla i Pineda
Switzerland Joseph Syziadis
England Jez Hall
Cameroon Jules Dumas
Senegal M.D. Thioune
Congo Jean-François Apoko
The importance of the network starts from the beginning of the pro-
cess of diffusion of PB in Francophone Africa. This occurred especially
through the relations established with Senegal, as mentioned, and even
more with Cameroon, with the NGO Association pour l’Amour du Livre
et le Développement Local (Association for the love of book and local
development) or just ASSOAL pour Développement Local (from here
on ASSOAL). This NGO helped with adoptions of PB first in Cameroon
and, later, in Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as will be
presented in the chapter on Africa.12 Relations between the French part of
the network and ASSOAL are tight, as this NGO was president of RDD
for two years.13 Individuals and institutions become mixed. Jules Dumas
was the direct contact of RDD in the Cameroons and was—according to
Giovanni Allegretti—the person who took over presidency of the RDD.14
The dialogue of RDD with Cameroon faced challenges, such as funding
for flights and obtaining visas. The report of the RDD General Assembly
in 2002, for example, indicates that Cameroonian members were not pres-
ent as they had their visas denied by the embassy in France (Démocratiser
radicalement la démocratie 2002, unpaged document).
Relations between the RDD and ASSOAL are also characterized by the
involvement of Yves Cabannes, whose participation was registered in the
NGO documents. The UMP-LAC organized the first meeting between
Latin American and Sub-Saharan municipalities in Africa, on the occasion
of the Africities Conference, as will be described in Chap. 7. One of our
interviewees informed us that
Cabannes had lots of contacts with the RDD, he got to know, at RDD,
ASSOAL from the Cameroons […], to which its owed the Participatory
Budgetings in Cameroons […], and much more, its owed the letter that was
produced in Africities in 2003 at Yaoundé about PB; where for the first time,
mayors from Latin America met with African mayors and created a chart of
exchanges for the development of Participatory Budgeting in Africa […] as
you see, there is nothing that is not interconnected.15
The RDD network intersected with Network-9 of the URB-AL pro-

gramme as it participated in the project, being represented by Jean-Blaise
Picheral (URB-AL, undated document). Besides the transnational connec-
tions established around RDD and the activism for PB, local authorities
also played a role in the process. Not only were they involved in the RDD
network, but they also operated in the adoption of PB in municipalities.
They acted in the promotion and organization of events around PB, as

well as institutionalizing relations with other municipalities, by means of
accords for decentralized co-operation. RDD produced video documen-
taries on experiences of PB in Latin America (Cotacachi) and in Africa
(Fissel). Among its last activities before RDD closed its doors, a section
on PB was organized by them at an international congress on participa-
tory democracy in the Rhone-Alpes region of France in 2007. This con-
gress featured representatives from experiences from all around the world
and, in particular, Porto Alegre and Caxias do Sul (Brazil), Cotacachi and
CIGU (Ecuador), Bacham (Cameroons), Fissel (Senegal) and Dondo
(Mozambique).
The RDD was an important actor in the process of diffusing PB, espe-
cially its promotion in France. It ended, however, at the end of the 2000s
with the departure of Jean-Blaise Picheral,16 interrupting its activities
which were, in part, continued by other means.
4.2.2 Saint-Denis and Transfers in the Paris Region

The movement for the adoption of PB in the outskirts of Pairs is associ-
ated with a drive by local authorities, who aspired for an internal renewal
of the FCP, in light of a changing political scene and local transforma-
tions. The process is permeated by diverse international articulations. In
this tangled web, the presence and action of networks, such as the RDD,
among others, facilitated transfers to France, in general, and the red sub-
urbs in particular. Between 1990 and 2000, the FCP progressively lost
control of the region, which, since 1967, had been a bedrock of votes in
the Paris suburbs, especially Saint-Denis. The 1990s for Saint-Denis is
characterized by a huge transformation in the local life in various ways,
as unemployment reached 17.5 % and a wave of immigrant, French and
foreign, families settled in the area (Porto de Oliveira 2010).
The new economic and social situation was reflected in the polling
station in the presidential election in 1995 and legislative elections in
1997, as the extreme right-wing party, the National Front, gained space
in regions where the FCP had lost (Porto de Oliveira 2010, p. 54). In
Saint-Denis a reformist strand of the FCP had been in place since the
1970s, with Mayor Berthelot (1971–1991), whose work was contin-
ued by Patrick Braouezec, mayor and deputy of the same party since
his election in 1997. The latter pursued a strategy of renovating urban
management to affirm himself politically.17 In this setting, a range of ini-
tiatives gained prominence. Among these initiatives was the construction

of a new football stadium, “Stade France”, in Saint-Denis, as a means
of bringing large-scale events to the region, in particular sports events
such as the Football World Cup (1998) and Rugby World Cup (2007).
Another innovation was the creation in 2002 of the “Communauté
d’Aglomération de Seine Saint-Denis”, the Plaine Commune, a territo-
rial public institution that groups different municipalities of the region.18
Moreover, the implementation of policies for participatory democracy
and investment with international relations, especially with Porto Alegre
and Barcelona, should be mentioned among these initiatives (Porto de
Oliveira 2010, p. 55).
The meeting of Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996, as well as being an
important event for launching PB internationally, also served as a place
for networking and agenda-setting where local authorities could be put
into contact with each other. It was at this event that Mayor Patrick
Braouezec, from Saint-Denis, got to know the “ambassadors of PB”
from Porto Alegre.19 The French city to the north of Paris, from then
on, began to have co-operative relations with Porto Alegre. A protocol
of intentions was signed, in which it was declared that the cities were
interested in “developing friendship ties” and were “convinced of the
existence of similar socio-cultural ties, of sharing same objectives with the
local democracy, and of our efforts to make it to be lived in a participative
manner” (Mairie de Saint-Denis, undated document). These intentions
are also mentioned by Raul Pont according to his statements in the fol-
lowing interview:
Even in the first term of Tarso [Genro], from 93 to 96, and in this trip to
France to visit certain experiences […] it started to have a relation with
some leftist local governments in France. Among them was Saint-Denis,
with whom we greatly strengthened relations throughout the years. This
was also true of Barcelona, in Catalonia.20
Representatives from Porto Alegre visited Saint-Denis on various occa-

sions. Raul Pont, for example, went there during the World Cup of 1998,
when the games were played in the “Stade de France”.21 One year later,
the mayor of Saint-Denis went to Porto Alegre to participate in the
already mentioned ISDP and, in the same year, Raul Pont returned to
Saint-Denis, as detailed by himself in the writings of the book Democracia,
igualdade e qualidade de vida: a experiência de Porto Alegre (Democracy,

equality, and quality of life: the Porto Alegre experience) informing that:
[i]n May 1999, in Saint-Denis, in the metropolitan region of Paris, we deep-

ened solid relations with European citizens, re-affirming the need for us
to continue this exchange of experiences and information, forming with
this city [Saint-Denis] and Barcelona, the co-ordination of a body of an
International Observatory under the theme of Participatory Democracy.22
(Pont 2002, p. 32)
Relations continued to develop progressively until 2001, when the process

of adopting PB in Saint-Denis began, as a complimentary policy to the
participatory governance tools already in operation in the municipality.
PB in Saint-Denis was a simplified emulation of the Porto Alegre model
(Porto de Oliveira 2010), and was taken as a device for citizen consulta-
tion. According to those interviewed, even if citizens were called to par-
ticipate, the local authorities preferred to preserve their own power in
relation to decisions over budgetary allocations.23
The city of Saint-Denis was not solely a case of transfer. In the French
context, Saint-Denis, under the stewardship of Patrick Braouezec, became
a reference point for participatory democracy and its representatives were
privileged interlocutors from Porto Alegre (Porto de Oliveira 2010). The
city was also the base for FLA-E, the European version of FLA, which
occurred in parallel with the European Social Forum (ESF) in Paris in
2003. Patrick Braouezec opened the event saying that the city “ known
for its royal basilica and its soon to be Olympic stadium, Saint-Denis was,
for more than a century, a workers city, Louise Michel an insurgent of the
Paris Commune had already shown us, in her time, that another world is
possible” (European Forum of Local Authorities 2004, p. 17).
This event is illustrative of the process of the diffusion of PB. On the
one hand, it gave greater visibility to PB in France, including a delega-
tion from Porto Alegre present at FLA-E. On the other hand, the fact
that Saint-Denis had held the event reinforced the image of the city, as
a reference for an alternative option for the country. The mentioning of
the Paris Commune is frequent, be it in the discussion of Tarso Genro
in the 1990s or in the debates of French Communist mayors. There is
an ideological parallelism between Porto Alegre and Saint-Denis which
does not necessarily translate in practice. In fact, the transfer of PB in the
French context, in general, and Saint-Denis, in particular, was limited to
a simplified version of PB from Porto Alegre, characterized by a form a

popular consultation with respect to public budgeting (Porto de Oliveira
2010, p. 87).
The city of Bobigny also followed this local and international move-
ment, implementing a pioneering form of PB and establishing relations
with other municipalities, as well as taking part in external actions. With
his election, Bernard Bissinger (FCP), mayor and deputy, espoused greater
participation in budgetary processes in different political arenas. At the
French National Assembly in June 2001, Bissinger defended the following
cause in one of his interventions:
We do not want inhabitants to intervene only in the budgetary choices with

respect to their neighbourhoods, but in those for the entire city. [It is neces-
sary that] elected representatives give the word back to the people, sharing
power with them and allowing them to take control over pledges made.
(Bissinger 2001, apud Sintomer et al. 2008, p. 103)24
The movement to defend deepening social participation in policies con-

tinued in the following years. In 2002, France debated a law aimed at
institutionalizing participation at a neighbourhood level, with the so-
called Conseils de Quartier (Neighbourhood Councils) under the idea of
“democracy of proximity”, and communist mayors, in general, defended
the need to implement the idea of “participatory democracy”, by the
implementation of further devices (Nez and Talpin 2010, p. 214).
The first wave of PB adoptions in France reached 12 experiences in
2005, of which 8 were implemented by communist mayors and 5 from
these had been elected in municipalities in the region of Île-de-France.
The diffusion in the hexagon25 continued in the following years and
gained strength with the URB-AL programme. The enterprising actions
of local authorities in Bobigny, as well as Saint-Denis, served to facilitate
PB transfers in the French context. According to Yves Sintomer and his
colleagues, the former city “was noteworthy for its contribution: host-
ing regular meetings on the theme [of PB], encouraged other communist
municipalities in the region to their initiative and formed a lasting alliance
with [the network] Radically Democratize Democracy” (Sintomer et al.
2008, p. 122). It is worth noting that the same thing is affirmed by Nez
and Talin with regard to Bobigny, which:
established, after participation by the mayor in the World Social Forum,

strong links with the network Radically Democratize Democracy, which
brings together actors wishing to spread the Porto Alegre experience. In

2003, the city organised a national forum on Participatory Budgeting
with RDD and took in the European Social Forum. (2010, pp. 220–221,
author’s own translation)
In the end, the city of Bobigny co-organized with the RDD network, in
2003, a national event on the theme of participatory democracy centred
on PB, in order to create a report and assess the experiences across a range
of French municipalities. It is worth emphasizing that Bobigny, like Paris
and Saint-Denis, also participated in the organization of the ESF and was
present in various meetings on PB in international networks, such as FLA,
which will be presented in the next section.
4.3 THE FLA: AT THE CROSSROADS

The FLA convened by the Porto Alegre local government (mother of
Participatory Budgetings for more than 20 years) is the first international
network (2001) that has among its objectives the promotion of Participatory
Budgetings as a central element of its actions. (FAMSI et al., undated docu-
ment, p. 69)
The FLA network is central to the diffusion of PB between Europe and

Latin America. It is a network created by local authorities, primarily may-
ors, of progressive nature and sympathetic to the idea of “another world
is possible” and of different cities meeting in Porto Alegre on the occa-
sion of the first WSF. The objective of the network is to exchange experi-
ences and promote the engagement of cities in the struggle against the
“perverse” effects of globalization. The FLA operates via annual meet-
ings between local authorities and teams of local governments, in paral-
lel with the WSF. Initially, the network maintained its activities through
informal gatherings in Porto Alegre. The FLA is also a meeting point for
various other networks of thematic and political cities. Its importance is
fundamental in the movement of PB to different spaces, even though its
trajectory has gone through distinct phases. It was led in the beginning
by the Porto Alegre authorities. After the change of government in that
city, in 2004, the network acquired greater technical structure, and better
organization and leadership have been performed, especially by European
local authorities.
4.3.1 The Evolution of FLA under the Leadership of Porto

Alegre
When the city of Porto Alegre was chosen as host for the WSF, during a
preparatory conference in Paris in 1999,26 even though it was a manifesta-
tion for social movements, a window for progressive mayors—or for those
in dialogue with the event organizers—to meet opened up. The mayor
of Porto Alegre, Tarso Genro, in his second mandate, mobilized local
authorities, with whom he had constructed stable relations, for a meeting
during the WSF.
The network Mercocities, mentioned in the previous chapter, repre-
sented a precursor, almost preparatory, movement, which signified the
first steps towards the constitution of FLA in 2001. The foundation of
Mercocities occurred in Porto Alegre in 1995. The confluence of pro-
gressive mayors stimulated the first initiative between Porto Alegre and
Asunción, bringing together 12 municipalities. Cities such as Asunción,
Rosario, Cordoba, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia and Montevideo
are some of the original members which constituted this international
network. The idea of participatory democracy was already present in
the Mercocities network and there was a demand for PB in other Latin
American cities.
Years later, Tarso Genro in his second mandate convened a group of
local authorities to accompany the WSF in Porto Alegre. It was a first
meeting in which representatives of almost 180 municipalities, hailing
from Latin America, Europe and Africa, came together informally for the
first edition of the WSF in Porto Alegre. In the second edition of the WSF,
an important decision was taken to create a network to articulate local
authorities around a common cause: “participatory democracy and social
inclusion”.27
The idea, following the motto of the WSF, was that of “another glo-
balization” of the neoliberal model, that is, an alternative form of society
needed to pass through the city. In this way, one objective is clearly defined
in the first FLA, and repeated on successive occasions, and can be seen
as the aspiration to reinforce permanent action in that “cities have their
own voice and that they participate in the decisions taken by International
Organizations”,28 or, in other words, to reinforce the role of cities on the
international scene. The ex-adviser of international relations for Porto
Alegre, at the time, illustrates the formation of the FLA, highlighting the
importance of contacts with the Porto Alegre local authorities and their
counterparts in other countries. His description goes thus:
FLA […] which is an articulation from Tarso [Genro] with […] the ini-
tial group from Mercocities, which included Montevideo, Rosario, Buenos
Aires (and at that time the still progressive administration of Asunción) and
other Brazilian cities under PT control, and together with Tarso’s [Genro]
contacts with other governments, with Barcelona, with left French govern-
ments, with Italians, certain articulations with Africa, some international
agencies with leftist consultants.29
The FLA network is a parallel event to the WSF or, as Vanessa Marx
defines, its “Municipalist branch” (Marx 2008, p. 197). For the local gov-
ernments that constitute the network, the objective is to form a space for
debate and formulate alternatives in public policy to “combat the effects
of a neoliberal globalization”. It is a vague debate which progressively
takes on specific assertions and content. The articulation initially co-
ordinated by the Porto Alegre authorities, as they themselves state, “puts
out the challenge for local governors from across the planet to occupy a
political space and take their role in developing inclusive public policies
and democratising wealth and power”.30 This statement from the debate
becomes a reality, on the one hand, through the dynamics of policy trans-
fers between municipalities, above all with PB, and, on the other hand,
with the creation of the UCLG.
At the same time, in 2001, there was the emergence of the IODP,
mentioned in the excerpt of the interview with Raul Pont in the previous
section. This was a work commission from a programme for decentralized
co-operation in the URB-AL, which was transformed into an international
network based in Barcelona. In the words of the past technical secretary
for IODP, Laia Vilademunt:
In the year of 2001 […] in April various cities met, among them Porto
Alegre, some French cities, if I’m not wrong, Nanterre was also there, with
the slogan “another world is possible” […]. These cities gave birth to an
initiative to create this network, which is the IODP, coming from resources
requested from the European Union, it was born in November 2001.31
IODP became an exclusive space for discussion about participatory democ-

racy, in general, and PB, in particular, organizing annual events on the
theme and presenting awards for participatory democracy “Best Practices”.
The year of the first edition of the WSF in Porto Alegre, and the foun-
dation of FLA, in particular, saw a range of progressive mayors ascend to
power in important municipalities in Latin America and Europe: in São
Paulo, Marta Suplicy (PT); in Paris, Bertran Delanoe of the Socialist Party
(SP) and Walter Veltroni of the Democratic Party (DP) in Rome, respec-
tively in January, March and June. This circumstance gave greater impetus
to the networks of cities and to the international municipalist movement.
Under the governorship of Marta Suplicy in São Paulo an international
policy was initiated which guided part of its external actions for partici-
pation in transnational networks. In 2002, URBIS was conducted, as
mentioned in the previous chapter, which is a congress for cities whose
programme included five workshops on PB.
During the congress, Marta Suplicy announced the fusion of IULA
and WFCU. The unification of both organizations of cities was a process
that took place between different international events. The first World
Assembly of Cities and Local Authorities (WACLA) was held in Istanbul
during the UN-Habitat II conference.32 Following this, in 1998, the pro-
cess began during the FMCU Congress in Lille. The Federation of Latin
American Municipalities and Associations (FLACMA) played a regional
role in this process. The unification drew to a close in 2004 with the cre-
ation of the UCLG in Paris.
The FLA was an important space for progressive militants to meet and
for the formation of other networks. The Italian case is representative
in this respect with the constitution of the Rete Nuovo Municipio (New
Municipality Network), an important actor in the process of diffusion of
participatory practices inspired by PB in the country. The Rete Nuovo
Municipio came together during the FLA of 2002, when more than 70
teams from local governments attended the event, creating an association
the following year (Allegretti 2011, p. 146). The network was formed
from pre-established relations between academics and diverse Italian cities
which, in the words of Giovanni Alegretti, “had adopted original initia-
tives in favour of citizen participation for building multicultural, solidary
and focussed on sustainable development territories” (Allegretti 2011,
p. 146). In the municipality of Rome in the Lazio region, with the sup-
port of Walter Veltroni and a delegation of teams from the Rifondazione
Communist Party (Communist Rifoundation Party), practices of social
participation in debates on budgetary allocation similar to PB were intro-
duced (Allegretti 2011, p. 146).
From the second meeting in 2002, FLA began to operate in the

process of unifying the UCLG, defending an agenda for participatory
democracy and social inclusion, as we can observe in this declaration
from the forum:
The II Forum of Local Authorities created a Network of Cities for Social

Inclusion, when from an action linked to the constitution of a new world
organisation of cities, which was the fruit of the fusion between the World
Federation of United Cities (WFUC) and the International Union of Local
Authorities (IULA). (Forum of Local Authorities 2002)
Created in Paris in May 2004, the CGLU is formally, according to its

statute, a non-profit association of Spanish rights, which is legally allowed
to act.33
The objective of the UCLG is to represent local governments from the
world over on the international scene. It is a powerful institution to defend
the interests of local governments. The FLA, since its first declarations,
was under the leadership of its political teams in Porto Alegre, Barcelona
and Saint-Denis above all, and was engaged in building the UCLG, not
only in the preparation of the foundation, but also in its presentation of
the theme of social inclusion. The FLA took on an important role in one
of the 12 thematic commissions created by the UCLG headquarters: the
“Commission for Social Inclusion and Participatory Democracy”, whose
technical secretaryship was co-ordinated, from 2004–2007, by Vanessa
Marx, who had worked in the area of international relations from 1997 to
2001 in the Porto Alegre City Hall.
The FLA also gained impetus in Europe where a regional version
emerged, as mentioned in the previous section, and whose objective was
to echo the ideas of Porto Alegre in the closest way possible in the old
continent. This intermittent forum, the FLA-E, occurred first in Florence
and, later, in Saint-Denis and London. The event followed the ESF, as
mentioned previously, and was driven, above all, by the city of Saint-Denis
during the mandate of Patrick Braouezec.
In addition, a version of FLA was produced in peripheral cities. Under
the aegis of the mayor of Nanterre (France), and those responsible for
international relations such as Eloi Pietà, at that time of the Guarulhos
Local Government in São Paulo State, Brazil, a branch of FLA was created
in 2003, the Forum of Local Authorities of Peripheral Areas for Solidarity
in Metropoles (FAL-P). The underlying aim of this new network was

based on defending the most crucial issues in the “peripheral city” which,
in rough terms, corresponds to “the marginal regions of great metropo-
les and which are associated with the process of exclusion […], as a new
form of urban poverty” (Forum of Local Authorities 2004, p. 30). The
reason for the network was based on the defence of more pressing ques-
tions in peripheral cities, such as governance in metropolitan regions, the
question of infrastructure and territorial segregation, amongst others. A
special commission would also be created in the UCLG stemming from
the action of this network.
This was the greatest moment of activity from the internal point
of view of the FLA network. There was a group of local authorities
who were members of FLA who fought for participatory democracy
and contributed to introduce the theme into the UCLG. The number
of participants steadily grew until the IV edition, going from 780, in
2001, to 1050 in 2004.34 Even so, the organization operated in an
informal manner via events which happened in parallel with the WSFs
and declarations of intentions, which outlined principals and action
fronts. This organizational characteristic of the network was trans-
forming progressively without, however, creating a highly bureaucratic
structure.
The IV meeting of the FLA, which was held for the first time in Europe
(Barcelona), took a step towards formalization, with members convening
to carry out grouping of different networks, forums and expressions of
local authorities and civil society organizations which took part in FLA. It
was the first time that the forum happened separately from the WSF, which
was held that year in Mumbai in India.
Conducting this edition of the FLA in Barcelona was strategic as, in the
same year, the Spanish city hosted the World Urban Forum (UN-Habitat)
and also the World Cultural Forum in the region of Catalonia. At this
point, the WP was part of important institutions in Rio Grande de Sul,
in the capital, Porto Alegre, with João Verle, holding the fourth con-
secutive mandate for the party and at the State Government, with Olivio
Dutra, the ancient mayor, who implemented PB in the city and who had,
at this time, begun to transfer this participatory governance policy on a
state level. Both mayor and governor participated in the World Urban
Forum.
4.3.2 A Different Meeting than the Others

When the edition of the WSF was revived in Porto Alegre in 2004, the
members of the FLA were not predicting a political change in the “driving
force” of the network. Even so, the WP lost the municipal election and left
power after having four consecutive mandates. The direction of the FLA
was uncertain and the event in 2005 was unlike the others. If normally
the events occurred in places foreseen by the municipal government, this
edition of FLA was held under a marquee on the margins of the Guaiba
River, as other social movements frequently gathered at WSF, once the
“house” had been left by the creators of FLA.
This episode shows the fragility of the accords made between munici-
palities, based on the identity of political projects. Moreover, it reinforces
the importance of individual action within a group, which did not mobi-
lize after the loss of one of its principal elements, and that the core of a
network is made up, above all, by a small group of progressive individuals.
It is important to highlight that there was no drop in the participation
level at this FLA.
The following excerpt from the description of the process by Eduardo
Mancuso, who participated actively in FLA from its genesis until that
moment representing the local government of Porto Alegre, is illustrative:
After losing in Porto Alegre, it changes, evidently things changed.

Because the FLA had, in Porto Alegre, not only its brand but a protago-
nist. And from 2004, its base, let’s say that the FLA had its base, it was in
Porto Alegre. So, we held the forum for FLA, of 2005, here in January,
on the banks of the Guaiba, there in the park in a marquee, because we
had organised things before, because we were no longer in the mayor’s
office.
In 2005, a technical secretariat was created within FLA to which were

conferred the competence of the Secretary for the Commission for Social
Inclusion and Participatory Democracy. The joint activities lasted for more
than a year, until the moment when both were separated and the Barcelona
local government assumed financial control of the Commission for Social
Inclusion and Participatory Democracy. In addition, work groups were
created. The formalization of the network occurred as much as a function
of the complexity it was acquiring as by the internal vacuum created when
the WP lost office in Porto Alegre.
Facing this new situation in international politics, a group of local

authorities based in various cities took on the role of sustaining and
furthering the network missions. This group was named by Vanessa Marx
in her thesis (2008, p. 208) the “hard core” of the FLA network and
was made up of local authorities from Guarulhos in Brazil; Cordoba
in Argentina; Barcelona and Malaga in Spain; Nanterre, Saint-Denis,
Aubagne, the General Council of Seine Saint-Denis in France; and Milan
in Italy. The technical secretary was composed by and had at its disposal
a North Antenna (Andalou Fund of Municipalities for International
Solidarity, in Spain) and a South Antenna (National Front of Mayors, an
association that advocates for mayors’ interest, and Guarulhos, both in
Brazil).
In 2007, the first edition of the WSF occurred in Nairobi, Africa, where
the FLA event also happened. Already in September 2006 there had been
a range of preparatory sessions during the Africities event (which will be
described in detail in Chap. 7 on Africa) and in Milan, Italy. Still, there were
only a few participants from Sub-Saharan Africa at the event. According
to an official FLA document, only local authorities from Nairobi (Kenya)
and Matola (Mozambique), respectively the mayor and vice-mayor of the
municipalities, as well as Jean Pierre-Elong Mbassy (Benin), secretary gen-
eral of the ULCG Africa (ULCGA), and the Senegalese activist Siddiki
Daff were present.
The advance in relations with sub-Saharan Africa began in 2011 with
the second edition of the WSF in Dakar, Senegal. On this occasion, the
opening of the FLA was done by the President of the Republic of Senegal
and, on the event programme, there were diverse representatives from
Francophone Africa (Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso) and Lusophone
Africa (Mozambique and Cape Verde). The event also produced a doc-
ument entitled “The Dakar Pledge” and in a thematic session (within
four) on participatory democracy and local power. In this session PB had
a prominent role, as can be seen in the excerpt from the report, which
affirms that “Participatory Budgetings represent a successful practical
and with enormous potential for world diffusion […] we the partici-
pants of this workshop defend the need to continue the work of diffusing
Participatory Budgetings, via national and international networks” (FLA,
undated document, p. 11).
The gatherings established within FLA throughout the years contrib-
uted to create a range of networks and national and international institu-
tions, which operated in the promotion of PB. The genesis of RDD was

parallel and both networks intersected in the WSF. The Commission for
Social Inclusion and Participatory Democracy was the fruit of the action
from the FLA network under the auspices of the UCLG. The FLA net-
work accompanied the process of creating a worldwide association of cities
and, in this, included a lobby for the introduction of the theme of partici-
patory democracy and social inclusion. Whereas in respect to national net-
works a set of them were part of the relations constructed in the context of
FLA, such as the Brazilian network of PB, the Colombian network for PB,
the Dominican Republic network for PB (in Latin America) and the Rete
Nuovo Municipio and the Network PB-Portugal (in Europe).
4.4 CONCLUSION
Networks are important actors in the process of diffusing PB. Action in
networks accelerates the international connecting between militants and
intensifies its diffusion, as previously described. The relations extend
between Latin America—from Porto Alegre—and Europe, reaching Sub-
Saharan Africa on a smaller scale. The theme of “participatory democ-
racy”, whose epicentre was PB, inspired the creation of a core of local
authorities, organizing themselves transnationally and defending this
cause in their own governments, countries and international institutions.
The “ambassadors” of PB were incrementally increasing with the cre-
ation of the RDD in France. This was among the first transnational net-
works formed around PB. In the RDD, Jean-Blaise Picheral and Martine
Toulotte served as “takers” for PB in the French context, as they mobi-
lized a variety of actors around the cause. In organizing events, con-
necting activists and promoting PB in various European countries, these
individuals became “ambassadors” for PB. Similarly, Patrick Braouezec,
ex-mayor of Saint-Denis and, later, President of the Plaine Commune, as
well as Bernard Bissinger, mayor of Bobigny, performed the same role,
by adopting PB in their municipalities. Both local authorities acted as
“takers” of PB by adopting it in their areas and later defending it within
France, as for example, Bissinger in Congress and internationally with
Braouezec in FLA.
Once again the action of the “Ambassadors” of PB from Porto Alegre
were fundamental: Tarso Genro and Ubiratan de Souza, with the market-
ing of the experience via launching their book and by giving speeches in
Europe. During Raul Pont’s administration, there occurred a truly para-

diplomatic experience with Saint-Denis, due to the visits by the mayor of
Porto Alegre to France, and vice versa. The relations reached the signing
of a protocol of international co-operation whose objective was the trans-
fer of PB.
The RDD established various ties with militants in other countries.
The outstanding point was the precursory relations with African coun-
tries, in particular, with Cameroon and Senegal. The network branches
out and is able to diffuse ideas on PB thanks to this. Many specialists on
the subject met via the RDD. Giovanni Allegretti conducted actions for
the network in Italy, stimulating development of PB there. Jules Dumas,
who today is a well-known specialist in Sub-Saharan Africa, as we shall
see in Chap. 7, played an important role in representing the network in
Cameroon.
Leadership is a strong component in both networks. In the RDD, the
presence of the French, in general, and Jean-Blaise Picheral and Martine
Toulotte, in particular, was important for maintaining its activities and,
when the former no longer took part, the network gradually faded
away. Similarly, the FLA network was also led by Porto Alegre in its first
instances. After the defeat of the WP in the 2004 election in Porto Alegre,
other actors assumed the co-ordination of the transnational movement
around “participatory democracy” and “Participatory Budgeting”. If the
FLA continues to this day the same is not true of RDD. Effectively, new
internal leadership was needed within FLA in order for it to survive, and
the Spanish and French, in particular, took on this task. At the same time
that leadership in transnational networks is necessary to continue the pro-
cess, it is also its greatest weakness as it creates a certain level of depen-
dence on those who lead.
The co-operation mechanism between activists, local authorities and
politicians, in general, was fundamental to maintain this latent space.
Likewise, the mechanism for networking was omnipresent in networks
and events. This mechanism was essential for expansion to occur across
numbers and geography. Both networks had moments of expansion and
retraction. In this sense, networking allowed for an aggregation of more
voices and co-operation and, whenever present, allowed networks to carry
on and not disentangle, even during periods of crisis. This spirit of co-
operation allowed the movement to fight for PB in several spaces, contrib-
uting, in this way, to the process of international diffusion.
The training seminars organized by the RDD were important for the
diffusion of PB. In each case, new teams were equipped to spread the
idea of PB and collaborate to replicate the experience. The mechanism of
capacity-building operated via these spaces and amplified the force for the
international diffusion of PB.
The networks were a space for reflection and producing ideas about PB
as well as an instrument of legitimation of this practice. The mechanism of
construction of PB operated throughout this process. Effectively, the idea
that PB was a genuine policy to resolve the problems of justice and social
inclusion, for example, continued evolving throughout these meetings.
This idea circulated among various members in their home countries. The
ideas present in the networks were diverse and changed over the course
of time. The variations were subtle with, in general terms, the RDD hav-
ing an idea that PB was a tool to radicalize democracy and produce social
transformation whereas, in the FLA network, PB was associated with
social inclusion and participatory democracy.
The ideas constructed and propagated through these networks also
became mechanisms for translation. In other words, there was a process
of recodifying PB within the network meetings, as well as in other events.
The meaning of PB is also adapted to local language and facilitates the
introduction of PB in other countries. The work by Genro and de Souza
(1997) had a literal translation in a variety of languages and served as
a support for diffusing PB. Le Monde Diplomatique and the magazine
Territoires, however, translated and adapted this idea to the political lan-
guage of local contexts.
The networks on PB are today numerous and not limited to the RDD
and FLA. These were precursors and played an important international
role. The action of individuals in mobilizing their contacts and connecting
people in different countries was fundamental. Similarly, institutions such
as the Porto Alegre government in Brazil, or Saint-Denis and Bobigny in
France also played an important role as they “hosted” various meetings
and often invested financial resources to establish them. Both individu-
als and institutions allow networks to have continuity. The legacy of this
pioneering action left a group not only of established contacts between its
members, but also of international knowledge and transnational political
militancy (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Characteristics of RDD and FLA networks

Characteristics RDD FLA
Form of network Association of French Law Informal Forum

Type of network Citizen network Netowrk of Local authorites
Start of activities 1998 (suspended around 2001 (until the present day)
2008)
Ativities • Local and internationlal • Annual meeting
training sessions • Lobby to insert the theme onto the
• Advising agenda of the UCLG
• Publications and various
books
• Documentaries
• Assistance with events
• Local and International
Activism
Members • Local authorities • Local authorities
• Politicians • Politicians
• Activists • Activists
• University students • University students
• NGO teams • NGO teams
Financing Own source of funding Financed by various municpalities in
particular by the organizor of the annual
event
Leadership The French, Jean-Blaise Brazilians, local authorities of Porto
Picheral and Martine Alegre; French, local authorities of
Toulotte, in particular Saint-Denis; Spanish, local authorities of
Barcelona and Andalou Fund of
Municipalities of International Solidarity
Central elements Principal objective to To function as a parallel forum to WSF,
spread the experience of promote meetings between local
PB in Porto Alegre authorities and fight for participatory
democracy and social inclusion
Amplitude of Established since the Establish relations initially between
relations beginning of relations Latin America and Europe and later also
with Europe, Latin with Africa
America and Africa
Connections with ASSOAL, ATTAC, CSIPD, IOPD, MERCOCITIES,
other networks ADELS RDD, Rete Nuovo Municipio, ATTAC
(only those
identified)
NOTES
1. Interviews, Barcelona, 2013; videoconference São Paulo/Curitiba,
2012.
2. It is worth noting that Pierre Rosanvallon introduced his work Le
peuple introuvable with a chapter dedicated to the “Malaise of
democracy” whose first statement chosen by the author is “absten-
tion or non-registering on the electoral roll” (Rosanvallon 2002,
p. 11).
3. Term borrowed “hope”, from original espoir in French referring to
democracy in the sense of the title of the book Porto Alegre: l’espoir
d’une autre démocratie by Gret and Sintomer (2005) and Hope for
Democracy: 25 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide, orga-
nized by Nelson Dias (2013).
4. In the report of the IV meeting of the network of the Forum of
Local Authorities for Social Inclusion and Democratic Participation
of Porto Alegre. Even though there are various registers in which
the Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion and Democratic
Participation or simply FAL Network.
5. On the experiences of PB in France see in particular Sintomer et al.
(2008), the most complete work on the subject.
6. List of members in 2000.
7. Interview, Paris, 2013.
9. Interview, Porto Alegre, 2012; Granet (2003).
10. ADELS, http://www.adels.org/association/index.htm, con-
sulted on 21 August 2013.
11. Carlos Abrego (inhabitant of Sarcelles), Sidiki Daff (councillor
Guédiawaye, Senegal), Marion Gret (who conducted his doctoral
thesis on PB in the Institut des Hautes Études de l’Amérique
Latine/Sorbonne Nouvelle) and Martine Toulotte (one of the
founders of the network) (DRD 2000, pp. 2–3).
12. Interviews, Porto Alegre, 2011; Dacar, 2013.
13. Personal information received by email on 21 August 2013.
14. Interviews, Porto Alegre, 2011.
15. Interview with an anonymous international consultant.
16. Interviews, ibid.
17. See material published in the journal Liberation on 31 March
2008.
18. The Plaine Commune, a type of intermunicipal consortium gov-

erned by the principle of mutuality of means and resources, makes
up part of the Communauté d’Agglomération, now with the
municipalities of Aubervilliers, Épinay-sur-Seine, Pierrefitte-sur-
Seine, Saint-Denis et Villetaneuse créent Plaine Commune, L’Île-
Saint-Denis, Stains, La Courneuve and Saint-Ouen.
19. Interview, Saint-Denis, 2008.
21. As interviews in 2011 and in Saint-Denis in 2008 confirm.
22. The observatory referred to IOPD, constituted in 2001.
23. Interview, Saint-Denis, 2008.
24. Translated by author: “Nous souhaitons pas que les habitants
interviennent uniquement sur les choix budgétaires qui concernent
leur quartier, mais sur ceux de toute la commune. [Il faut] que les
élus redonnent la parole aux gens, partagent avec eux leur pouvoir
et leur permettent de contrôler le respect des engagements pris.”
25. Expression used refers to France from the original héxagone, owing
to the geometric shape of the country.
27. Redact of final list: Angel Merino (Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Spain);
Gabriel Abascal (Badalona, Spain); João Luiz dos Santos (Porto
Alegre, Brazil); Marcelo Deda (Aracaju, Brazil); Maria Helena
Magaiha (Maputo, Mozambique); Paulo Ziulkoski (National
Confederation of Brazilian Municipalities); Pedro Wilson
Guimarães (Goiânia, Brazil); Pepe Vargas (Caxias do Sul, Brazil);
Vasco Franco (Lisboa, Brazil); Tarso Genro (Porto Alegre, Brazil).
Source: FLA.
28. The story of FLA (FLA, undated document).
30. FLA: http://redfal.org/fr/qui-sommes-nous/histoire-du-fal?
showall=1, consulted in June 2011.
31. Interview, Barcelona, 2012.
32. Internal document from Hacia la Construcción de una orga-
nización comund en America Latina (2002, unpaged).
33. Statute of the World Organization of Cities and Local Governments
United (Paris, 2004), http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/
upload/docs/docs_en_telechargements/Statuts.pdf, accessed in
June 2011.
34. FLA, annual reports.
REFERENCES
Allegretti, G. (2011). Le processus d’économie participative de la région Lazio:
quand l’expérimentation devient le symbole d’une gestion politique. In
J. Talpin & Y. Sintomer (Dir.), La démocratie participative au-déla de la prox-
imité: le Poitou-Charentes et l’échelle regional (pp. 145–160). Rennes: Presses
Universitaires de Rennes.
Cassen, B. (1998). Une expérience exemplaire au Brésil: Démocratie participative à
Porto Alegre. Le Monde Diplomatique, Agosto.
Démocratiser radicalement la démocratie. (2000). Bulletin No. 3. Março, 4 p.
Démocratiser radicalement la démocratie. (2002) Bilan du 29/09/2001 au
21/09/2002. Documento não publicado, s/d.
Dias, N. (Coord.). (2013). Esperança democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos
Participativos no Mundo. Lisbon: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Genro, T. (1999, Novmeber 11). L’Humanité.
Granet, E. (2003). Porto Alegre: les voix de la démocratie. Paris: Syllepse.
Gret, M., & Sintomer, Y. (2005). Porto Alegre: l’espoir d’une autre démocratie.
Paris: La Découverte.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in
International Politics. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Langlet, L., & Allegretti, G. (2013). Orçamento Participativo na Suécia: uma
história contada em camera lenta. In N. Dias (Coord.), Esperança democrática:
25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no Mundo (pp. 251–365). Lisbon: Ed.
Associação In Loco.
Nez, H., & Talpin, J. (2010). Démocratie participative et communisme municipal
en banlieu rouge. In M.-H. Baqué & Y. Sintomer (Eds.), La démocratie partici-
pative inachevée: genese, adaptations et diffusions (pp. 209–228). Saint-Etienne:
Éditions Yves Michel.
Pont, R. (2002). Democracia, igualdade e qualidade de vida: a experiência de Porto
Alegre. Porto Alegre: Veraz.
IHEAL/CREDA.
Porto de Oliveira, O., & Allegretti, G. (2013). Following a World Traveller: A
Comparative Approach to Participatory Budgeting Transfers. In 7th General
Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Sciences Po
Bordeaux, Bordeaux.
Rosanvallon, P. (2002). Le peuple introuvable: Histoire de la représentation

démocratique en France. Paris: Gallimard, 491 p.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Les Budgets Participatifs en
CHAPTER 5
The Cascade: From the Tipping

Point to Mass Diffusion
5.1 INTRODUCTION
When the World Economic Forum, an event created in 1972, was held in
2001 in Davos, Switzerland, on the other side of the Atlantic, a counter-
movement sprang up. It was an opposing voice and a manifestation of
international civil society. In the south of Brazil, the First World Social
Forum was held. The eyes of the world were divided between Davos and
Porto Alegre. This was the first step for the capital of Rio Grande do
Sul to move onto the world map. There, more than 20,000 people were
gathered and Porto Alegre became at that moment a “Mecca” for social
movements. The ideal that “another world was possible” with a more
democratic, just and inclusive society was advocated by the participants.
The experience of participatory governance in Porto Alegre, PB,
seemed to simply reveal that a “utopia had become reality”.1 Here we
saw a landmark achievement in the process of the internationalization of
PB, because a range of transnational organizations which had fluctuated
around various countries met. They constituted a wide network, which
would become crucial to maintain PB in circulation worldwide.
After the success of the first World Social Forum (WSF), PB came to be,
in fact, internationally known. International institutions, in addition to the
United Nations (UN), which had followed the process since the 1990s,
entered onto the scene. The World Bank, from then on, recommended,
financed and divulged experiences of PB and the European Union (EU)
subsidised a decentralized co-operation project for stimulating transfers

of this device via the URB-AL programme, mentioned in the previous

chapters. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and networks special-
ized in PB proliferated. Agencies for international co-operation—such as
German GIZ and the Swiss Agency for Cooperation—directly financed
PB projects, above all in Sub-Saharan Africa (Porto de Oliveira 2013).
In Chap. 3, we examined the upswing of international recognition of
PB during the 1990s, from the experiences of Porto Alegre compared
with Belo Horizonte and Recife. The scene underwent a transformation
with the WSF, with sharp growth of the experiences around the world,
spilling over from Latin America and Europe into Africa and Asia. More
recently, PB has arrived in Chicago and New York in the United States,
as will be described briefly in the Epilogue. In 2013, there were approxi-
mately 2800 cases distributed around the world (Sintomer et al. 2013).
This chapter is a continuation of the previous analysis. Now four inter-
national institutions, WSF, UN, EU and the World Bank, and their rela-
tions with PB will be studied. It must be said that this is not a sequential
episode of the process, in a chronological sense, but rather another focus
of it, taking into account the interaction among individuals and the role
of institutions. The central argument is that the WSF was a “threshold” or
“tipping point”, that is, the moment from which, as is defined in the lit-
erature, a critical mass of important actors began to adopt a public policy,
norm, technology and so on (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p. 895). The
adoptions of PB took on a dynamic that metaphorically resembled that
of a waterfall: the experiences spilled over and gushed over institutions,
countries and territorial collectives. This process of a spillover corresponds
to the fact that PB is transmitted from individuals to institutions which
adopt the idea of social participation in the budgetary process and amplify
its diffusion on a global scale. This movement passes, in the first place, in
Latin America, then to Europe and later to Sub-Saharan Africa.
A group of individuals were fundamental in inserting PB onto the
agenda of international institutions. The aforementioned amplified the
potential for the diffusion of PB. In addition, a range of mechanisms were
present at this stage of the process: the construction of an image and of
prestige for PB, external scanning, induction, networking (above all during
the WSFs) and international co-operation. The mechanism of translation,
in particular, begins to become clearer. In fact, if in the previous sections
PB was mostly seen as an instrument of radicalization of democracy or of
mass popular participation, as it entered progressively onto international
organizations agendas, its meaning was transformed. For these institu-
THE CASCADE: FROM THE TIPPING POINT TO MASS DIFFUSION 131
tions PB acquired more technical connotations and was seen mostly as an

instrument of urban management, which was important to fight against
corruption, promote transparency and enhance social control over public
policies. In short it was a “good governance” tool.
In the first section of this chapter, the role of the WSF in the process
of PB diffusion will be analysed. In the second section, the action of three
international organizations, the UN, the EU and the World Bank, will be
presented.
5.2 THE TIPPING POINT AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF THE “SPIRIT OF PORTO ALEGRE”
The spirit of Porto Alegre is the Social Forum, a city with soul, a city which
represents a concrete utopia. […] Porto Alegre stepped onto the world
map because the World Social Forum came and gave potential to this thing,
this idea of the capital of participatory democracy. Porto Alegre was trans-
formed, in the last term of the PT, […] truly in the capital of participatory
democracy.2
The action of a group of individuals throughout the 1990s was the condi-
tion sine qua non for PB to progressively acquire international prestige.
Mayors, the staff from international institutions, academics and journal-
ists showed PB to the world and made this policy a trademark for the
city of Porto Alegre. PB became a showcase for the city and furthermore
constituted a distinctive element of WP in Porto Alegre with the Popular
Front. As the WP won important local governments in the 1990s, PB dif-
fused in these municipalities across Brazil (Avritzer and Wampler 2008).
In this period, however, few municipal governments had an international
strategy, as we showed in the previous chapter by comparing Porto Alegre,
Belo Horizonte and Recife.
Ten years later there was already an idea circulating in the international
scene, stating basically that cities should construct a distinctive brand to
gain visibility. Having a distinctive characteristic for the municipality, as
well as creating an internal identity, increased its capacity for securing
external investment. Many cities launched city marketing plans to establish
an image, promoting their successful policies or combinations of “kits” of
instruments for public action and doing roadshows across the world.
The teams from Porto Alegre began to construct an image for
the city around this pairing: WSF and PB. At this phase of interna-
tional circulation, there was a movement to “construct” an image for

PB. Construction can be understood in this case as an abstract process
for the social production of images and meanings with respect to the
determined object. The action of the “ambassadors” of PB had little
by little constructed an image of its city as the capital of participa-
tory democracy. This was a process which had begun since, at least,
the 1990s, as mentioned in Chap. 3, but was firmly implanted only
with the WSF. The words of Ignácio Ramonet, the editor of Le Monde
Diplomatique, on the cover of its January 2001 edition are illustrative
with respect to the success the state capital of Rio Grande do Sul had in
informing readers that “the new century began in Porto Alegre”. The
article even defended that the city had undergone spectacular develop-
ment and, furthermore, posed the rhetorical question to reveal that
the “secret of such progress? [was] Participative Budgeting” (Ramonet
2001, p. 1). PB was one of the motives for having Porto Alegre host the
WSF, as we can observe in the statement from Raul Pont:
The argument […] was that nowhere had such consolidated anti-
neoliberalism, nothing was more opposed to neo-liberalism than the
experience we had created here with PB, which was against anti-politics,
privatisation, de-regulation, the absence of the state, or, rather, whilst Davos
practiced all of that, here people were doing the opposite: guaranteeing and
giving back the right to participation for the population. And it is for this
that Porto Alegre had to be the host for the World Social Forum.3
With the WSF occurred a process of transcendence of the political project

in Porto Alegre from local to international (Marx 2008, p. 153). Although
it is not possible to affirm with certainty the outcome for Porto Alegre in
its resistance against globalization and neo-liberal policies, especially in
the current day,4 this image was constructed at the start of the 2000s and
was projected externally at an international level. Porto Alegre had already
been investing in institutionalizing an international agenda since 1993, in
the second administration of the WP, with Tarso Genro.
On the world scene, a new generation of social movements stemming
from the fall of the Berlin Wall emerged around the planet. These move-
ments were diverse: from peaceful protests, Black Blocs—whose action
was characterized by the “destruction of property” in buildings symbol-
izing capitalism. Many of these movements were institutionalised as trans-
national organizations, such as was the case of the Association for the
Taxation of financial Transactions and Aid to Citizens (ATTAC), formed
by militants, journalists and progressive intellectuals. In 1999, a strong

international expression of anti-globalization movements occurred in
Seattle, against the meeting of the World Trade Organization. Later in
2001, once again, strong protests were repeated in Genoa against the G-8
which ended in the tragic death of Carlo Giuliani.
There was a confluence between forms of transnational collective action
which expresses itself transnationally and the exercise of a political project
to deepen democracy which expresses itself locally in a city in the southern
hemisphere. The WSF gave birth to a new manifestation. In this space,
there was no direct confrontation, as in the case of the G-8, but, instead, a
huge meeting which built relations, expanded networks and facilitated the
exchange of ideas, techniques and know-how and forged an agenda for
transnational action. Porto Alegre became the hope that “another world
was possible”, a more democratic and more inclusive world with more
social justice. The Forum managed to unite many organizations, individu-
als and social movements across the globe. In general, the Forum was a
huge space for networking for NGOs and social movements. Porto Alegre
in particular optimized its international relations exponentially.
With the leadership of Porto Alegre a wide range of network of “friends”
interested in PB was formed during the WSF. The FLA is an expression
of this movement, with respect to local authorities, but the WSF is wider
and also includes NGOs, social movements, trade unions and other orga-
nized political forces. In effect, the scale of the event and its international
dimension meant that lots of foreign delegations were visiting and getting
to see PB in loco, in addition to those already mentioned in the previous
chapter (the journalists from France, such as Estelle Granet and Bernard
Cassen). Ignacio Ramonet clearly mentions this movement saying that
“for some years […] Porto Alegre is a form of a social laboratory which
international observers study with a certain fascination” (Ramonet 2001,
p. 1).
Moreover, specialists from Porto Alegre travelled to present PB or to
offer workshops, as had already happened since around the start of the
1990s.5 As one of the politicians interviewed in Porto Alegre affirms, it
was the WSF which consolidated PB at international heights:
I think that […] what raised PB to win over the world was the World Social
Forum. I estimate roughly there in 2001. There we had here the first expe-
rience of the World Social Forum and in various workshops we presented
the experience [of PB], we delivered the literature, and also we published
some material in English, Spanish and French. And this was winning over
the world and of course that we always explained that the idea was not
something closed, that the “brainwave” it was purely and simply to bring
the population and therefore to create conditions, and facilitate community
participation.6
Furthermore, Port Alegre was in the media during the WSF, which did
not cease to emphasize its participatory governance with PB. Folha de São
Paulo (an important Brazilian newspaper), BBC, El País and Le Monde
Diplomatique published articles about WSF. This aroused world interest
in PB producing a force like a centipede. While the WSFs, whether in
their world or European versions, were going on one after another, PB
attracted and absorbed increasing interest. This movement contributed to
increasing the number of transfers and amplifying the reach of the inter-
national visibility of PB.
In the words of Eduardo Mancuso, who was secretary of International
Relations for the Mayor’s Office of Porto Alegre during the last term
of PT and participated in the organization of WSF, we can perceive the
progressive recognition that the city of Porto Alegre acquired with the
succession of WSFs:
It was in 2001, when the World Social Forum arose in Porto Alegre, then
yes. And with an exponential growth of each term in power, in 2002 trip-
licating, in 2003 doubling what had already doubled, there, really Porto
Alegre entered onto the World Map in the strict sense. Or, rather, Porto
Alegre became recognised by the international press, by the well-informed
world civil society. It was not only by left wing academia, social or political
or by interested local governments. No, it became recognised by the World
Bank and went on to be recognised by El Pais, by Le Monde, by very well-
informed people […] about what was going on in the world.
From the WSF, there was a significant rise in the experiences of PB which,
until then, were “only a handful”. The phenomenon derived from a move-
ment foreseeing the international promotion of PB as was shown in previ-
ous chapters. However, it is possible to affirm that WSF was a keystone or,
better put, a “tipping point” which signifies in the literature a moment in
which a critical mass of people begins to adopt PB (Finnemore and Sikkink
1998).
The fact that the tipping point did not occur with the first WSF should
be stressed. Instead, it occurred as a short process with the succession of,
at least, the first three events (2001, 2002 and 2003), which corresponded
to the editions held in Porto Alegre. With respect to “a critical mass of
adopters”, we cannot only consider the municipalities, but also the actors
of another nature such as international organizations (UN, EU and World
Bank), NGOs, international newspapers and political parties, among oth-
ers. From this moment on PB engaged in a wider movement, in which
multiples of actors were, each in their own way, promoting PB. This move-
ment made PB spill over from the Brazilian and Latin American context to
win over the world.
The expansion effectively occurred in Europe from 2000. The increase
in experiences on the old continent was progressive. In 2002, there were
close to 20; in 2005, it reached 55 and in 2008, exceeded 100 (Sintomer
et al. 2008, p. 38). A range of capital cities adopted PB: Paris, Rome,
London, Lisbon and Berlin. Despite a reflux of experiences with many
municipal governments with strong experiences of PB, Poland, through
a national incentive, is significantly increasing the implementation of this
device. In Africa, as will be presented in Chap. 7, smaller experiences blos-
somed in Senegal, Cameroon and Mozambique. Other more structured
and formal international institutions entered onto the scene. The UN,
EU, World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) began to act in a more incisive form to promote
PB. In Peru, a national law was created forcing municipalities to imple-
ment PB, which led to a large-scale rise in experiences.
The “spirit of Porto Alegre”, as our interviewee affirmed in the WSF, is
the idea that another democracy is possible. With PB, a myth was created
in the city of Porto Alegre (Porto de Oliveira 2010). There is, however,
Table 5.1 Estimate of expansion of PB in the world

Region 2000–2003 2008–2010 2013
PB in Latin America and the Caribbean 200 920 1120

PB in Europe 20 296 1317
PB in Africa 3 110 211
Total 223 1326 2648
Note: The information in respect of PB in the world is imprecise but these are the only figures available at
the moment. The estimates were collected from secondary sources and recent information in the academic
and technical literature. (Cabannes 2006; Porto de Oliveira 2013; Wampler 2008; Sintomer et al. 2012;
Sintomer et al. 2013)
from the “tipping point” a strong movement of detachment from the

“original experience” and its “descendants”. Once PB was launched in
the world, it was no longer possible to control its transformations. The
variations were innumerable. In 2012, PB was a polymorphous meth-
odology which was taken up by diverse institutions. In addition, there
appeared innovations with respect to technology (know-how, techniques
and institutional design) of PB. There are municipalities that specialize in
sectors of public policy such as PB Housing in Belo Horizonte (Brazil)
and in multi-ethnic contexts with PB in Cotacachi (Ecuador) or even with
Information Technology and Communication (ITC) such as the South of
Kivu (Democratic Republic of the Congo).7
The tipping point in the diffusion of PB is a mark which represents its
transition from a local experience of mass diffusion. The process which
led to the proliferation of PB on a planetary scale is stimulated by a pleth-
ora of actors, individuals and institutions, which are in constant interac-
tion. Porto Alegre continued in the eyes of the world to be the capital of
democracy, although different translations of the political and ideological
content of PB were made. For international organizations PB is not a
device to radicalize democracy, but an instrument of urban management
that can be transferred to any context and serves as a tool of social partici-
pation in public issues, as well as to fight against corruption.
5.3 THE SPILLOVER: INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

AND MASS DIFFUSION
The WSF marked the moment in which PB widened its visibility and inter-
national prestige. Delegations from many countries visited the city to see
up close this participatory governance device. The recognition of PB was,
however, not a sufficient condition for municipalities to implement it. The
literature insists on political will as one of the crucial factors for the adop-
tion of PB (Avritzer 2003; Talpin and Sintomer 2011). In effect, political
will is a necessary condition for PB to be implemented, but it is not the
only one. There is a range of other factors which are also indispensable for
PB to be transferred.
In this section, we deal with the spillover effect of PB in three interna-
tional organizations: the UN, the EU and the World Bank. These three
operated at distinct moments, with the first being the start of the pro-
cess, above all in Latin America, and contributing to the international
legitimation of PB and its diffusion in the region. The second was around
the 2000s, with direct financing of transfers between Latin America and
Europe, producing know-how and forming a generation of PB specialists.
The third was also present in the 1990s, but increased its action especially
in recent years, stimulating South–South co-operation in respect to PB
and its introduction in developing countries, in particular Sub-Saharan
Africa. The largest part of this section is dedicated to the World Bank,
which has been progressively taking on a bigger role in the promotion of
PB around the world.
5.3.1 The UN and the Urban Management Programme

for Latin America and the Caribbean
The UN is an international institution which, for many years, has been
involved in the process of the circulation of PB. The ways the UN operates
to promote PB are diverse, but are strongly concentrated in the Agency for
Human Settlements, the UN-Habitat. We also found occurrences of pro-
grammes of co-operation financed by other agencies such as the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality
and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), at various moments and
countries to stimulate experiences of PB in Latin America and in Africa for
example.8 The entrance of PB into the UN occurred in 1996 in the sec-
ond conference for human settlements—Habitat II in Istanbul, in Turkey,
when the institution awarded Porto Alegre the distinction of “Best
Practice”. The nomination of PB was made by the Brazilian Institute for
Social and Economic Analysis (IBASE) and the Porto Alegre local govern-
ment (Utzig and Guimaraens 1996, p. 51). The UN seal of approval had
enormous weight for international legitimation of PB and also was utilized
to try to reinforce its acceptance within the city of Porto Alegre itself. This
award is always referred to by authors and defenders of PB.
For the UN, PB was a legitimate policy to promote the Millennium
Development Objectives (UMP-LAC 2004), improve public manage-
ment of local collectives and fight against poverty.9 Between the end of the
1980s and the start of the 1990s, along with the process of organizing the
second meeting of Habitat, the UN, among others, idealized two action
fronts to improve local public administration. From the UN headquar-
ters in Nairobi, in Kenya, the idea was forged that in order to tackle the
rapid expansion of urban populations, it was needed to gain distance from
pre-defined policy recipes. The solution was to select a range of practices
which could simply serve as a beacon or source of inspiration for the man-
agement of collective territories. The UN-Habitat began scanning suc-
cessful municipal policies around the planet, evaluating and recognizing
some of them as “Best Practices”.10
Another front of action for the UN-Habitat was the creation the
so-called Urban Management Programs (UMPs), which began in
1986. These programmes emerged from a partnership between the
UN-Habitat and the UNDP, with the aid of external agencies which
operated as centres of production of technical know-how and promo-
tors of innovative practices and also to develop transnational networks
of municipalities, as well as to advocate in different countries at local
and national levels the promotion of directives to urban policy. The
general objectives of the UMPs are to contribute to territorial collec-
tives in developing countries to achieve economic growth, social devel-
opment and poverty reduction. The organizational aim of the UMPs
was to create a global programme with decentralized offices, to have a
greater impact in the regions and independence from the headquarters.
Four offices were established and two regional sub-offices as well as the
global office in Nairobi.11
In Latin America, the UMP was set up in Quito, Ecuador, which had,
at that time, received an award for its policies on conservation of historical
heritage, an element which contributed to it being chosen as the base of
the programme. The co-ordination during its years of operation was by
Yves Cabannes and his regional adviser Jaime Vásconez.
Yves Cabannes had wide experience in the area of urban planning in
developing countries. He came from the “Great Administrative Schools”
in France and defended his doctoral thesis on the determination of
urban space in Iraq at the University of Sorbonne. Before becoming co-
ordinator of the UMP, this specialist worked for the NGO GRET and in
the Think Tank CIRAD, both engaged in action in developing countries.
In his career, he had moved around many field missions, including Brazil,
and was, for a time, the co-director of Cearah Periferia in Fortaleza.12 His
arrival coincided with the process of democratization in Brazil in the 1980s
and promulgation of the constitution of 1988. In Brazil, he had contact
with emerging social movements and innovative experiences of local pub-
lic management and participatory democracy. It was in this period that he
got to know about PB in Porto Alegre.
The presence of Yves Cabannes was fundamental for his capacity for
transnational mobilization, field knowledge of Latin America and under-
standing of European institutions. The action of the co-ordinator of

UMP-LAC was not only in the ambit of the UN, but extended to the
URB-AL, as was mentioned in Chap. 3 and will be detailed in the next
section, and in the construction of networks in general, as was previously
described in the case of Belo Horizonte. The UMP-LAC was active in
Quito until 2004 when, after a decision by the UN-Habitat, it began to
work with regional networks via fixed institutions and the offices of the
UMP were shut down. At this same period, decentralized offices from the
UN-Habitat were set up in Quito. From that point on, the fixed-location
institutions, or the UMP anchors, became regional catalysts in the process
of diffusion of PB, above all, in Africa with the MDP-ESA in Zimbabwe
and the Enda Ecopop in Senegal, which we will see in detail in Chap. 7.
The UMP-LAC worked in conjunction with various policies on its
agenda including urban agriculture, gender politics and PB itself. It is
noteworthy that the experience of PB in Porto Alegre is one of its refer-
ences, but it is not the only one to be recommended. The programme
based in Quito also served as a regional catalyst of the experience, in the
sense that it accelerated the process of regional diffusion. The UMP-
LAC was the locus of reflection, production, training of teams and dif-
fusion of PB.
The UN, therefore, served as a legitimating institution for PB and con-
tributed to its diffusion in a direct form through at least two channels: the
production of knowledge and the stimulation of transfers through techni-
cal assistance and international events. In effect, the UMP-LAC produced
extensive literature on PB. The UMP work with PB was diverse: the mil-
lennium objective, FAQs on PB and a wide variety of manuals.
During his period in technical assistance, the co-ordinator of UMP-
LAC was systematically taking notes of the most frequent questions that
came up throughout the process of implementing PB.13 From this highly
attentive work emerged the book 72 Frequently Asked Questions about
Participatory Budgeting, which was published in the Urban Governance
Toolkit Series by the ONU-Habitat, translated into French and massively
distributed, in hardcopy and digital format.14 It can be seen as an example
of technical production of UMP. In the region of Sub-Saharan Africa, the
two manuals for Anglophone and Francophone Africa are also examples
in this respect. It can be argued that the writings organized or publica-
tions by Yves Cabannes, during the period of operation of UMP-LAC,
functioned as a sort of “Teacher of PB” for international experiences due
to the nature and reach of its publications.15
In 2000, the UMP-LAC promoted, along with other partners, in

Villa El Salvador, in Peru, the “I International Meeting on Participatory
Budgeting”, which included the presence of representatives of the local
governments of Porto Alegre and Santo André (Brazil), Montevideo
(Uruguay) and Guyana (Venezuela). It was a movement to launch the
circulation of PB in the Andean region. The organization of international
events on PB was becoming increasingly frequent and grew exponentially
from the 2000s onwards. One of our interviewees, who worked in the
UMP-LAC, affirmed that
Yves Cabannes had a very interesting strategy, when concluding a seminar,

instead of ending with a text of accords, of simple resolutions, he […] pres-
sured for delegates to sign pledges to implement [participatory] processes.16
This practice of signing protocols of intention, as a way of stimulating

the adoption of PB, worked for the Latin American region, at the start
of the expansion of experiences, but it also worked for Europe17 and the
Sub-Saharan African region. The same movement occurred in Yaoundé in
the Edition of Africities in 2003. In effect, in Dakar, at the VII Meeting
of Africities in 2012, the Secretary for International Relations from Porto
Alegre signed an accord of co-operation on PB with the mayor of Yaoundé
6, as will be described in Chap. 7.
The World Urban Forum (WUF) promoted by the UN-Habitat was
also emblematic. Sessions on PB were always on the programme and this
space was what spurred many to implement PB in other places. In 2004,
the then governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Olivio Dutra, was
present at the WUF in Barcelona. The moment coincided with the pro-
cess of “scale-up” of PB from the municipal to state level. In the WUF,
in 2010, in Rio de Janeiro, two “paradiplomats” had the idea of adopt-
ing PB in Makhado in South Africa which will be described in detail in
Chap. 7.
The presence of UMP-LAC in the Andes worked as a pole of irradia-
tion for PB between Ecuador and Peru. In the words of Jaime Vásconez,
“if this programme [UMP-LAC] had any positive outcome, it was to
have promoted PB at a regional and global level”.18 The Peruvian experi-
ences in IIo and Villa El Salvador, as well as in Ecuador in Cotacachi and
Cuenca, were also innovative and won over the world. The action of the
programme was important, if not decisive, in the construction of a range
of practices in the Latin American region, as well as inserting cities into a
wider transnational network, which facilitated its spread, as we will see in

detail in the following chapter on the diffusion of PB in the Andes.
In the words of Yves Cabannes, the action in Villa El Salvador and
its after effects become clear when he affirms that among his functions
“were the efforts […] to build up various teams to reproduce PB in
Peru, where it began in Villa El Salvador”.19 The UMP-LAC constituted
a locus for meeting, action and training of many people, militants and
technicians who, in their trajectories, took their learning with them to
different spaces and institutions and were able to promote the diffu-
sion of PB. The co-ordinator of the programme also affirmed that many
people who came through the UMP-LAC became staff of agencies of
the UN, mayors and teams in social NGOs or academics. In fact, the
UMP-LAC trained different teams on PB, as we can see in this excerpt
of an interview:
We received [mayor’s offices], we were called on to get plane tickets, accom-

modation, we got salaries, but as we were from the NGO world, we there-
fore had lots of projects in NGOs which were there. […] As I am a university
professor […] I am apparently linked with many universities and, thus, went
on to supervise [students]. […] I had lots of students who continue today
and were propagators of PB even in Arab countries […], [students] which
were part of PGU.20
The actions of UMP would intertwine with other international institu-

tions, such as the World Bank, agencies for international co-operation of
states and the EU. Two factors, at least, contributed to this movement.
The bringing together of resources on the part of the “takers of PB” for a
project, as we see in the action of ENDA-Ecopop in Senegal in the chapter
on Africa, and the securing of resources on the part of the “ambassadors
for PB” within agencies of the UN. The UMP created technical action and
international pressure stimulating the diffusion of PB, as we can observe
in the intervention of Yves Cabannes in the I International Meeting on
Participatory Budgeting in Villa El Salvador in 2001:
We thought that this is a technical agenda and, as part of international

organisations for co-operation representing, the UN, at a regional level, I
can contribute at this level. However, another instance that seems impor-
tant for us to rescue is political representation, which is present here. We
have many mayors, many cities present and this is an important lobby. We
think that it is time to have a declaration of Villa El Salvador which affirms,
which recognizes that Participatory Budgetings are a contribution to a

more effective management of cities. To affirm and propose to have a more
permanent working group to make an “oil stain” from the experiences we
have. To this work group with a request and a political base on your part
whilst the Urban Management Programme, we could minimally support,
as we are supporting now with very limited resources. But we managed,
above all, on the world ambit, where there is a campaign on governance
promoted by the UN. We are approaching the next meeting Istanbul +5
and there we would like to propose that Participatory Budgetings, and
their experiences of democratisation of public management, would be
the Latin American contribution on a world scale. (Programa de Gestão
Urbana 2001)
The case of the URB-AL programme, as we shall later see, is an example

of this movement of PB promotion and diffusion, as the UMP itself was,
which was financed in part by the World Bank and whose project was con-
tinued, to a certain extent, by the Cities Alliance.
The UN-Habitat was also involved at a later stage in the Constituent of
Ecuador in the last decade of this century.21 This institution promoted the
inclusion of subjects related to cities and urban matters. Among these was
the creation of the law on PB, organized by the local office and supported
by the Southern region of the UN-Habitat. The action of UMP combined
the force of the Latin American experiences and the energies mobilized by
a range of local mayors, motivated to actively participate in international
congresses, in order to make Latin America an irradiating pole for PB,
which conquered Europe.
When the UMP-LAC was shut down, a new institution called the
Centro Internacional de Gestion Urbana (International Centre for
Urban Management, CIGU) emerged, an international NGO based in
Quito and co-ordinated by Jaime Vásconez. The CIGU inherited the
production and know-how accumulated by the UMP-LAC and, to a
certain extent, gives continuity to its work. The activity of the CIGU
was carried out on three principal fronts. Firstly, collaborating with the
headquarters of the UN-Habitat in Nairobi, producing technical and
training material on PB for Africa and working directly with the NGO
ENDA-ECOPOP and the MDP-ESA, as will be described in Chap. 7.
The second front was to take on, along with the URB-AL programme,
the role already started by the UMP-LAC. The last front was a project
established with the Institute of the World Bank for the diffusion of PB
at a global level.
5.3.2 Tightening the Bonds between Latin America and Europe:

The URB-AL Programme
The action of the EU in relation to PB is, to a large extent, with the
URB-AL programme, which directly financed a network on PB, co-
ordinated by Porto Alegre. Nevertheless, there are European projects car-
ried out in respect to PB with EU financing, run by diverse government
institutions and NGOs. In this section, we will only consider the URB-AL
programme and, in particular, Network-9 on PB. In 1995, the first phase
of the EU URB-AL programme was launched. It was an ambitious project
and pioneered decentralized co-operation with the objective of bringing
together European and Latin American cities. The underlying proposal of
the programme was to stimulate the exchange of technical know-how in
respect to urban administration between municipalities, to improve the
life of citizens and to establish “best practices” of local governance.
The programme was implemented following a line of international
co-operation inserted in the evolution of the agenda of the EU for Latin
America, which was to strengthen relations after a long period of relative
distance since the Second World War. A range of governmental summits
occurred between chiefs of government and authorities from both conti-
nents. Furthermore, the relations between economic regional blocs, above
all, the EU and Mercosul, were intensifying. It was at the summit in Rio
de Janeiro in 1995 that the URB-AL programme emerged. In addition to
the URB-AL, which was placed in the field of decentralized co-operation
or, rather, with sub-national governments, many other programmes were
also created in diverse sectors, with the intention of advancing in respect
to technical co-operation, such as the field of science and academic mobil-
ity exemplified by the Alf@ and Alban programmes, among others.
The URB-AL programme is still running but it has undergone a range
of modifications. The programme operated in different phases composed
of cycles of close to four or five years’ duration. During this period, proj-
ects are financed between participating municipalities and the EU, with
the latter providing the greater part of the funding. Cities are not the
only participants of the projects; NGOs, universities and the private sector
also take part as partners in networks. The programme has been gradually
developing.
In the first phase, around the 1990s, the EU opened an official
announcement for a thematic network entitled “Democracy in the City”.
The municipality of Porto Alegre which had already accumulated some
years of experience with PB was one of the favourites to win the tender,
which would have made the co-ordination of a wide range of projects pos-
sible and would contribute to the diffusion of PB.22 Instead, the munici-
pality winning the co-ordination of the project was a small French city,
of approximately 60,000 inhabitants, situated in the south-east of Paris,
Issy-Les-Moulineaux, governed by André Santini who today belongs to
the Union for French Democracy, a centrist party (Baudelocq et al. 2007).
The city did not have a strong tradition of local democracy, but counted
on the support of a technical specialist to develop the project proposal,
Marie Virapatirin, who had worked for the World Bank and had designed
an innovative proposal on democracy in the municipal context.
As we affirmed in Chap. 3, this episode demonstrates that, at the time,
Porto Alegre still did not have the sufficient international prestige to host
big international projects, despite its experience and results with PB. This
was still a period of ascension, but not yet of spillover. Two interviews
carried out with persons from different countries and coming from differ-
ent institutions informed us that there was a political veto against Porto
Alegre on the part of the EU, whose members were still oriented towards
a conservative agenda. The excerpt of the following interview with an
international consultant is illustrative in this respect. Our interviewee
informed us that the first-placed candidate for the URB-AL programme
was indeed Porto Alegre:
Despite the hope that Porto Alegre would be benefitted, all the technical
committee signalled Porto Alegre to be the co-ordinator of Network-3, on
‘democracy in the city’, which did not happen, it was in Issy-Les-Moulineaux
[…]
Interviewer: Some of the interviewees inform me that in this first phase of

the URB-AL Programme with Network-3, there was a tech-
nical deficit in the Porto Alegre local government and, due
to this, it didn’t win and it went to Issy-Les-Moulineaux.
Do you remember anything in this sense?
Interviewee: I remember very well, I know perfectly well this process
Interviewer: What was?
Interviewee: For a political reason.
Interviewer: Or rather?
Interviewee: The European Union did not listen to the technical com-
mittee, which had put forth Porto Alegre as a good city to
have Netowrk-3
Interviewer: That is ….
Interviewee: The political tendency of the European Union, with pressure
from the French and from the right wing […], and Issy-Les-
Moulineaux was on the right […]. The technical committee
[…] note was in favour of Porto Alegre, it was one of the
few times in the URB-AL networks, when the EU decision
was not the same as that of the technical committee.23
Even though this cannot be confirmed with the teams of the EU, along
with more interviews, it is valuable as it can take us to the next phase. At
this point, Porto Alegre was to construct, in a decade, its international
prestige and, once consolidated, orientations of different political streams
started to adopt or recommend the experience of PB.
After being evaluated by the European Commission, already at the
second phase of the URB-AL programme, a new network was prepared
“for Porto Alegre”, to use an expression from one of our interviewees.
Network-9 was called Local Financing and Participatory Budgeting. This
network interwove here with a pre-existing one, which was built within the
relations fostered by the action of UMP-LAC. Yves Cabannes was among
the consultants for Network-9 and one of the authors of the Document
Base, the central report for the project. The network was used to expand
PB with small projects. Furthermore, it served to finance thematic PB
projects and carry out case studies.
In the second phase, the thematic networks had a co-ordinator or net-
work pilot, that is, a city which represented the project, which was the
case of Porto Alegre for Network-9. Once the project was approved, the
networks could create sub-networks, like work groups with “Common
Projects”. In this sense, cities with similar issues could work together. The
period of the URB-AL programme was a moment of impact, with 15 PB
projects and 15 million dollars. One of our interviewees affirmed the fol-
lowing in respect to the URB-AL:
In the years of the URB-AL, we managed to have 15 PB projects, 15 million

dollars. It was a moment of impact, there was PB […], PB and Economic
Development, PB for Mediation of Poverty, PB was a brilliant intellectual
production, and as we were very demanding, good technicians, the cities
loved working with us, as we always did a great job. […] This helped a
lot in the dialogue in Latin America and also Europe […] all the Urbal
programmes, that came with advice from UMP and, afterwards, at the end
of the UMP, I remained as an advisor in Porto Alegre and continued the
dynamic with 440 cities associated to PB.24
Some of the goals of the URB-AL were to strengthen experiences in tech-

nical terms, enable knowledge transfer and establish stronger networks, as
well as creating significant synergy throughout the five years of the project.
The programme allowed for a dynamic in the exchanges between Europe
and Latin America. Furthermore, the smaller local governments, with
lower budgets, could get resources to invest in specific areas of participa-
tion as was the case of Cotacachi, which developed a project on PB in
multi-ethnic, culturally pluralistic municipalities, as we shall see in Chap. 6.
The CIGU is one of the main external consultants among the inter-
national NGO partners at the URB-AL programme. The international
NGO based in Quito was present in four of the six URB-AL programme
projects. In the words of Jaime Vásconez:
Various projects of the URB-AL network, which had already been negoti-
ated with UMP and we took on and continued, this allowed us to work
with the question of Participatory Budgeting with thematic projects, such
as Cotacachi. […] Soon there was another we worked on, […] Venice
which was […] with Giovanni [Allegretti] on the incidence of Participatory
Budgeting in relation to groups of the socially excluded, […] the third was
in Cordoba […] and there was another in Cuenca, this kept us very busy
and working hard.25
The political dimension of PB in the URB-AL programme was still an

important question and, to a certain extent, a limit to the potential of
the programme. In the network co-ordinated by Cotacachi, there was a
Colombian local government that had initially accepted the partnership,
but withdrew from the URB-AL, after a political change occurred in the
government. More complex was the case of Porto Alegre. The city ran for
the second phase of the URB-AL bid during the administration of PT,
which had already struggled without success to achieve this in the 1990s.
After the nomination of Porto Alegre as co-ordinator of Network-9, the
PT lost the elections to the candidate José Fogaça from another party and
had to leave the administration. The team which had been earmarked to
carry out the project suffered alterations and was redefined.
According to one of our interviewees, Yves Cabannes was the “the
spearhead of the project” and he “carried the network on his shoulders”.26
In effect, as we saw in the case of Belo Horizonte, the ex-coordinator
of UMP-LAC played a fundamental role in inserting this municipal-
ity into Network-9. The territorial dimension of PB, one of the strong
characteristics of the device in Belo Horizonte, led to a thematic net-

work entitled “Organisational Instruments between Territorial Planning
and Participatory Budgeting” (URBAL 2007). In this common project,
six actors were involved (five municipalities and an international NGO);
the Municipality of Belo Horizonte (Brazil) as co-ordinator, the Local
Government of Cordoba (Spain) and Local Government of Ariccia (Italy);
the Municipality of Bella Vista (Argentina) and the Municipal Government
of Guarulhos (Brazil) as participants and CIGU (Ecuador) as an external
member.27
The URB-AL programme was an enriching project for transfers of
PB, on the one hand, and for the consolidation and promotion of experi-
ences, on the other. Through this programme, diverse case studies were
conducted, which served to better understand and evaluate the internal
dimensions of PB experiences and to publicize these results. Network-9
was, for five years, a central point for connecting local authorities involved
in PB and for training specialists. At this time, there also existed other
networks of local authorities, such as FLA, which incorporated the theme
of PB. With the URB-AL, the networks gained leverage. There were
resources at the international level to stimulate the diffusion of PB. It
is possible to state that transfers gained greater force with the URB-AL
programme. The passage from one programme of technical co-operation
of the EU contributed to give even greater international legitimacy to
PB. The programme already had important offshoots, such as the start of
the International Observatory for Participatory Democracy, at an interna-
tional level, and the Brazilian Network for Participatory Budgetings,28 at
an internal level. Both were seen as a way of continuing the bases sown by
the URB-AL.
After this lengthy work with relations between Europe and Latin
America around PB, the moment arrived for more intensive organization
for co-operation between municipalities in developing countries, in gen-
eral, and in the South, in particular.
5.3.3 The World Bank in Action: Recommending,

Evaluating and Promoting
There are also a number of international best
practice examples that Mozambique could
learn from, including those of Participatory
Budgeting in Brazil (World Bank 2009, p. 1).
For reasons different than ours, the World Bank

has been the biggest propagator of the idea [of
Participatory Budgeting].
Raul Pont, Correio do Povo, 11 October
1999
In October 1996 there was a conference in Washington, in which 20

experiences of co-operation between civil society and government in Latin
America were presented and discussed. PB in the city of Porto Alegre was
highlighted and considered as one of the experiences with the greatest
potential for impact on society. This was the first register found during
this research of the recognition of PB by the World Bank.29 Two years
later, the ISPD was held in Porto Alegre, with the support of the Institute
of Economic Development of the World Bank,30 among other partners.
The event featured 40 participants and five observers from nine coun-
tries in the Americas.31 If the UN with the UMP-LAC amplified PB in
Latin America and the URB-AL from the EU consolidated relations with
Europe, the participation of the World Bank contributed to the adoption
of PB in southern countries, in general, and in Africa, in particular.
The recognition of PB by the World Bank and its consequent recommen-
dation and promotion was an unusual movement. The experiences of PB in
its origin in Porto Alegre, and other places, is strongly associated with the
idea of social transformation and the radicalization of democracy, as described
in the previous chapters, and which, in the words of José Eduardo Utzig and
Rafael Guimaraens (1996, p. 51), are summarized as follows: “Participatory
Budgeting […] is an element which is at the root of a political project of
government which aims to radically democratise the state and society” and
looks to “break with the abyss which separates the state and society and to
permanently reconstruct the legitimacy of government decisions”.
The relations between the leftist PT local authorities who governed
Porto Alegre and the World Bank are ambiguous and change over time,
becoming closer during the last terms in office. Some of our interviewees
classify the policy of the World Bank in relation to PB as a “mercantil-
ist action”.32 Others criticize the transfers promoted by the World Bank,
arguing that this institution treated PB as an empty technology that can be
adopted elsewhere, without considering the difficulties of different con-
texts, as in the case of Bosnia and the Balkans.33 Despite these positions,
the World Bank was requested around 2004 to evaluate the process of PB
in Porto Alegre as we shall see going forward.
What led the World Bank—that could represent a “neo-liberal”

political project—to defend a participatory governance policy like PB to
be applied to local governments in developing countries? There is a dif-
ference between the PB promoted by the World Bank and the forerun-
ners of the experience in Porto Alegre and a range of progressive local
governments in Europe and Latin America. Metaphorically, it could
be affirmed that the PB defended by the World Bank did not embody
the “spirit of Porto Alegre”, described in the previous section, that is,
its political character and ideology as a device for social transformation
and radicalizing democracy. Paradoxically, the actions and declarations
of the World Bank were used by local authorities and the press in Porto
Alegre as a source of internal legitimation of PB throughout 1999.
Furthermore, the media, as well the academic literature, made the allu-
sion to the fact that the World Bank recommended PB to strengthen
the credibility of the device. In addition the World Bank financed social
programmes and projects for infrastructure construction in Porto
Alegre (Fernandes 2000, p. 54).
It is possible to state, as defended by Benjamin Goldfrank, that the
World Bank recommended PB as a type of “Global Prescription” or, rather,
that the municipalities in general should adopt it (Goldfrank 2012). Still,
it is difficult to argue that there was a co-option of PB by the World Bank.
This institution is complex and has multifaceted actions, which are com-
posed of political, intellectual and financial dimensions. The World Bank
also holds a unique position as a lender, formulator of public policies and
diffusor of ideas and knowledge (Pereira 2010). The entrance of PB into
the World Bank goes through different moments and this policy of par-
ticipatory governance turns into a technical methodology, an instrument
of public management which can be applied to whatever context. We can
say that PB, by going into the World Bank, went through a process of
“ideological distillation”.
The ideas and interests which made up the lines of action of the World
Bank in the promotion of PB leave their mark across multiple agendas,
agencies and interests. The initiatives of the World Bank in the promotion
of PB come from different origins, such as the World Bank Institute or the
Department for Social Affairs or, even, make up parts of wider projects in
the International Association for Development.
Essentially, for the World Bank PB is an instrument to improve local
institutions and is associated with the principles of “good governance”,
transparency, empowerment and accountability (Shah 2007). The World
Bank projects for promoting PB are also oriented on “establishing a

change in behaviour in those with local responsibility” (World Bank 2009,
p. 10) as indicated by the report published by the institution on the imple-
mentation of the device in Madagascar.
Furthermore, the interests which permeate the World Bank in the pro-
motion of PB are very diverse and are associated with wider principals and
agendas such as the Millennium Development Goals and the fight against
poverty, construction of institutions from territories or, rather, of local
governments and even experiments involving social participation and the
use of ITC. The action of the World Bank is still present in diverse coun-
tries, which extend from Brazil to Bosnia, passing through Madagascar
and the Dominican Republic.
PB initially went through a process of recognition by the World Bank.
This process was followed by activities for evaluation and recommen-
dations. Today, this institution directly promotes PB. The presence of
the World Bank and its agencies dates back to the 1990s as was already
shown. The contact between the experience of PB, in the case of Porto
Alegre, and the World Bank is established through thematic meetings and
financing of projects for infrastructure and social programmes in the city.
Relations between Porto Alegre and the World Bank increased incremen-
tally with delegations coming from Porto Alegre to demonstrate PB in
thematic meetings organized by the World Bank; in the same way, teams
from this institution came to Porto Alegre to join in meetings on partici-
patory democracy such as the ISPD in 1999.
PB was initially inserted onto the general agenda of the World Bank
and, as well as serving to connect civil society to the state, there was a
perception of this device as a legitimate tool to produce desirable results
in the process of decentralization in developing countries. Concerns with
policies for participation and infrastructure were present in the World
Bank from at least 1994, but these were associated with the reduction of
transaction costs as well as the fight against corruption (World Bank 1994,
p. 89 and 101).
A document written by George E. Peterson and published by the
World Bank about processes of decentralization insists that these policies
should “move governing authorities closer to the people” (Peterson 1997,
p. 13).34 According to Maria Aycrigg (1998), Paul Wolfensohn, President
of the World Bank (1995–2005), “has been strongly supportive of partici-
patory approaches in projects and policies” (p. 1). The former president
of the institution, in his annual speech of 1998, insisted on the dimension

of citizen participation for development as can be seen in the following
passage:
Participation matters – not only as a means of improving development effec-

tiveness […] – but as the key to long-term sustainability and leverage. We
must never stop reminding ourselves that it is up to the government and
its people to decide what their priorities should be. We must never stop
reminding ourselves that we cannot and should not impose development
by fiat from above – or from abroad. (WOLFENSOHN, apud. AYCRYGG
1998, p. 1)
Victor Vergara was one of the team members who established a bridge
between the World Bank and the local government of Porto Alegre. He
was interested in PB as an instrument of local governance and entered
into direct contact with Tarso Genro.35 This staff from the World Bank
also contributed to the organization of the ISPD in 1999, as mentioned
in Chap. 3.36 At this seminar, there were three more World Bank staff in
Porto Alegre.
One of our sources in the World Bank talks about his contact with PB
and how it was promoted by this institution, describing this action in the
following manner:
I knew about the approach, I had read about it. So we were doing a large
training program for Latin America and I knew that […] it is a funda-
mental political reform that needs to make governance happen and we
knew about the experience of Porto Alegre. I guess Tarso has written the
little book. […] So I had a copy of that book in Portuguese and then we
had got it in Spanish, edited by a group in Argentina, and the preface of
that translation was a little, it was not adequate for capacity building, so
I called Tarso and asked him if […] he could send us the preface and if
we could add a new version, that could be more pedagogical […], it was
before the first World Social Forum […], it was before I met him […], it
was 99 I guess. So he said yes and sent us the file, I wrote the preface to
the book, we printed about 15.000 or 20.000 copies […] and we distrib-
uted the book as a part of a course that we were doing on this e-learning,
there was a very good response from the people who took the course and
over 20.000 people took the course, took the module of Participatory
Budgeting. There were many more that took the course, more than
20.000. I also got in contact with, I met this social scientist from Cuba,
who was Martha Harnecker, she had a movie and we edited that movie
and made it pedagogical as well, because it was more ideological and we
made it technical and we put it into the context […], so we made a video
explaining Participatory Budgeting and that was the kind of start […] and
from there André [Herzog], started working here in the Institute [of the
World Bank] and took the program and I did other things. […] The book
that they had written was a very important tool to communicate, the tech-
nical idea, so how to govern. It wasn’t ideological, it was a good idea, it is
you know a reasonable proposal for transparency, accountability, but also
for efficiency and for ownership. […] I promoted a lot, so wherever I go
I talk […] there are two very important innovations on governance at the
local level that are necessary for government to work in the local level, one
[of them] is this Participatory Budgeting.37
This excerpt shows not only the individual action of our informant, but
also the forms by which PB was promoted. This policy of participatory
governance originating from Porto Alegre was introduced in a training
programme. The translation of the book by Tarso Genro on PB was done
to be included in this training and with an added preface that was more
technical and pedagogical. Following this, an educational video was pro-
duced about PB, based on the film by Martha Harnecker. The narrative of
our interviewee reveals that, in his own words, the start of actions by the
World Bank to promote the diffusion of PB can be seen around the end of
the 1990s. According to the description, the activities of the World Bank
use materials on PB which were already developed from previous produc-
tions. The difference between the original and the product used by the
World Bank, as we can infer from the excerpt of the interview, is that they
went through an adaptation to make them more technical and pedagogi-
cal and less political and ideological.
From around the 2000s within the World Bank, projects on PB
increased, although the theme of participation was already present in the
institution, especially in the social sector for over 15 years.38 Over time,
teams specializing in PB were joining in, who had worked on the URB-AL
programme or with PB in other institutions.39 Tiago Peixoto, for example,
a specialist in open governance in the WBI, had, in his career, worked with
the theme of e-democracy in the URB-AL programme. Nevertheless, this
was not the case for everyone. In fact, some of the staff began to integrate
projects with PB for the first time when they were already working in the
World Bank.40
André Herzog, architect and urbanist and currently senior specialist in

WBI, also had previous contact with PB before joining the World Bank.
He recounts his trajectory with PB in the following manner:
I’ve worked with Participatory Budgeting for some years, a little outside of
the Bank, and a little inside the Bank as well, five years in the Bank, but I
have not being working on it for the past three or four years. […] I worked
on it when I was in the IHS, three years in the Institute for Housing and
Development studies [IHS] in Holland where […] we did an evaluation of
Santo André. […] We did it in a project which I co-ordinated in Albania
and we supported Participatory Budgeting in two cities, Duris and Elbassan
which was a really interesting project, as it was a project with three pillars
[…] it was carried out between 2001 and 2003 […] before the Bank. Here
in the Bank, the question of participation is a question which has already a
background of more than 15 years and was always, and continues to be, in
a general sense, led by the social sector in the Bank and I worked for three
years in the social department of the Bank, within the participation unit,
and I co-ordinated the programme of Participatory Budgeting. […] Then I
came to the World Bank Institute and continued working with Participatory
Budgeting for a year here.41
The trajectory of André Herzog is characterized by working with PB in

international institutions. As he himself says, he worked with this pol-
icy “inside and outside” the World Bank. As well as specialized teams,
manuals and reports specifically on PB or themes related to it were being
produced in this institution. There emerged within the World Bank its
own orientation of what PB is, what it is good for and how it should
be conducted. This idea assumed a less ideologist and more techni-
cal characteristic, as the excerpt in our interview confirms. There was
an appropriation and translation of the method which had emerged in
Porto Alegre.
It is possible to recognize the recommendation of the World Bank
in its most important report, the World Development Report (WDR),
which is published annually, and in the 2000 edition affirms the
following:
Cities need to be proactive in establishing formal but friendly mechanisms

to encourage partnerships that will bring dynamism and development. The
much appraised experience of Porto Alegre, Brazil, offers an example of
how such a process can be initiated. […] The key institutional innovation
in Porto Alegre is the municipal budget forum, where the council of repre-
sentatives sets the agenda for municipal spending based on district priorities.
(World Bank 2000)
The policies of participatory governance, as well as initiatives for transpar-

ency in public budgeting, are part of a wider agenda which permeates
the objectives of the World Bank. PB is also understood as an instrument
to alleviate poverty. The World Bank, as well as other multilateral agen-
cies, has made intense efforts in this sense. The concern of this institution
with poverty is not recent and dates back to at least the 1970s. Still, this
topic was eclipsed during the 1980s—when Washington embraced neo-
liberal policies—and returned from the 1990s onwards when the reduc-
tion of poverty was seen as unavoidable for development (World Bank
1978, 2004). The prominence of the struggle against poverty took on
such proportions that some authors affirm that what happened was an
internal paradigm change in the World Bank, which moved from neo-
liberal models towards the idea of policies for the reduction of poverty
(Cling et al. 2011; Pereira 2010).
The direct promotion of PB occurred with the organization of interna-
tional meetings and financing of projects. These activities were, in many
cases, inserted as part of dynamics of co-operation with national agencies
of co-operation, such as the Swiss Agency. Two large events served to
foment the regional diffusion of PB, above all, in Africa: one in Porto
Alegre and the other in Durban, South Africa, respectively in 2006 and
2008. The CIGU also participated in the organization of both events, as
well as initiatives to stimulate the diffusion of PB at a global level, as Jaime
Vásconez relates in his own words with respect to
[a]n accord which we arrived at with the World Bank […] and where we had
a great Brazilian friend, André Herzog, and along with him, we reached an
accord to establish a programme that was called strengthening programmes
of Participatory Budgetings and, as such, we did not have any limits on
specific geographies. With him, we held a global seminar on Participatory
Budgetings in Porto Alegre […] in 2006 and there we worked with Yves
[Cabannes] and also came delegates and representatives from uncommon
countries, there was a big African presence too, but also Eastern Europeans,
with people from Romania, Russia, Hungary, Poland and also three del-
egates from Asia, some from India, there were people linked to the World
Bank […] and soon we developed various initiatives for the promotion
of Participatory Budgeting. […] An important event was the seminar in

Durban […] and we opted to work a lot with videoconferences. There was
one, I recall, with people from Madagascar, […] so we published from time
to time an electronic bulletin, […] we published something that should
have been a virtual course on Participatory Budgetings based on the book
by Yves [Cabannes] on 72 questions.42
Many of the African experiences, in some cases still embryonic, developed

from these meetings. In the meeting of Durban, a good part of the del-
egates wanted to implement such policies or had already implemented PB
in their own city. As mentioned, it was in this meeting that the project
between Belo Horizonte and Maputo was created, which was mediated by
MDP-ESA, from Zimbabwe, with financing from the World Bank for the
production of a manual on the implementation of PB in African cities. The
event was also a locus of meeting of teams that had never heard of other
experiences and served as a space for exchange of ideas and technologies
in respect to PB.43
In addition to financing of events, a range of pilot projects of PB were
promoted by the World Bank in Central America, such as the Dominican
Republic, and Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Cameroon, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Mozambique and Madagascar. The experience of the Malgaxe
context is particular in involving action for a pilot project in nine munici-
palities, some of which had a significant rise in revenue, after the discovery
of mineral mines in their territories. We will see these cases in detail in the
chapter on the regional diffusion on the African continent. In its turn, the
World Bank encouraged pilot projects and the use of Information and com-
munications technology (ICT) led to a spill-over effect in the region, start-
ing in South Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and followed
by Yaoundé, in Cameroon, and also in Nairobi, in Kenya.
The actions mentioned above came from the World Bank and offered
support to develop projects directly with local governments to implement
PB. An opposite movement also occurred. After a period—in which the
World Bank simply recommended PB to local governments in countries
where the bank operated—it became a specialist on PB. From then on, the
World Bank also started to evaluate experiences and to offer diagnostics.
This can be seen as a movement whose initiative began with the World
Bank. In fact, these demands came from part of governments (municipal
or national) and arrived in Washington, through its decentralized offices in
different countries (such as Brazil and Peru), where the request was made.
After years of continuity of PB in Porto Alegre, and the period of

challenges with the change of local government in 2004, the Municipal
Government made a demand on the World Bank to “strengthen the pro-
cess of Participatory Budgeting” (World Bank 2008, p. 1), particularly
in relation to five questions: How to improve the “quality of participa-
tion” in PB? How to strengthen the interface between PB and the fiscal
administration of the municipality? How to improve the capacity of PB
to monitor the execution of the budget? How to establish a more coher-
ent system of provision of accounts of the city, improving the organiza-
tion between PB and different fora of participation? What is the social
and fiscal impact of PB?
To satisfy the request from Porto Alegre, the World Bank, from then
on, formed a team to produce a study on PB. This project was carried out
with the Brazilian Unit for Country Management, in Brazil, the Unit for
Sustainable Development and the Latin American and Caribbean Region
Unit of the World Bank. The research was concluded and its report,
entitled “Towards a more inclusive and effective Participatory Budgeting
in Porto Alegre”, presented the potential and limits of the experience, as
well as a range of recommendations to satisfy the specific demands of the
project.
At the same time, the Minister for Economy and Finances (MEF) in
Peru made a similar request. PB in Peru is a unique case as it became
a national law in 2003, forcing all municipalities to adopt it, as will be
described in detail in the following chapter. In 2008, PB in Peru found
itself in a context of questioning. Additionally, the MEF put forward a
new agenda aspiring to improve the quality of government spending
through a new instrument, the Budgeting for Results programme.44
This instrument has the objective, in simple terms, to tie spending from
municipalities to show results, understood as changes in terms of ben-
efits and services provision to citizens in the long run. A similar pro-
gramme was substituting PB in Recife under a new administration, as
described in Chap. 3.
The MEF, then, turned to the World Bank to request the study (World
Bank 2011) entitled “Evaluation of Participatory Budgeting and its rela-
tion with the Budgeting for Results”. This study concluded with a range
of recommendations, structured around five points which could guide the
actions of the Peruvian government in relation to PB. The recommenda-
tions suggested making PB more strategic and suitable to the territorial
level of implementation, harmonizing it to the cycle of municipal budget-
ing and the execution of projects, increasing inclusion and quality and,
lastly, making it more vigilant and legitimate.
The World Bank operated with its teams in Washington and those on
the ground, as well as local and regional consultants. The expansion of the
pilot projects meant these same teams circulated and implemented similar
projects. In some cases, PB is associated to the widest-ranging projects of
the institution. The action of the World Bank in the promotion of PB is not
a recent phenomenon as part of the academic or militant literature insists,
but rather the institution has accompanied PB since its beginning in Porto
Alegre and other municipalities. The World Bank has progressively taken
this device abroad and made up a team of specialists on PB. Through the
Institute of the World Bank, manuals have been developed and, in many
cases, this had the support of municipalities, with advanced experiences,
and academics. The involvement of the World Bank in PB is fundamental
so that experiences anchored themselves in Africa, as well as its impor-
tance in reorganizing a range of experiences in Latin America. The World
Bank influence acts towards the implementation of PB in different cities
in developing countries and, in certain cases, the adoption of this device
comes as a condition to secure resources.
5.4 CONCLUSION
The objective of this chapter is to show the transition between the moment
at which PB was in search of international legitimacy and its mass diffu-
sion. PB went through the first years of the 2000s with a movement that
could be compared to a cascade. As described in the previous chapters,
PB’s international projection was constructed from around the 1990s and,
above all, through the action of a group of militants, local authorities and
team of international organizations. This process occurred up until the
point PB gained international legitimacy during the editions of the WSF
and then spilled over.
International institutions facilitated the mass diffusion of PB. Without
going through large institutions, the same repercussions would not have
happened. WSF made PB acquire greater visibility outside of Brazil. In
other words, if earlier PB was known only to specialists, local governments
and militants, particularly those of a progressive bent, with WSF PB was
popularized to an international level. The seal of approval of the UN was
important to give legitimacy to the experience. In fact, the international
organizations very often performed the role of showing the way, in terms
of public policies that governors should follow. The work of UMP-LAC

was significant to consolidate technical know-how and establish partner-
ships around PB in Latin America. The resources of the URB-AL pro-
gramme served to take this even further with the work started with the
UMP-LAC and to strengthen relations with Europe. In both programmes,
the first international specialists in PB were trained. With the entrance of
the World Bank, exchanges arrived more easily in Africa and led to experi-
menting with the association between PB and ICTs in this region.
The functions performed by international institutions in the process
were diverse. Effectively, at the same time as serving to legitimate PB,
they were also crucial in its widespread promotion. In turn, international
institutions helped produce and accumulate know-how and contributed
to bringing together sub-national governments. Despite the function of
international organizations, PB would not have reached them without the
precursory help of the “ambassadors” of participation described in previ-
ous chapters. Often, these had an influence within international institu-
tions or collaborated with them. The mayors of Porto Alegre, such as Raul
Pont and Tarso Genro, for example, were involved in an international
institution on assuming the organization of the WSF, which launched PB
to planetary levels.
The permanent and lasting action in the diffusion of PB by some indi-
viduals outside the local government turned them into “ambassadors” as
well. This was the case of Yves Cabannes whose presence was fundamen-
tal not only in the UMP-LAC, as we saw in the two previous chapters,
but also in relation to Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte in the Radically
Democratize Democracy (RDD) and FLA networks. His action contin-
ued in the URB-AL programme. We can also recognize the role of Jaime
Vásconez, who was active in the UMP-LAC and later in the CIGU, in
offering support and technical assistance to the URB-AL programme
as well as the first relations with Sub-Saharan Africa. These “ambassa-
dors” drive their legitimacy more than a theoretical, technical and practi-
cal authority in relation to PB, which differentiates them from the local
authorities from Porto Alegre.
The evidence found shows the action of a range of teams from the
World Bank. This institution began contact with PB already at the start
of the 1990s, albeit in a timid fashion. Among the pioneers working with
PB in the Word Bank was Victor Vergara, whom we can consider as one of
the “takers” of PB within the institution and, in particular, for the WBI. A
decade later, there were others working with PB, such as André Herzog,
who in his trajectory had produced an evaluation of PB in Santo André,

in Brazil, for a Dutch institution and, together with the WBI, developed
various projects with PB. This occurred in the Balkans, for example, but
especially in the promotion of co-operation between Latin America and
Sub-Saharan Africa in order to transfer PB. This actor also performed as
an “ambassador” for PB for the World Bank.
A wide range of mechanisms operated for the mass diffusion of PB to
occur. The mechanism of international circulation of specialists in PB facil-
itated its diffusion, as in the case of André Herzog or of Yves Cabannes.
Within the World Bank, PB was introduced little by little in its institutions
projects. Besides that, more teams got progressively involved with PB,
such as Tiago Peixoto with ICTs, as well as other staff from different units.
The mechanism of capacity-building is intimately connected to inter-
national circulation. In fact, the different international organizations
promoted seminars, workshops and other activities to train new teams
to implement PB. In effect, UMP was the first locus for the training of
teams. These recently formed PB experts followed on to the URB-AL pro-
gramme. After a decade of international co-operation with PB, a group of
international specialists was already constituted. Some of the World Bank
experts came from previous international experiences with PB in other
institutions. This mechanism stimulated diffusion, as well as forming new
teams of specialists in PB and is strongly present in Sub-Saharan Africa as
we shall see in Chap. 7.
External scanning is a mechanism already mentioned in other chap-
ters although it becomes more evident when describing the process of
PB entering international organizations. In fact, these institutions scanned
not only PB, but also other “good experiences” of it. Moreover, these
institutions monitored those places in which PB had the potential to be
implemented. This action depended not only on the action of experts, but
also on the areas of operation and interest of international organizations.
The UMP-LAC, for example, was essentially dedicated to Latin America,
while the action of the World Bank with ICTs in South Kivu inserted PB
into a wider geography. The World Bank, by scanning the experience of
Ipatinga, in Brazil, with technology of information and PB, for example,
was important so that the experiences with ICT in Sub-Saharan Arica
could be developed.
The mechanism of construction was present in successive WSFs, when
the image of Porto Alegre as the “capital of participatory democracy” was
coined. The recognition of PB by international institutions, such as the
UN, the EU and the World Bank was also important. It is worth noting
that in the case of the EU, it was not a simple process, insofar as it only
managed to gain attention after having been well established internation-
ally and managing to gain legitimacy and prestige at the start of the 2000s.
The construction also operates in the sense of the relation between cause
and effect in the context of international organizations. In diverse manuals
and technical documents, PB is an instrument capable of combatting cor-
ruption, promoting social inclusion and guaranteeing transparency, and
so forth. In other words, there is a sort of relation of cause (adoption of
PB) and effect (reducing corruption) which lies behind the recommenda-
tion of PB, as an instrument of municipal governance. Despite the success
attained by the experience of PB, and the fact that it has been massively
diffused around the world, its initial link with Porto Alegre was becoming
lost along the way.
The mechanism of translation also operated in this process. Indeed,
contrary to the WSF, whose underlying idea of the experience of PB is
social transformation of which the best example is Porto Alegre, in the
case of international organizations, this dimension is smaller. The trans-
lation is present, be it in developing the first manuals of the UMP-LAC,
which codified FAQs about PB, for example, or the translation of the
book by Tarso Genro about Porto Alegre. The production of manuals
in English also contributed towards international diffusion. The techni-
cal part is prominent, but there are other models which gain attention,
many of them based on concrete experiences while others are developed
by World Bank staff or consultants in its projects. PB was translated
for international organizations as an instrument of urban management.
The emphases given to PB by international organizations are several.
To exemplify, there is an association between PB and the promotion
of Agenda-21 which is conducted by the UN. For its part, the EU rec-
ognized the importance of co-operation and of international exchange
between cities. In this case, however, such as with municipalities which
operationalized transfers and international co-operation, the political
dimension of PB in its relation between municipalities could be stronger
or weaker, in accordance with who co-ordinated the network. In the case
of Cotacachi, for example, the co-ordinator of the network on multi-eth-
nic and plural-cultural PB, another member city abandoned the project,
due to the change in political direction of the government, which limited
cooperation. The World Bank highlighted the fight against corruption
as one of the positive outcomes of PB and conducted a distillation of
the ideological content of PB, to make it more technical and easy to
reproduce. In short, international organizations made PB more techni-

cal. This element facilitated its circulation in different contexts, either in
the case of the Balkans or in sub-Saharan Africa. It is certain that it is not
possible to generalize this vision of PB, as a technical instrument, to all
individuals who were promoting it within each institution, but it can be
seen as a general institutional trend.
If the WSF is closer to the ideas of networks discussed in the previous
chapter, along with the RDD and FLA, there is a distinction in relation
to international organizations. Even so, this does not exclude the fact that
teams from UMP-LAC and the World Bank appeared at events on PB
organized by local authorities in Porto Alegre during the 1990s such as
ISPD. International circulation transformed the idea of PB, which takes
on other connotations when it is adopted in local contexts. In the next
part of the book, we will present two movements of regional adoption
of PB: the first in Andean America and the second in Sub-Saharan Africa.
We will see how individuals and international institutions connected and
permeated the process of international diffusion.
The mechanism of induction can be identified as an incentive through
declarations, manuals and other documents of international organizations.
To exemplify, this is clear in two passages in the section with respect to
the World Bank which recommended the adoption of PB, which say that
Mozambique should learn from PB in Brazil and also when it is affirmed
that cities should encourage partnerships to bring, with dynamism, civil
society and governments such as that of Porto Alegre. In turn, the mecha-
nism also operates through direct financing of co-operation for transfers
of know-how between experiences, on the one hand, and to directly carry
experiences such as Mozambique and Madagascar, on the other, as will be
described in the chapter on Sub-Saharan Africa.
The mechanism of international co-operation is active and, in this chap-
ter, was revealed with the relations established through protocols and par-
ticipation in programmes of co-operation with international institutions.
The URB-AL is the most visible programme in this sense. The mechanism
of networking, although presented in a synthetic form, is central to the
events organized in Porto Alegre and in other parts of the world such as
ISPD where staff from the UN and the World Bank were present, and
also in the workshop in Durban. The most emblematic is certainly the
WSF, in its different editions and in the ways it brought together millions
of individuals, social movements and institutions, especially NGOs and
people around a central theme of the “hope that another world is pos-
sible”—more inclusive and democratic.
NOTES
1. Expression used by Archon Fung e Erik O. Wright from project
Real Utopias.
4. Cf. Baierle (2007).
5. Diverse interviews conducted between June 2007 and November
2011, with teams which operated during the governance of PT in
Porto Alegre confirming this.
7. Interviews with teams from the public administration of Belo
Horizonte, 2013; Cotacachi, 2012; Kivu do Sul, 2012.
8. UNICEF financed one of the first trips for members of civil society
of Cotacachi for training in Porto Alegre, a programme which intro-
duced the first experiences of PB to Cape Verde, and a programme
for PB for children in Senegal. UNIFEM was active in the Dominican
Republic. PNUD supported some of the experiences in Africa.
9. The relation of PB as an instrument to promote PDMs is system-
atically mentioned in the prefaces of manuals produced by the UN.
10. Interview, videoconference, São Paulo/Curitiba, 2012.
11. Respectively, the regional office for Africa in Abidjan, Ivory coast,
and the sub-regional office for the east and south-east of Africa in
Johannesburg, South Africa; the Regional office for South Asia in
New Delhi, India; the regional office for the Arab states in Cairo,
Egypt; and the regional office for Latin America and the Caribbean
in Quito, Ecuador. See UN-HABITAT: http://www.unhabitat.
org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=374&cid=185, consulted on 7
March 2013.
12. Cearah Periferia was also a project which received an award for
good practice from the UN in 1996.
13. Interview, Dakar, 2012.
14. Interview, Quito, 2012.
15. Borrowed expression from Finnemore (1993) “Teachers of norms”.
17. In France Saint-Denis became a pioneer by signing a protocol of
intentions with Porto Alegre in 1998 looking at the transference of
PB. In Portugal, this practice also happened between Portuguese
and Mozambique municipalities (informal conversation with Nelson
Dias, coordinator of Portuguese NGO, In Loco, 2013).
18. Interview, Quito, 2012, translated from the original in Spanish “si
algún éxito tuvo este programa fue haber promovido el Presupuesto
Participativo a nivel regional y a nivel global”.
20. Ibid.
21. Interview, videoconference São Paulo/Curitiba, 2012.
22. Declaration from one of our interviews in Paris, 2007.
23. Interview.
26. Interview with one of those responsible for the URB-AL pro-
gramme in the Municipal government of Porto Alegre, Porto
Alegre, 2011.
27. See URBAL Case Studies: R9-A6-04.
28. Interview, Quito, 2012; Belo Horizonte, 2013.
29. In May of the same year the case of PB from Porto Alegre had been
presented in a regional workshop on public administration spon-
sored by various international institutions: the World Bank and the
OEA, the Spanish agency for international co-operation.
30. The Institute of Economic Development was founded in 1955 and
since 2000 is called the World Bank Institute. Activities of compe-
tence are involved in producing and disseminating know-how, and
among other activities are the publication of information material
and carrying out training courses (http://wbi.worldbank.org/
wbi/about/strategy, consulted on 29 August 2013).
31. Zander Navarro. “Report International Seminar on Participatory
Budgeting.” Porto Alegre. Document undated. 11 p.
33. Interviews and comments from specialists, in Porto Alegre and
Brasília. With respect to this last one, see CEBRAP, 2011.
34. Original in English “shift government authority closer to the peo-
ple” (Peterson 1997, p. 13).
35. Interview, Washington, 2013.
36. Book produced from seminar (Becker 2000).
37. Interview with a staff from the World Bank Institute, Washington,
2013.
38. Interview with teams of the World Bank Institute, Washington,
2013.

43. Various interviews with political and technical teams from
Mozambique and Madagascar on this subject.
44. Interview with Jorge Mesinas Montero, Minister for Economics
and Finance of Peru, in Lima, 2013.
REFERENCES
Avritzer, L., & Wampler, B. (2008). The Expansion of Participatory Budgeting in
Brazil: An Analysis of the Successful Cases Based upon Design and Socio-economic
Indicators. Report.
Baierle, S. (2007). Atire no cidadão, salve o freguês: Orçamento Participativo e
cidadania nua. Soberania Popular. Disponível em: http://www.ongcidade.org/
site/php/Revista/revista.php?texto=baierlept, consulted on October 2013.
Baudelocq, Y., Porto de Oliveira, O., & Ortega, A. (2007). Dossier Urbal. IHEAL,
Unpublished document.
Becker, A. J. (2000). A cidade reinventa a democracia. Porto Alegre: Prefeitura
Municipal de Porto Alegre.
Cabannes, Y. (2006). Les budgets participatifs en Amérique latine: de Porto
Alegre à l’Amérique Centrale, en passant par la zone andine, tendances, défis et
limites. Mouvements, (47/48), 128–138.
Cling, J. P., et al. (2011). La Banque mondiale, entre transformations et résilience.
Critique Internationale, 4(53), 43–65.
Fernandes, J. H. P. (2000). Porto Alegre: processo, projeto e inserção internacio-
nal. In R. A. Pont (Coord.) & A. Barcelos (Org.), Porto Alegre: uma cidade que
conquista: a terceira gestão do PT no governo municipal (pp. 45–54). Porto
Finnemore, M. (1993). International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The
United Nations Educational, Scientifica, and Cutural Organization and Science
Policy. International Organization, 47(4), 565–597.
Pereira, J. M. M. (2010). O Banco Mundial como ator político intelectual e finan-
ceiro: 1944–2008. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Peterson, G. E. (1997). Decentralization in Latin America: Learning through
Experience. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
IHEAL/CREDA.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2013a). As dinâmicas da difusão do Orçamento Participativo
na África Subsaariana: de Dakar a Maputo. In N. Dias (Coord.), Esperança
democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no Mundo (pp. 87–98).
Lisboa: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Programa de Gestão Urbana. (2001). I Seminário Internacional sobre o Orçamento
Participativo. Quito, s/p.
Ramonet, I. (2001, janeiro de). Le Monde Diplomatique.
Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008d). Les Budgets Participatifs en
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Aprendendo com o Sul: O
Orçamento Participativo no mundo – um convite à cooperação global. Bonn:
Engagement Global.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Allegretti, G. (2013). Participatory Budgeting
Worldwide – Updated Version. Dialog Global Study, Study No. 25. Bonn:
Engagement Global.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2013). Modelos transnacionais de par-
ticipação cidadã: o caso do OP. In N. Dias (Org.), Esperança Democrática: 25
anos de Orçamento Participativo no Mundo (pp. 26–44). São Brás de Alportel:
Editora In Loco.
Talpin, J., & Sintomer, Y. (Dir.). (2011a). La démocratie participative au-déla de
la proximité: le Poitou-Charentes et l’échelle regional (pp. 145–160). Rennes:
Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Utzig, J. E., & Guimaraens, R. (1996). Democracia e participação popular na
esfera pública: a experiência de Porto Alegre. In Bonduki (Org.), Habitat: As
práticas bem sucedidas em habitação, meio ambiente e gestão urbana nas cidades
brasileiras (pp. 51–65). São Paulo: Studio Nobel.
Wampler, B. (2008). A difusão do Orçamento Participativo brasileiro: “boas práti-
cas” devem ser promovidas? Opinião Pública, 14(1), 65–95.
World Bank. (2009). Municipal Development in Mozambique: Lessons from the First
Decade. Volume I: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
PART III
Effects
CHAPTER 6
Mosaics of Participation: Participatory

Budgeting in Andean America and Transfers
on a National Scale
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Experiences with popular participation at a local level, much like self-
management practices, expanded between 1980 and 1990 in Latin
America. The community known as Villa El Salvador, in Peru, become
internationally renowned for its experiences in self-management, and
in 1987 it received the “United Nations Messengers of Peace” award.
In Ecuador, with the rise of the municipal power of several mayors of
indigenous descent presenting progressive proposals, hybrid experiences
came about, such as that in Cotacachi, associating traditional participatory
practices with institutional innovations. The adoption of Participatory
Budgeting (PB) in the Andean region spread on progressively as of the
year 2000, complementing or replacing pre-existing practices, building up
in these constant, genuine mosaics of participation.
This chapter covers the diffusion of PB in two Andean countries. The
expansion of PB throughout this region was an important milestone in
such a diffusion process, as it consolidated a range of “best practices” for
PB. Peru became an emblematic case since it was there that a pioneering
case of transfer took place on a national scale. This led to PB being consid-
ered a policy of the State, and institutionalized by law. If in Bolivia, in 1997,
a national law had already been implemented on participation, in Peru
the norms were more specific, since, as of 2003, it was determined that
all municipalities and regions conduct PB. The effect of this institutional
induction has produced the equivalent of 1838 cases today. The Dominican

Republic, in Central America, in 2007, sanctioned a similar law that created

a municipal PB System in the country.
Ecuador followed in the same footsteps as Peru and the Dominican
Republic, but took a more ambitious step forward. In this case, PB was
included at the country’s highest hierarchical and normative level: the
Constitution, enacted in 2008. This produced an unprecedented norma-
tive experience within the realm of social participation. The constitutional
provision was complemented by the law on citizens’ participation in 2010,
which boosted a massive expansion of PB. Shortly after this the Dominican
Republic also included PB in its Constitution.
The analysis of the diffusion of PB in the Andean region in this chapter
takes into account two specific cases: Villa El Salvador, in Peru, and Santa
Ana de Cotacachi, simply known as Cotacachi, in Ecuador. Situated in the
metropolitan region of Lima, Villa El Salvador was an area that was occu-
pied in 1971 and, which around ten years later, became a municipality,
with some 400,000 inhabitants today. PB was implemented in 2000 and, a
few years later, it served as an example to develop a nationwide PB model.
The semi-rural collectivity in Cotacachi, located some 150 km from the
capital Quito, implemented PB in the beginning of the 2000s, adapting
the Porto Alegre model to meet the multi-ethnic and pluri-cultural char-
acteristics of its own society. The achievements and innovations of the
Cotacachi PB made the municipality an international example.
The diffusion dynamics work from “the bottom up”, beginning with
local experiences which develop PB processes that reach the State. Once
this State level has been achieved, experiences increase abundantly. The
transfer to a national scale was specific within each of these two countries.
The processes, while different in their movements, present some similari-
ties regarding the diffusion path. The initiative to adopt PB arose within
a context of political change and the local authorities played a key role.
The proximity with the UMP-LAC, based in Quito, helped the transfer
in both cities, and the relations with Porto Alegre were an inspiration for
the experiences. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are crucial in
helping with the technical side, and international co-operation also played
an important supportive role.
A range of mechanisms were identified in the PB diffusion in Andean
America: capacity-building of local teams in participatory governance;
international co-operation; international organizations’ external scanning
of experiences; the construction of prestige of the experiences through
awards for good practices; networking while organizing events; institutional
circulation of individuals; renewed politics; the transfer to a national scale;
MOSAICS OF PARTICIPATION: PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING IN ANDEAN... 171
directed induction, as a recommendation for the adoption of PB and coer-

cive, through the law; leadership through Peru’s pioneering experience.
This chapter is divided into two large sections on the transfer of PB,
respectively, in Peru and in Ecuador. Each section comprises sub-sections
that outline the transfer process on two levels. The text presents the two
processes, introducing the genesis of social participation policies, which is
followed by the transfer of PB from Porto Alegre to a local context and,
lastly, nationwide.
6.2 FROM THE “VILLA”1 TO THE STATE:

THE NATIONAL AMBITION OF PB IN PERU
The city of Villa El Salvador represents a pioneering experience with PB in
the Andes. To understand the participatory experience in Villa El Salvador, it
is necessary to return to its beginnings. In the construction of this municipal-
ity, in the outskirts of Lima, its self-management experience, the community
participation and resistance had given the city an international recognition.
In 1987, Villa El Salvador received the award formerly known as the “Prince
of Asturias” from Spain. Throughout this period, the efforts made by Mayor
Michel Azcueta were important in creating the basis for PB transfer.
The participatory governance policy from Porto Alegre was introduced
in 2000, by means of an initiative put forth by the then mayor, Martin
Pumar, who followed a line of government that was progressively lay-
ing the groundwork for participation. Adopting PB in Villa El Salvador
revealed the dynamics of an international transfer, from Porto Alegre, fol-
lowed by a transfer on an internal level, with the creation of a national law
in 2003. The process is marked by the participation of actors from several
national and international institutions, which each adapted PB to suit their
own needs. This section describes the transfer of PB on two levels in Peru.
6.2.1 Villa El Salvador: Occupation, Self-Management and

Resistance in the Lima Desert
Because we have nothing, we will do everything…
Motto in Villa El Salvador
At the beginning of 1971, during the military regime under General

Velasco, whose political tendency was socialist, a group of occupations took
place in the southern outskirts of Peru’s capital, Lima. Improvising make-
shift sleeping quarters with straw mats initially close to some 100 families
settled in the region known as Pamplona. More families began to arrive

hour after hour. The military government repressed the occupation in an
operation that left one person dead and several injured. The episode became
a national scandal and gave rise to an internal crisis within the government,
resulting in the dismissal of the Minister of the Interior. Days later, the
military government, after reaching an agreement with civil society, solved
the issue by resettling these families in a nearby desert-like region. Army
trucks helped relocate the families to another area, in the region known as
“Hoyada Baja de la Tablada de Lurín”. It was in this place on 11 May that
Villa El Salvador was founded, located some 26 km from Lima.2
The government had said they would offer the necessary support
to settle the new inhabitants, so as to build a model city for the poor
(Bocanegra 2009, p. 93). According to Ramiro Garcia, General Velasco
charged a young engineer by the name of Fernando Romero, with the task
of designing a project for a self-managed city, not merely constructing a
town in which to sleep.3 The structure in Villa El Salvador was planned
“block-by-block”, affirms Jo-Maire Burt (1999, p. 273). The government
helped to develop territorial occupation and began implementing an orga-
nizational model of self-management. The city was planned into 24 family
lots, each with 16 houses, which were residential groups, systematized
into several sectors.
In 1973 the Comunidad Urbana Autogestionada de Villa El Salvador
(Self-managed Urban Community of Villa El Salvador, CUAVES) was
founded. This was a “central governmental body, […] which was to super-
vise the development within the community and would represent it when
dealing with the government and other external agencies” (Burt 1999,
p. 273). According to Nelly Pomar Ampuero,
[i]n each of these levels of organization, the population has direct mech-
anisms for communal participation so as to decide on accords and run
activities related to developing their community. Even so, each level of orga-
nization has its own guideline committee which is elected in an assembly.
The sectors provide delegates with credentials from the CUAVES commu-
nity. (Ampuero 1997, p. 135)
In Villa El Salvador, one of the most important self-management experi-

ences in the history of Peru, and maybe in Latin America, took place.
Effectively, the region is consecrated as an example of a well-organized
community, with dynamic social alliances and where democratic participa-
tion was a prerogative. The initial support offered by the Velasco Alvarado
government to Villa El Salvador was abandoned in 1975, when there was
a coup d’état led by Francisco Morales Bermudez, who was much more
aggressive with popular sectors. The military regime became more and
more conservative and led to the rise of political movements such as the
“new left”, which gained space in Villa El Salvador (Burt 1999, p. 274).
What happened, according to Jo-Marie Burt, is that, essentially,
the neighbourhood originally designed to be the urban showcase for Juan

Velasco Alvarado’s military government, Villa El Salvador became a centre
of popular left-wing organization against Moralez Bermúdez conservative
government. The broad network of popular organizations in the district
was not only an opposing force against the government, but also a centre
for large-scale communal efforts to resolve local problems based on mutual
help. (Burt 1999, p. 265)
The author also affirms that Villa El Salvador had a broad network of
social organizations (1999, p. 265).
It is from within this context that one of the main leaders took the
stage, Professor Michel Azcueta, a Spanish immigrant, who in the 1970s
mobilized and organized society, to claim and obtain basic public services
from the government (Ampuero 1997). In May 1983, Decree No. 23605
created the district Villa El Salvador. Elections were slated for November
in the same year and the first mayor elected was Michel Azcueta. He stayed
in office for two terms (1983–1986 and 1986–1989), was re-elected and
held the post once again between 1996 and 1999.
Michel Azcueta’s administration was marked by the commitment to
the left-wing model and popular participation. The mayor encouraged
the creation of new community organizations and helped strengthen local
NGOs, through international financing for several technical capacity-
building projects (Burt 1999, p. 285). As of the 1980s, women’s orga-
nizations began to play a more important role in the city. Poverty was
getting worse, and organizations were seeking solutions. These orga-
nizations began to gain more and more strength4 and broke their ties
with CUAVES, giving rise to the Federacion Popular de Mujeres de Villa
El Salvador (FEPOMUVES, Women’s Popular Federation of Villa El
Salvador), led by María Elena Moyano. Besides encouraging associations,
the mayor received national and international assistance to implement the
Villa El Salvador Industrial Park, where some 200 small entrepreneurs set
up their businesses (Burt 1999, p. 285).
In the 1989 elections, Michel Azcueta launched José Rodrigues,

known as Jonny Rodrigues, as a candidate for mayor and he won. María
Elena Moyano was elected deputy mayor. This was a time when govern-
ing was complicated and tense in Villa El Salvador. In the same year when
Brazil was running its first electoral campaigns for the direct election of
the President of the Republic, after the military coup in 1964, the then
candidate for the Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula
da Silva, Lula, visited Villa El Salvador. He also met with Mayor Michel
Azcueta, who established ties with progressive leaders in other countries.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the Maoist movement in Peru, known
as the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), began leaving the rural hinter-
lands and moving into urban areas, setting their sight on the capital. The
aim was Lima where, between 1991 and 1992, there were several attacks
(Burt 1999, p. 266). The outskirts of the capital together with Villa El
Salvador, in particular, were strategic regions for taking control of Lima.
The Shining Path infiltrated Villa El Salvador at this time, which was in
fact a symbol for the “revisionary left”, due to its organizational practices
and social participation, and was to be eliminated (Burt 1999, p. 266).
The fact that Shining Path was in the region instilled an environment of
fear and insecurity in Villa El Salvador. Threats were constantly made against
Michel Azcueta’s group.5 According to Jo-Marie Burt “the presence of the
Shining Path in Villa had become decidedly more aggressive and of high
profile. A campaign was started to intimidate and eliminate local authori-
ties” (1999, p. 287). María Elena Moyano became one of the most heated
critics of the actions orchestrated by the Shining Path. After calling on the
organizations in Villa El Salvador to take part in a public demonstration
against the Maoist group, she was assassinated. Ramiro Garcia affirms that
there were several people at her funeral. People came from all over Peru for
the occasion.6 Shortly after when Alberto Fujimori was in office, the leader
of the Shining Path was captured and a peace agreement was struck, ceas-
ing the extreme violence that had been wrought throughout the country.
6.2.2 The Transfer of PB from Porto Alegre

Everything we did in Villa El Salvador went right.
An international consultant
With Fujimori at the helm, at the same time that the Shining Path was
ceasing its violence and social policies were being implemented, there
were also macro-economic structural adjustments under way which even-

tually led to a significant rise in inflation and corruption in Peru.
The community experience and self-management, as well as the years
under Michel Azcueta’s administration, had introduced participation as
a component of society in Villa El Salvador. In 1999, at 28 years of age,
Martin Pumar was elected mayor. The young mayor insisted on renew-
ing the municipal policy. Among the proposals made during his mandate
was the idea to strengthen participation by launching a third Integral
Development Plan (IDP), followed by implementing PB.
The first IDP in Villa El Salvador took place in the mid-1970s. It
sought to provide work supplies and raw materials, aimed at constructing
an industrial city, under the motto “first the factories, then the houses”,
while the second plan was run in the mid-1980s, with the slogan “Villa El
Salvador: Productive City” (Hordijk 2002, p. 12).
The first plan was established by and between the CUAVES and the
State and took place before Villa El Salvador had become a municipality.
In the words of Ramiro Garcia, “this first plan was set up by the CUAVES
and the government, they ran it together, because they had plans to pave
the streets, build hospitals, construct health clinics and schools”.7 The
second plan took place during the Michel Azcueta administration. It was a
process that began at City Hall. The plan was essentially aimed at fostering
“economic development by boosting micro-companies and setting up the
industrial park […] and it sought to strengthen Municipal Administration”
(Villa El Salvador 2002, p. 5). Villa El Salvador had become a municipality
and its development had brought with it new issues for the city, as Ramiro
Garcia describes:
Michel Azcueta, when he won the election, considered it as the new plan,
there was no mention of the second plan, it was referred as the new plan for
Villa El Salvador, after a decade and it was made by the city council, with its
technical team […] which involved many who had been educated in what
was before the CUAVES. […] So, they put together a plan that focused
on Villa El Salvador […] and […] where they had to think of the youth,
food, the industrial park […] not worrying about the implementation of
large-scale industry, […] but rather concerned with small and medium-sized
industry in Villa El Salvador.8
During the Michel Azcueta government, there was a period for prepara-
tion and raising awareness, between 1996 and 1998, when Martín Pumar
was a member on the municipal council in charge of the IDP (Echegaray

and Marulanda 2001, p. 19). As of 1998, a Technical Planning Committee
was set up, comprising one leader, one special steward, a city council rep-
resentative, a team with four staff members from the municipal adminis-
tration and two NGOs, namely DESCO and CALANDRIA.
One year later, with Martín Pumar in office, the third plan was put into
practice. Concerning the national plan, Fujimori’s government was draw-
ing to an end and was at its most aggressive and authoritarian stage, with
influence in the media and in the judiciary.
Within this context, Martín Pumar introduced the IDP focusing on
social participation. The aim was to develop a “City Plan, designed by the
citizens”.9 Over the year, there was a cycle of varying activities held within
the scope of the plan. There were mostly participatory workshops and
public hearings, in which diagnosis was made on several aspects in Villa El
Salvador. This helped establish a strategy for the municipality.10
Initially, a public debate was called. Following that, the district was
divided into eight work zones, where local workshops were conducted.
In each period, workshops on varying topics were held. This was accom-
panied by street surveys and a specific forum for women, organized by
FEPOMUVES. Prior to ending the cycle, proposals were summarized
on 11 September 1999, and a door-to-door survey was run in Villa El
Salvador. In a follow-up meeting, the management plan was decided
(Echegaray and Marulanda 2001).
PB was implemented in the following year as an experiment, initially
inspired by Porto Alegre. Ramiro Garcia, who took part in the pro-
cess, explains that first the IDP had been designed and then took place.
However, there was still the need for a methodology to discuss the matters
related to the public budget. That is when they sought out the experience
in Porto Alegre. In the words of the DESCO NGO staff member, Ramiro
Garcia, the process took place as follows:
[W]e set up a sort of technical team, […] the local government called us
in, the NGOs that worked in the district to set up a technical team for this
whole process. […] So, there were ran surveys with citizens on these issues,
which later helped structure the Participatory Budgeting process. Because
the final questions was “Ah! We already have a vision, we have a focus. And
what do we do now with this plan, where do the budgets come from?” And
on his way out the mayor said “Well, there is a Participatory Budget in
Porto Alegre […] let’s use this mechanism, in which the people discuss
a part of the budget” and that is where, for example, in Desco we said
“well, how interesting, Porto Alegre, come on!” we’ll hold an international
forum on Participatory Budgeting. [Our highlight]11
The description offered by former mayor Martín Pumar, during the I

International Meeting on Participatory Budgeting (IMPB), is similar to
that painted by Ramiro Garcia and corroborates a large part of the affirma-
tions, as we can see in the text below:
With our third Development Plan approved, we asked the question: Now
that we have a Development Plan, how can we run it democratically?
Because, quite often, participation is understood as “fostering what the
people have given an opinion on”, but nothing more. When it comes to
making decisions, the population is often forgotten and a smaller group of
people begin to decide things in accordance with their own criteria. So we
came up with the idea for a Participatory Budgeting, which does not mean
just democratic procedures, so that the population can decide on public
spending, on municipal budgets, but also to make decisions based on our
development plan. (PGU-ALC 2000, unpaged document)
The PB was to be part of the IDP as an instrument that could heighten

the dynamics of the planning process (Echegaray and Marulanda 2001,
6). The UMP-LAC sponsored an international meeting aimed at bring-
ing together a variety of international experiences with PB (Urban
Management Program 2001, unpaged document). This was the First
International Forum on Participatory Budgeting (IEPB), organized by
the Villa El Salvador City Council, DESCO and the Escuela Mayor de
Gestion Municipal (Superior Municipal Management School). Ramiro
Garcia describes the process:
We held a meeting in Villa El Salvador with the UMP. The mayor of

Cotacachi came here, if I am not mistaken. They also came from Mexico,
Porto Alegre, […] Montevideo, to tell how they conducted their
Participatory Budgeting, telling the leaders in Villa El Salvador. So, with
all this information from the “First International Meeting on Participatory
Budgeting” we began putting together a technical team to accompany the
local government to design the procedures for Villa El Salvador’s budget.
[…] This forum, as I commented, came from the need to understand and
learn what a Participatory Budgeting was, that it was not only about redis-
tributing the State budget, so the population could make decisions, it was
more complex because implementing the Development Plan called for

the population to take part. This event was organized by Desco and the
Municipality of Villa El Salvador. It was coordinated by Yves [Cabannes],
when he was in the UMP and […] it was defined with them who could be
invited. So there was coordination between Yves [Cabannes] and Gustavo
Río Frio, who was one of the people working in the Villa El Salvador office
for Desco and who organized and mapped out the experiences underway,
who was key in bringing it for Villa El Salvador to know. […] It was called
the first international event because it was ambitious, we didn’t know there
would be a law in 2003.12
The programme for the meeting held between 31 August and 2 September
2000 included presentations by representatives from Villa El Salvador,
Porto Alegre, Santo André, Montevideo and Guyana City. Besides these
individual presentations, there were four PB work groups.13 Implementing
PB in Villa El Salvador involved a learning process based on the original
experience in Porto Alegre and others, and one of the transfer areas was
the IMPB. The aim of Mayor Martín Pumar in this seminar was to gather
ideas from more advanced experiences to build PB in Villa El Salvador.
According to the report produced after the IMPB, he said:
There is something we learned in Villa El Salvador and I have always

said and we have always commented on this to many leaders. If I want
to be a good soccer player, I have to learn from the best soccer player, if
someone wants to be the best civil servant, they have to learn from the
best municipal civil servant and if someone wants to be a good mayor,
they have to learn from the best municipalities that we have here. For
this reason we have invited the best municipalities so they can accompany
us in this process of articulation. (Urban Management Program 2001,
unpaged document)
At the event, it was still not clear that PB could become a national law;
nor was there, on any written record, any proposal to do so. The PB in
Villa El Salvador was not the only one at that moment. There were other
important experiences under way, in particular, in the municipality known
as Ilo in the south of the country and in Limatambo in the Cusco prov-
ince. The PB in Villa El Salvador was a template for the bill, and its success
was the justification for creating a norm which was approved in 2003, and
was implemented in the following year.
6.2.3 Villa El Salvador and the Large-Scale Transfer:

Creating a National Law
The Participatory Budgeting Law (Ley Marco de Presupuesto Participativo)
No. 28056 and its respective regulations—that were approved in the
Supreme Decree No. 171-2003/EF in Peru in 2003—established the first
legislation making PB a national law. The transfer to a national scale was
due partly to the experience in Villa El Salvador and in Ilo, which were the
pioneering municipalities in PB and opened the gateway for the country’s
legislation. In turn, politicians, national institutions, NGOs and interna-
tional co-operation agencies were also involved in the process.
Peru’s political context in the 2000s was important to understand the
genesis of PB in the country, as well as the transfer to a national scale.
President Alberto Fujimori’s administration was marred by his centraliza-
tion of power and non-stop corruption, and left the country in a serious
economic crisis. The new president, Alejandro Toledo, who took office
in 2001, began to implement all-encompassing reforms, which included,
among many other aims, restructuring the law on decentralization.
According to Michaela Hordijk, introducing PB through a national law
was part of this initiative (Hordijk 2009). The process also had its share
of conflict and dispute between individuals and institutions. The author
summarizes a group of key actors that were involved in this movement, as
can be seen in the following excerpt:
Although one could roughly say that PB promoters were to be found

among left-wing politicians – the former IU [Izquierda Unida] mayor of Ilo
being one of the catalysts behind the law – and its opponents from the right,
this division was by no means clear-cut. Opponents argued that PBs would
undermine the institutions of representative democracy. Within the state
bureaucracy, there were protagonists and antagonists, with the Directorate
General for the Budget of the Ministry of Economy […] [which] even
started pilot projects in Participatory Budgets at the regional level in 2002,
even before the relevant laws were adopted. (Hordijk 2009, passim)
Actors like the former mayor from Ilo, mentioned above, were important
in bringing the PB into Congress. This evidence is offered in more than
just one interview. In fact, Michaela Hordjik (2005, p. 223) mentions
another former mayor who had experimented with participatory gov-
ernance policies in his municipality, and was later elected into National
Congress. While carrying out our interviews, it was possible to note this
internal movement within Congress:
The Ministry of Economics and Finances, controlling the budgets, put forth
an idea to foster the participation of citizens in the planning stage and sent a
bill to Congress for approval […] there were several former mayors that had
promoted the idea of participation, including the former mayor from Ilo. So
they were looking for a new outline for participation, in the new municipal
law and they took Participatory Budgeting.14
Ernesto Becerra was part of Ilo’s executive administration for four consec-
utive terms, spanning from 1990 to 2001. PB was adopted in this munic-
ipality beforehand in comparison to the Peruvian context, even before
Villa El Salvador, in 1999, within the scope of a broader programme,
the Sustainable Development Plan (Plan de Desarrollo Sustentable—PDS),
aiming to programme longer-term development between 2001 and 2015
(Ilo, undated, unpaged document), in a similar fashion to what happened
in Villa El Salvador. In 2001, Ernesto Becerra was elected into the Federal
Congress, taking office in July.15
Between 5 and 6 February 2002, in the year following the first IMPB, the
Peruvian Congress held the International Seminar entitled Participatory
Budgeting and Local Governments (Presupuesto Participativo y gobiernos
locales). Organized by the NGO Foro Ciudades Para la Vida, and with
support from the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID).16 The event was inaugurated by the president of Congress and
ended with a speech made by the First Vice-President of the Legislative
Branch, Henry Paese Garcia, who insisted on the fact that Peru and its
politicians
will need to muster much willpower to leave behind the habits of old style
and to advance the renewal of democracy incorporating the decisions of
civil society. This is an example of participatory democracy which is neither
against nor in conflict with representativeness. (Foro 2002, p. 2)
One can see in Henry Garcia’s speech that the PB falls within the context
of a will to leave behind anti-democratic practices moving towards partici-
pation. The incentive to adopt PB on a national scale also had the support
of international institutions, with representatives scheduled to talk at the
event.
The programme included presentations by the director of USAID, by

Yves Cabannes, Michaela Hordijk from Amsterdam University and several
representatives from municipalities in Peru, Argentina and Brazil (Porto
Alegre and Santo André). The seminar had 362 participants, including
mayors, congressmen, NGO representatives and others (Foro 2002, p. 3).
The event became a space for work and reflection on PB17 and also sought
to produce norms, in the sense that it was claiming implementation. In
the terms presented in the Public Declaration produced after the event,
the Central Government, municipalities, NGOs and all citizens are recom-
mended to guarantee that
reforms of the Political Constitution and the law on decentralization,

regional and local government incorporate the mandatory principle to
gradually implement Participatory Budgets, outlined in the revised “Local
Development Plan”, including a revocation mechanism should this not
entail the participation and surveillance of civil society. (Foro 2002, p. 10)
Effectively, within the national institutions, the organ that led the proj-
ect was the Ministry of Economics and Finances (MEF). It is a technical
organ, with an agenda aimed at improving the quality of public spending
and fiscal transparency. Since 2002, the MEF had already begun imple-
menting pilot PB experiences in Peru (McNulty 2012, p. 7; Hordijk 2009,
p. 48). According to Stephanie McNulty, it was the MEF that designed
the programme, (2012, p. 7). In 2004, the MEF enacted the norms regu-
lating the application of PB in Peru through the Directorial Resolution
No. 010-2004-EF/76.01, which approves the Instruction for the Revised
Planning Process and Participatory Budgeting (Instructivo para el Proceso
de Planeamento del Desarrollo Concertado y Presupuesto Participativo)
(Propuesta Ciudadana, 2004, unpaged document). The device outlines
the principles behind the revised general planning and the PB, how to
co-ordinate between plans and PB, as well as proposing a system to opera-
tionalize the process.
The transfer of PB to a national scale in Peru is the first experience of
this nature in Latin America. This movement inspired other similar poli-
cies, such as in the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. It is worth men-
tioning that in Senegal, as will be outlined in the chapter on PB diffusion
in Sub-Saharan Africa, the central government authorities considered tak-
ing on a national PB law, even sending out a press release to the media.
However, the project was abandoned. Peru’s pioneering efforts were an

example for other governments that aspired to move in the same direction.
6.3 SANTA ANA DE COTACACHI: THE MULTI-ETHNIC

AND PLURI-CULTURAL PB
AMA KILLA, AMA LULLA, AMA SHWA.
From Quichuan: do not be idle, do not be a liar, do

not be a thief (Slogan for the political programme
run by Auki Tituaña)18
The city of Cotacachi stands apart from the myriad of PB transfers,

because, much like Villa El Salvador, it is a pioneering case in the Andes.
With revenues of close to US$ 2 million (in 2005),19 the semi-rural
municipality, situated 132 km to the north of Quito, among the majestic
volcanoes (Imbabura and Cotacachi), in the Province of Imbabura, has
approximately 37,000 inhabitants of which almost 80 % live in rural areas.
Despite the small revenues in relation to the size of the city, Cotacachi
won four international awards, of which three were for its policies on par-
ticipatory governance. Moreover, the Cotacachi PB was a model not just
for its own country, Ecuador, but also for the Andean region and some
cities in Europe characterized by their cultural diversity.
To understand the transfer process of the Cotacachi PB, it is important
to return to the first municipal elections held in 1996. The lineage could
stem further back, if you take into account that, in this region of the Andes,
the indigenous people already had a participatory culture with community
decisions by means of the so-called Minga. The starting point for the
lineage of the process is the arrival of Auki Tituaña in office. Following
this, we will present the transfer of PB from Porto Alegre and, lastly, the
process that took it across the nation. The transfer process is made up of
a complex set of interactions between local civil society, individuals and
international co-operation agencies.
6.3.1 A Generation of Indigenous Politicians and the

Institutionalization of Participatory Governance
PB was implemented in Cotacachi during Auki Tituaña Males’ man-
date, the first indigenous mayor elected in Ecuador as a representative
of the Pachakutik Movement, in particular, and one of the first in the
country’s history. Auki Tituaña took office in City Hall in 1996, shortly
after the movement he represented had been created, leaving the post
in 2009. The former mayor declared himself a “Quíchua, the age-old
people of Ecuador”.20 Despite his origins, Auki Tituaña has a history of
international circulation that stands out among the indigenous people
of Ecuador.
The former mayor had graduated in Economics in Cuba, where he
had been in 1984, with his wife, who would study Medicine. According
to him, they were both the first to benefit from a scholarship established
between a Quíchua youth organization and the Cuban government. This
programme became an annual possibility in 1986 with the creation of
the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (Ecuador
Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities, CONAIE), fostering univer-
sity graduation for many youths in the movement, while consolidating
relations with the Cuban Communist Party. Besides this, Auki Tituaña was
from an indigenous community, and lived in the urban area, and did not
come from the interior and rural region.
The trip to Cuba characterizes the political standpoint of Auki Tituaña,
who became more familiar with organizational experiences and social par-
ticipation. In his own words:
We had the theoretical foundations for a new society and also the practical
experiences of contrasts between fair social policies […] and the efforts of a
planned economy.21
When he took office, the indigenous mayor hoped to expand dialogue

with society, as well as include indigenous people in politics. To a certain
extent, it was about translating ideas in practice, which were partly about
bringing his experience in Cuba to Cotacachi, as Auki Tituaña himself
explains:
We had the enormous task of bringing them [the theoretical foundations

and practices acquired in Cuba], let’s say, to a micro level, this experience
of an innovative revolutionary process and we were always trying to main-
tain our age-old indigenous roots authentic, and blend with the best part
of political thought in a Latin America level and a world level […] to turn
politics into a service of social construction.22
In Cotacachi, however, there was political will stemming from the gov-
ernmental programme aimed at strengthening democracy. The first step
was taken with the proposal for participatory planning. The mayor took
office in August 1996, and on 11 September, he convened a meeting
between the municipality and its citizens, the First Assembly of Cantonal
Unity. Organized civil society had already implemented, in Cotacachi, the
Unión de Organizaciones Indígenas y Campesinas de Cotacathi (Union
of Peasant and Indigenous Organizations of Cotacachi, UNORCAC).
UNORCAC was created on 19 April 1977, through the leadership of
intellectual indigenous youths in the region, who, in a rural and indig-
enous context, played the role of educators and activists in communities.
Among the members of the organization was Alberto Andrango Bonilla,
the union’s founder (Ortiz Crespo 2004, passim, pp. 67–69), who suc-
ceeded Auki Tituaña in City Hall in Cotacachi in August 2009.23
Alberto Andrango was also of Quíchua origin, and from an early age
was active in defending indigenous rights. An educator and an activ-
ist, he was elected a local Alderman from 1980 to 1984 and, later,
in 1990, in Cotacachi. He was the first indigenous congressman rep-
resenting UNORCAC, where he was president. This mayor was also
vice-president of the National Confederation of Peasant, Negro and
Indigenous Organizations (Fenocin), an important social organization
at a national level connected to Via Campesina, in Latin America, and
connected to the Landless Workers’ Movement in Brazil. Society in
Cotacachi, ever since the 1970s, stood behind the indigenous cause. In
Andrango’s words:
In an intelligent fashion […] working so that the indigenous people here

in Cotacachi can be respected as people, that is, respecting their identity,
their language, their culture, and also requesting to carry out basic public
works for communities, because we had no electricity, no water, no streets,
no schools. We had nothing. So, little by little with this indigenous orga-
nization, UNORCAC began making proposals here in Cotacachi, holding
demonstrations […] and now I can see a lot of change, they treat us equally
and now – something we would never have thought of back in 1977 – we
have indigenous authorities.24
Traditional participation in the indigenous communities is a strong char-

acteristic of this Andean region. Among the many interviews and docu-
ments consulted, what stands out is the practice of Minga, which in
Quíchua means “collective work done in favour of the community” and
in the words of Alberto Andrango, “everyone participates and everyone
benefits […], the Incas taught us that”; the mayor also affirms that
[i]n the indigenous cosmovision – in an innately, naturally way – there is

community life. This is something that the blancos mestizos [half-blood
whites] do not have. In the indigenous world, in its way of thinking and
working, there is community life, we have always lived collectively, mutually
helping each other; in solidarity. This lived in communities. And when we
hold regional meetings, with forty-five communities, this was put into prac-
tice […] and that is why to elect leaders of this organization [we received]
the active participation of each of these forty-five communities. Us well
before Porto Alegre in Brazil have done what is citizen participation, well
before here in Cotacachi have done what is citizen participation, in the com-
munities we were already implementing citizen participation, in an innately
way, for our way of thinking.25
This inclusion of the entire community in issues that mattered to them,

typical in the indigenous culture, helped, according to Andrango, to
involve all sectors in participatory municipal policies. When PB was imple-
mented, Cotacachi was already, therefore, engaged in a broader and more
socially rooted participatory process that, on the one hand, came from
the traditional practices present in the indigenous communities, through
Minga, and that, on the other, was inserted into modern participatory
planning, which was institutionalized in the municipal administration,
having been introduced by the Assembly of Cantonal Unity. PB, conse-
quently, became part of a broader participatory system.
6.3.2 Transferring the Model: Between Social Activism,

Political Will and International Co-operation
I will begin by telling you this: if there is something
that clearly defines what Cotacachi’s Participatory
Budgeting was, it was something that Auki [Tituaña]
once said in one of the meetings we had […] when the
matter of Participatory Budgeting had already become
a general issue. He said that at this moment, it was fairly
common and frequent in the municipalities, for local
governments to put their money on the table. However,
for us, the important was to build the table, you see?
Jaime Vásconez26
Transferring PB in Cotacachi had its own specific logic. There was not
just the mayor’s political will to implement PB, “importing” it from Porto
Alegre. There were at least two other components. There was mobiliza-
tion of civil society to implement PB, as well as support from international
co-operation agencies in terms of technical issues and training. In the

complex movement, it is difficult to establish exactly where this initiative
came from. This section does not aim to reveal the watershed for when it
was adopted, but rather to reproduce the complex web of relations that
took place during the process.
It is true there was a movement to adopt PB and other social par-
ticipation policies in the Andes, in the beginning of the 2000s. The I
International Meeting on Participatory Budgeting was described in the
previous section. This is proof of this tendency, as is the introduction of
the PB in Cuenca in 2001, which was the first municipality in Ecuador to
take it on, in its rural parishes.
The joint efforts of these actors—rooted in civil society, in the gov-
ernment and in international co-operation—helped formalize an innova-
tive model in Cotacachi. The motto for the project put forth by Auki
Tituaña’s government in 1996 was that his municipal administration was
based on three principles from the Andean peoples: “Ama Killa, Ama
Lulla, Ama Shwa”, which in Quíchua means do not be idle, do not be
a liar, do not be a thief (Meyers 2005, p. 9). The participatory gover-
nance policy in the municipality of Cotacachi began in 1996 when the I
Assembly of the Cantonal Unity of Cotacachi was held. The aim was, as
soon as the mayor was elected, to begin an administration that involved
broad political participation and to increase dialogue with society so as
to build guidelines for municipal planning that would listen to the voices
from both parties.
The first Assembly included several organizations, public and pri-
vate institutions and associations for local artists, among others (Meyers
2005, p. 11), and in 2000 there had already been four Assemblies, which
had included representatives from different regions: Andean, Intag,
Subtropical and Urban. In the participatory process held within the scope
of the Assembly, what stood apart was
[t]he elaboration of the document of Strategic Development Guidelines

for Cotacachi, named the Development Plan for Cotacachi, which was
turned into a short, medium and long-term work instrument for civil soci-
ety of the area, especially for municipal administrations; it was flexible to
the changes that arise in the problematic local contexts. The intersectional
Committees for Health, Tourism and Production were consolidated, [and]
the Committees for Environmental Management and Natural Resource
Management, Education and Organization are being set up. (AUCC 2000)
The participatory process was further complemented with workshops,

seminars, forums and exchanging experiences in specific areas. In the early
years, the AUCC approved the Development Plan and created committees
for specific work (Ortiz 2004, p. 125). In 2000, the experience received
the Dubai UN-Habitat award, establishing the first milestone in mak-
ing the experience legitimate and putting Cotacachi on the international
stage.27
The AUCC, with the following elections of Auki Tituaña, developed
and took on an organizational structure of its own. The organization
brought together Civil Society Organizations present throughout the vast
municipal area (cantón) of Cotacachi, which helped weave the social fabric
that was spreading throughout the region.28 The AUCC was consolidated
as a sequence of meetings, with its annual meeting being the apex, but
which was also part of a council on development, the executive organ,
which included representatives from each Civil Society Organization pres-
ent in Cotacachi (a total of 26), as well as representatives for the executive
and the legislative branches, and parish representatives.
After four years of experience with the AUCC, a group of organizations
that took part in the Assemblies began considering the idea of imple-
menting PB, using the Porto Alegre experience as a reference. For Jomar
Seballos, who was part of the AUCC since 1996, the inclination to adopt
the PB came about as follows:
Interviewee: when it was started to hold the assemblies, together with

Mayor Tituaña, it gave rise to the Cantonal Assembly. There
were many forums, debates. So, when citizens were orga-
nized, new challenges were sought out and found. And
there was this thought in which was said that that power lies
in money, which needs to be influenced. So, in an assembly
held by the President of the Federation of Neighbourhoods,
at that moment, Ulpiano Saltos, it was put forward that we
should be using Participatory Budgeting. So, this was taken
on board and we began to work on it […] and Porto Alegre
was a significant influence.
Interviewer: and how did you come to know about the Porto Alegre
experience?
Interviewee: I think we heard about the experience through the CIGU,
which had another name [UMP-LAC] […], Yves Cabannes
and the people which were involved there.29
For Jomar Seballos, the initiative began with organized civil society and
then moving into the government. Yet, he affirms that the experience was
acknowledged through the UMP-LAC and, in particular, through Yves
Cabannes. International co-operation was involved providing support to
several projects in Cotacachi, whether it was with all-encompassing projects
or projects aimed at training and offering capacity-building to civil society.
The Spanish NGO Xarxa de Consum Solidari, for example, offered sup-
port to organizations and had projects allocated to the AUCC, as well as
the UNORCAC.30 This relationship with international co-operation also
meant specific guidelines, because, as Auki Tituaña affirms, “we were also
fighting against co-operation, there were many pro-assistance people, they
wanted to impose their rules on us”.31 While international co-operation
can help train civil society and public administration, it is also marked by
tense relations between the two parties: international agencies, on the one
hand, and NGOs and local governments, on the other.
Mayor Auki Tituaña was at the helm of the executive branch when PB
was implemented. Cotacachi’s international path had already opened up
when it won the first award for “good practices” in urban management,
given by UN-Habitat in 2000 by Dubai city in the United Arab Emirates.
According to Auki Tituaña, it was Jaime Vásconez and Yves Cabannes
who told him about the award, suggesting the city run for it.32 For Jaime
Vásconez, there was a lot of scepticism concerning the award, because
most thought that such a small city would find it difficult to compete on
an international level. Vásconez recalls how the process went:
We told him and encouraged the idea that the city become a candidate [for
the Dubai award]. […] I recall that when the possibility of Cotacachi as a
candidate was mentioned, Yves [Cabannes] had no intention of putting in a
bid. For the same reason of the size [of the city], it could not compete at a
worldwide level. And I insisted on putting in a bid, mostly due to my local
chauvinism. […] So, we put in a bid to become a candidate and we were
surprised they won.33
PB came about after AUCC’s initial success. This was an element that
was aimed at accelerating and reaching social participation in Cotacachi.
Auki Tituaña’s ideology insisted on the importance of organizing society.
There is a conversation between Auki Tituaña and Raul Pont which was
related by the former and shows us the dimension of the ideology behind
the transfer process:
We had heard something about the experience in Porto Alegre and Raul
Pont. However, we wanted to work with citizenship when managing every-
thing that is administration. Because budgets are a tool to basically make
projects feasible, prioritizing works and other things. […] Nevertheless, in
all the societies throughout Latin America and Europe, the actors are simply
voters every four years and they had no protagonism in their own destinies.
We believed in the need for strong social organization. Because, there may
be a budget, like now we have oil coming in from several sources. However,
it is badly invested. […] We worked hard on social organization to cre-
ate a fabric, a strong organization. I’ve always said, there may be money,
but without social organization, we are not very objective as managers and
administrators. There may be no money, but if you have social organization,
there may be larger benefits for a community or society, so it was due to this
focus that we first worked on citizen participation.34
Cotacachi’s proposal was, however, to work on “building the table”, as pre-

viously mentioned, which meant building a “social fabric”, that is, building
the “participatory culture”35 in the region, so as to boost social participation
and create political thought. This was an initiative whose first institutional
representation was the AUCC. This institution would serve as a central hub
for social demands. The aim was to lay public issues on the floor for all soci-
ety, which was spread across several communities in the rural areas. In other
words, this meant bringing people closer to the State. PB became part of
Cotacachi as a complement to this whole dynamic. Auki Tituaña insisted on
taking the leading role in transferring the PB, as can be seen in the following:
With Raúl [Pont] we talked about our experiences. […] I was always the leader
of this process without monopolizing spaces, as I told you, my commitment
was, my conscience was, to share the administrative responsibility with society
as well as the political power. […] Together with Gerard Burgwal and Rodica
Meyers and our friends we worked on a municipal project, which had a social
component, because we were the brains behind it all. […] This relationship
with the external agents, NGOs and investigation centres brought important
elements. Yves [Cabannes], especially, knew about the experience in Porto
Alegre, the experience in Villa El Salvador in Peru and he transmitted, shared
his ideal that applying this idea in Cotacachi, applying this exercise could also
qualify the process and the experience. So he encouraged us, because we were
reflecting on establishing the experience of citizen participation.36
Building the model was influenced by the three actors previously men-
tioned. Travels for training were organized, and seminars and consulta-
tions were held. Civil society went to Porto Alegre on a capacity-building

trip, financed by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), as described
by Seballos:
There were stages for investigating, capacity-building, organizing and par-

ticipating in events like forums, to set up a methodology for the Participatory
Budgeting. These were: i) capacity-building in Porto Alegre – Brazil from
July 16 to 20, 2001, as invited by UNICEF and other municipalities and
provincial councils also took part, ii) International Dialogue on Managing
and Participatory Budgeting for Equality held in Quito, from November
14 to 16, 2001, organized by UNICEF, Dialogue 21 and AME, iii)
International Meeting on Local Democratic Management and Participatory
Budgeting held in Cotacachi on May 15, 16, and 17, 2002, organized by
Centro Ciudad. (Seballos, undated document, 56)
The UMP-LAC, set up in Quito, was involved in putting together the

participatory governance policies as of AUCC’s first years. In the words of
Jaime Vásconez, who took part in the UMP-LAC and was the president
of the CIGU:
We monitored the process almost from the beginning, when we were in the
Urban Management Program, which had a regional office here. There was
a debate over whether if it was convenient to support or not such a small
municipality, so fragile, so apparently outside of the perspectives and strate-
gies or whether if it was a waste a time. We began with very specific sup-
port for a part that was experimented with in the Assembly of the Cantonal
Unity. […] We instilled solid support to help children take part and this was
the starting point […] in 98, 99.37
The efforts to include the participation of children were truly fruitful on

an international level. In 1998, a child from Cotacachi, Zayra Barahona,
went to Japan to represent the municipality in an international event. PB
in Cotacachi began involving several groups and sectors in the participa-
tion, such as children, women and indigenous people, coming from both
rural and urban areas.
The UMP-LAC had already begun setting up networks to exchange
experiences with PB and this was key in capacity-building, as was pre-
sented in the previous section in the Villa El Salvador case. In 2001, an
International Meeting on PB took place in Cotacachi which included spe-
cialists from Porto Alegre, such as the co-ordinator at that time, Luciano
Brunet, with other municipalities, and in which close to 40 local authori-
ties signed a letter of commitment to promote PB (UN-Habitat 2009,

p. 23). German co-operation was involved in the process, specifically in
helping with capacity-building and producing material, such as manuals
and informative leaflets on PB.
It was within the aspirations generated between civil society, political
society and the international co-operation that PB blossomed in Cotacachi.
The international technical assistance was important to develop the model
and the proximity to the UMP-LAC and the co-operation agencies helped
launch the experience internationally. Jaime Vásconez describes the pro-
cess as follows:
Auki’s [Tituaña] struggle was truly incredible, because a city of that size
would hardly ever have weight within the international context, but it
arrived with extraordinary hierarchy and strength. And furthermore […]
with a rather contemporary vision, an interesting vision of reality. So two
or three years later, it seemed that they decided to implement Participatory
Budgeting in 2000.38
The achievements and the international acclaim meant the mayor at that
time had to travel extensively, because he was receiving invitations from all
over. At the same time, Cotacachi was receiving a lot of visitors from other
countries.39 This small municipality co-ordinated an important Common
Project, within the scope of Network-9 from the URB-AL programme,
which was entitled “Impacts on Participatory Budgeting in multi-ethnic
and pluri-cultural cities” in partnership with the municipalities of Azores
(Ecuador) and Samaniego (Colombia)40 from Latin America, and the
CIGU, as an external member, as well as the municipalities of Anderlecht
(Belgium), Pont de Calaix (France) and Periferia (Belgium), from Europe,
as outside partners. The international recognition of the PB in Cotacachi
based on the results at the beginning of the process was surprising. This
was a small city in Ecuador, with very few resources, but this did not stop
it from competing with the large municipalities or from winning presti-
gious international awards.
6.3.3 Constitutionalizing PB: The Nationwide

Transfer in Ecuador
Cotacachi, much like other successful PB experiences, was an inspiration
to expand the transfer in Ecuador. The process began with a constitutional
reform, compelled by President Rafael Correa in his campaign in 2006, and
resulted in the enactment of a new Constitution in 2008 in the country. PB

in Ecuador became a constitutional norm. This is the first case in the world
in which PB was constitutionalized. Article 100 of section three of the 2008
Constitution covers the “Participation at several levels of government”,
which is part of Chap. 4 “Participation and Organization of Power”. It reads:
At all levels of government shall include integrated instances of participation

through elected authorities, representatives of the dependent regime, and
representatives of society within the territorial scope at each level of gov-
ernment, which will be governed by democratic principles. Participation in
these instances will aim to: 1. Elaborate national, local and sectorial plans and
policies between governments and citizens. 2. Improve the quality of public
investment and define development agendas. 3. Elaborate participatory
budgeting of the government [our highlight]. 4. Strengthen democracy
using permanent and transparent mechanisms, rendering accounts and social
control. 5. Foster citizen training and compelling communication processes.
To carry out such participation, public hearings, inspection, assemblies,
popular councils, consulting councils, monitoring observatories and other
instances will be organized to promote citizenship. (Equador 2008, passim)41
The provision that makes citizen participation constitutional, in gen-

eral, and the PB, in particular, is complemented by the Organic Law on
Citizen Participation and Social Control (Ley Orgánica de Participación
Ciudadana y Control Social), sanctioned in 2010, which secures the right
to participation and defines the means to conducting it in the country.
Chapter 7 of the law is entitled Participatory Budgeting (De los Presupuestos
Participativos), and Articles 66 to 71 define the PB, the characteristics,
co-ordination with the development plans, the procedures to set them up
and the mandatory nature. Article 71, in particular, entitled “Obligation
of Participatory Budgeting” affirms that
[i]t is the duty of all levels of government to formulate annual budgets

coordinated with the development plans through a public call for citizens to
participate as well as civil society organizations; likewise, they are obliged to
offer information and render accounts with the results from how budgets
were used. Non-compliance with these provisions shall result in political and
administrative accountability. (Equador 2010, p. 34)
The binding nature of the provision makes PB obligatory for all munici-
palities and establishes political and administrative sanctions for those that
do not apply the law. The effect after creating this law was the extensive
diffusion of PB in Ecuador, and the long-term consequences shall only be
assessed in years to come.
6.4 CONCLUSION
There were multiple dynamics that helped diffuse PB in the Andes and they
worked to create a tight overlap between local, national and international
plans. The comparison of Villa El Salvador and Cotacachi revealed some
similarities, even though their contexts were different. Villa El Salvador
and Cotacachi had a type of “participatory culture” prior to implement-
ing PB. The former had an accumulated experience throughout the years
of self-management, whereas the latter had the Mingas and the AUCC,
which presented this characteristic. Both cases are representative of the
first generation of PB transfers in the Andes and became internationally
famous for their experiences. The aim of this chapter was to reveal the
diffusion path so as to show the complex process in which individuals and
institutions (domestic and foreign) came together to establish how PB
would be adopted at a local level and how to transfer it to a national scale.
The action of individuals was a determining factor in adopting PB, at a
local and international level, and institutional mediation was the key ele-
ment. In Villa El Salvador, Michel Azcueta inaugurated and promoted the
topic of participation, and Martin Pumar did adopt PB, inspired by the
experience in Porto Alegre. NGOs, such as DESCO, helped the process in
Villa El Salvador. In the case of Cotacachi, Auki Tituaña was important in
transferring the model, and mobilizing civil society was crucial.
In both cases, adopting PB was mediated by the UMP-LAC. Yves
Cabannes’ efforts in guiding local authorities as well as fostering connec-
tions between individuals and Latin American institutions were key. The
co-ordinator at the UMP-LAC was an “ambassador for PB”. In his turn,
in the case of the national transfer in Peru, Becerra, the former mayor of
Ilo, moving from the local institution to a national institution seemed to
be in favour of the law, taking on the role of an “Ambassador” of PB as
well.
The circulation of individuals, both internationally and internally, at
different levels of the State (local/national) was a mechanism used in Peru
to facilitate the transfer to a national scale by adopting the PB law. In
Peru, the national transfer was benefitted by renewed politics, a mecha-
nism that helped replace members of national government, after the fall
of Fujimori. Within this context, the possibility was created to introduce
political innovation in times of “crisis” when corruption scandals sur-
rounded the government. Ecuador also experienced this mechanism in
action, which was employed when there was a change in State politics,
with the Constitutional Reform, which allowed PB to become a law and
to be constitutionalized.
Organizing events helped build and expand networks in both the
cases studied. The events were important as they intensified networking,
helping build relations created with municipalities, which facilitated the
exchange of several ideas and technology for participatory governance
present in Latin America. Villa El Salvador was the stage in 2000 for the
first International Meeting on Participatory Democracy, with the aid of
the UMP-LAC. In the Peruvian case, an important event was also identi-
fied in the transfer on a national scale, in which the NGO Foro Ciudades
por la Vida was key in organizing the event, which included the voices and
the efforts that fostered the creation of the national law.
International institutions’ external scanning associated with the con-
struction of a prestigious image through awards for important experiences
were important. In fact, the international awards turned the two cases into
examples and highlighted the idea of PB. Cotacachi, for example, became
a benchmark in multi-ethnic and pluri-cultural PB. International co-oper-
ation also collaborated to highlight the experiences and to keep them run-
ning. Besides this, they helped strengthen the experiences, making them
more international. The relations with co-operation programmes, as well
as financing received from international institutions, such as the URB-AL
programme, in the case of Cotacachi, made it easier to disseminate the
experience and the presence of resources.
In addition to the international institutions, State institutions were key.
The MEF in Peru which produced the PB model for the country outlined
the means for co-ordination with the levels of planning. Peru’s leader-
ship was also employed, as it was the world pioneer in making PB a law.
Ecuador, and other cases in Latin America, took this same route inspired
by the Peruvian experience.
The mechanism for coercive induction, by means of the national law,
increased the uptake of PB in this region. The new law in Peru gave rise
to more than 1800 experiences. In Ecuador, which had already recorded a
certain number of experiences in 2009,42 with the enacted law, all munici-
palities were to adopt it. With this institutionalized mechanism, it is highly
likely that the Andean region would record the highest concentration of
experiences in the world. With such a high number of experiences located
in a geographical context within the Andean Mountains, the main chal-
lenge now is to maintain the quality of the PB and to keep them running
smoothly.
NOTES
1. In Spanish, the word “villa” refers to a small town or community.
2. Cesar Fernandez Juñez, 1971, available at http://www.amigos-
devilla.it/Documentos/Doc001.htm, Accessed in August 2013.
3. Interview, Villa El Salvador, 2013.
5. Interview, Lima, 2013.
9. Excerpt from Martin Pumar’s declaration (PGU-ALC, 2001, s/p).
11. Ibid.
13. The work groups were, respectively, (1) participatory mechanisms
for locals: administrating territory and specific issues; (2) municipal
relations with other players, such as the State and the private initia-
tive; (3) budgeting techniques: financial aspects, criteria for grant-
ing resources, setting up indicators; (4) the legal and normative
boundaries (PGU-ALC, 2001, s/p).
15. http://www.congreso.gob.pe/congresista/2001/eherrera/cur-
riculum.htm
16. US governmental agency for international development.
17. Four working groups were held: (1) Agenda 21 and PB; (2) PB
Guidebook; (3) National normative mark; (4) Proposal for orden-
ing PB.
18. Age-old indigenous principles for a good government and the
motto for participatory governance during the Auki Tituaña
administration.
19. Reference year for our analysis documents.
20. Interview, Cotacachi, 2012.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Interview, Cotacachi, 2012. See also Santiago Ortiz Crespo, 2004,
p. 67 and UNORCAC: http://unorcac.nativeweb.org/somos.
html. Accessed on 1 July 2013.
24. Ibid.
25. Interview, ibid.
27. Cf. Records from databank on awards from Dubai UN-Habitat
consulted on 9 September 2012: http://www.unhabitat.org/bp/
bp.list.details.aspx?bp_id=4061
30. During field research, several records were found from many inter-
national institutions with projects in Cotacachi, such as Action Aid,
Oxfam Italia, US-AID, the World Bank and DED, among others.
32. Interview, ibid.
35. We borrowed the term from Catherine Neveu, 2006.
40. The official document of the project includes the Samaniego
municipality in the project, but it is not included in the case stud-
ies, where Rosário (Argentina) is included. There is proof that the
Colombian city was replaced with the Argentine city in the
project.
41. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador.
42. In a report from the UN-Habitat in 2009, there were close to 30
experiences till date (UN-Habitat 2009, p. 25).
REFERENCES
Ampuero, N. P. (1997). Gobierno local, cidadania e izquierda en Lima
Metropolitana: Independencia y Villa El Salvador. In C. R. Balbi (Ed.), Lima:
aspiraciones, reconoscimiento y cidadania en los noventa (pp. 135–164). Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Bocanegra, V. A. M. (2009). A Política urbana em bairros populares no Peru:
limites e desafios para o desenvolvimento e a inclusão social. Dissertação de
mestrado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Planejamento Urbano e Regional.
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, p. 188.
Burt, J. M. (1999). Sendero luminoso y la “batalla decisiva” en las barriadas de
Lima: el caso de Villa El Salvador. In J. Steve (Ed.), Los senderos insólitos del
Perú: guerra y sociedade, 1980–1985 (pp. 263–300). Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
Echegaray, G. C., & Marulanda, L. (2001). Desarrollo Local con Gestión
Participativa. Presupuesto Participativo Villa El Salvador, Perú. HIS Simpa
Papers, No. 09, Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies.
Equador. (2008). Constituición de 2008. República do Equador.
Equador. (2010). Ley Orgánica de Participación Ciudadana. República do
Equador.
Foro. (2002). Ciudades para la vida: la agenda 21 en marcha. No. 7. Lima,
pp. 1–10.
Hordjik, M. (2002). Participatory Budgeting in Villa El Salvador. PLA Notes, 44
(Special Issue No. 3), 12–15.
Hordjik, M. (2005, April). Participatory Governance in Peru: Exercising
Citizenship. Participatory Governance. Environment & Urbanization, 17(1),
219–236.
Hordjik, M. (2009). Peru’s Participatory Budgeting: Configurations of Power,
Opportunities for Change. The Open Urban Studies Journal, (2), 43–55.
McNulty, S. (2012). An Unlikely Success: Peru’s Top-Down Participatory
Budgeting Experience. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2), 1–19.
Meyers, R. (2005). Cotacachi – Presupuesto Participativo: Manual. Quito: Argudo
& Asociados.
Ortiz, S. O. (2004). Cotacachi: una apuesta por la democracia participativa.
Flasco: Quito.
Propuesta Ciudadana. (2004). Documento de trabajo N. 3: Marco Legal del
Presupuesto Participativo. Documento eletrônico, s/p.
Villa El Salvador. (2002). Plan Integral de Desarrollo al 2010: Presupuesto
Participativo 200-2002. Villa El Salvador, 28 p.
CHAPTER 7
Sowing Democratic Seeds in the Desert:

The Diffusion of PB in Sub-Saharan Africa
7.1 INTRODUCTION
On arriving in Africa, PB was already at an advanced stage of the interna-
tional process of circulation. It is possible to mark the Africities Summit
edition, which was held in Yaoundé in Cameroon in 2003, as the first
landmark in the introduction of PB in Africa. This was a huge meeting
of local authorities in the region. At that moment, 14 years had passed
since the start of the experience in Porto Alegre and 7 years since the
United Nations (UN) had awarded PB as a “Best Practice”, and the
World Social Forum (WSF) was heading for its fourth edition. Moreover,
in 2003, Network-9 of the URB-AL programme of the European Union
had been approved and its activities were to be started the following year.
When it arrived on the African continent, PB had already been legiti-
mated and recognized by the world, and we find ourselves in the inter-
nationalization process, more precisely in the phase which we label as
spillover and at a moment when mass diffusion, as described in Chap. 5,
was taking place.
The Africities Summit occurs triennially and brings together a large
number of regional local authorities and also features the presence of
authorities from other continents. In the seventh edition of the event
in 2012, in Dakar, in Senegal, the experiences of PB had increased to
a surprising extent. Over the period of a decade, out of the few ongo-
ing practices at the moment of the Yaoundé conference in 2003, there

were actually 162 active experiences of PB. Moreover, countries such as

Cameroon, Madagascar, Mozambique and Senegal were developing proj-
ects to significantly amplify PB in their local governments with the fore-
cast to expand it in the short term in hundreds of its municipalities.1 The
perspective declared in Africities in 2012 was to multiply this number by
six in ten years.
Africa is a politically unstable continent and institutionally fragile; its
democracies are few and still face difficulties to consolidate. One of our
interviewees defined the attempt to implement PB in the region of the
north of Africa as an action to sow seeds in a “democratic desert”. This
expression can be equally utilized for the context of Sub-Saharan Africa.
In effect the last government of Senegal was vehemently accused of cor-
ruption; in 2009 a coup d’état took an authoritarian regime into power in
Madagascar and three years later a group of guerrillas took over the region
of North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which weakened
the legitimacy of the elected government. In all these countries, there
are strong experiences of PB with emblematic or internationally award-
winning cases. Despite this situation of instability in the governmental
area, PB was maintained in the sub-national context.
The process of appropriation of PB on the continent was heteroge-
neous. Countries adopted different models. A range of cases integrated
Information Technology and Communication (ITC). There were also
hybrid cases, especially in Anglophone Africa (Shall 2007; Sintomer et al.
2010; Porto de Oliveira 2013). The historical, political and administrative
legacy contributed to this diversity. The appropriation by Francophone
Africa was intense (Kanouté 2013), while Lusophone Africa was a little
more timid (Dias 2013).
The diffusion of PB in Sub-Saharan Africa presented a scenario which
characterized a movement that involved a fundamental presence of exter-
nal operators, individuals and international institutions. The wave of adop-
tion is permeated by the actions of a range of individuals, linked to the
international municipalist movement, especially its ramifications in Africa.
Besides that, the participation of PB specialists was rooted in institutions
like regional non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which accelerated
the dissemination of the experience on the continent. International co-
operation also took part in this process, through agencies of co-operation
of states and international organizations, which financed projects, pro-
SOWING DEMOCRATIC SEEDS IN THE DESERT: THE DIFFUSION OF PB... 201
moted PB, organized and offered training for regional teams, thus facili-
tating and inducing the process of adoption of this device.
A group of individuals “sowed the seed” of the PB experience on the
continent at the start of the 2000s. The overwhelming expansion of PB
occurred, however, thanks to the action of international institutions and
a range of regional catalysts. The transfers on the African continent pre-
sented diverse peculiarities in relation to the Latin American experiences.
The differences are not only in institutional terms or of civil society, but
with respect to actors and transference processes, as we shall see through-
out the chapter.
A range of mechanisms operating in the process of diffusion of PB
in Sub-Saharan Africa have been identified. The mechanism of transla-
tion shows itself while PB takes on a more technical than political nature.
Induction and co-operation are mechanisms which operated in an overlap-
ping manner as international resources of co-operation are indispensable
to the experiences of PB to be initiated. Networking occurred visibly in
international events when African teams met Brazilian teams and took PB
to their countries among other actions. Training, in the end, had a crucial
element as Africa relied on a few teams of specialists in PB to implement
the experiences. For this reason, as the number of specialists increased, the
possibility for replication also increased.
Diffusion in Africa represents a crucial stage in the process of the inter-
national circulation of PB, not only because it had widespread repercus-
sions on the continent, but also owing to the fact that it has a tendency
to increase. This process was inserted in the second generation of the
expansion of PBs which emerged after the Latin American and European
experiences and is concomitant with the proliferation of this participatory
governance policy in Asia.
This chapter has two propositions: to be monographic and to be ana-
lytical. It is monographic in describing the process of diffusion of PB in
Sub-Saharan Africa and where research is scarce in international literature.
It is also analytical in reconstructing the process of international diffusion
of PB in the region, from 2003 extending up to 2012. First, the regional
movement will be presented, and then pass to illustrative cases of punctual
transfers, respectively in South Africa, Madagascar and Mozambique. The
cases are selected in such a way as to illustrate the process of transfer to
Lusophone, Francophone and Anglophone Africa.
7.2 THE REGIONAL DIFFUSION OF PB IN

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
You have to seed for a while,
it is a democratic desert.
International consultant2
Participatory Budgeting is something divine.
Yvette Ayiss, Mayor of Yaoundé-5
PB is currently distributed in cities of many countries in Africa, with

diverse administrative structure and colonial legacies.3 In this section
the process of regional diffusion is traced from a range of events, which
stimulated diffusion, catalysing institutions or, rather, organizations which
accelerated the adoption of PB in the region, as well as projects for inter-
national co-operation.
7.2.1 The State of PB in Sub-Saharan Africa

The intensity and quality of PB in Africa vary profoundly, just as in the
world in general. There are lots of experiences which proclaim to be PB
but, in fact, are merely consultative processes in a budgetary debate. The
technical reports on the region of Sub-Saharan Africa (Sintomer et al.
2010; Shah 2008), the interventions of local specialists in international
events and the interviews we conducted, highlight the existence of a focus
on advanced practices, of other practices in development and even a third
range of limited experiments of PB. The advanced experiences are present
in Cameroon, Madagascar, Senegal and, on a lower scale, Mozambique
with the recent developments in the city of Maputo and the pioneering
experience of Dondo.
Francophone Africa was very receptive to the implementation of PB,
and was one of the countries with an exponential increase of this device. In
Senegal, a national law was proposed for PB. The Quotidien d’Information
Générale le Matin on 28 April 2012 published a declaration from Aliou
Sow, the Minister of Local Communities and Decentralization in Senegal,
saying that “Participatory Budgeting is an option of government”. This
initiative was discontinued, when specialists suggested that it could be
too big a step for a country that was not yet prepared to expand PB on
a mass scale and to ensure their quality.4 Madagascar, after the success
with the device from a pilot experience promoted by the World Bank in
nine municipalities, also aspired to expand it to hundreds of collective

territories.5 In parallel, we found emerging experiences and attempts at
implementation in other countries, where capacity-building missions were
carried out, such as in Mauritania, Mali and Burkina Faso.
In Lusophonic Africa, PB spreads more slowly, with experiences in
Mozambique and in Cape Verde mostly. In the latter, the Portuguese
Association In Loco performed an important role in the technical train-
ing of teams and developing models of PB in a small number of munici-
palities, with the support of the fund for Good Governance of the UN
(Sintomer et al. 2012, p. 49). In Mozambique, there were already diverse
municipal governments that had implemented, with some difficulties,
forms of PB and participatory governance, in general, after the pioneer-
ing experience of Dondo at the end of the 1990s. According to Nguenha
(undated document, p. 9), in 2001, five municipalities (Cuamba,
Montepuez, Metangula, Mocípboa da Praia and Ilha de Moçambique)
initiated experiences of PB with support from the Swiss co-operation, but
there was a reflux on these experiences, which terminated once interna-
tional support ceased.
Africa is also a stage for innovations associated with PB. The World
Bank, for example, invested resources and energy in PB, a pilot project
with the use of ICT. One of the best-known examples was in the case of
the South Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo.6 The combination
of technology and participatory governance also occurred in Cameroon
and Kenya, where an internal circuit of transfers was created, especially
between Yaoundé 6 and Nairobi. The device, implemented in the Kenyan
capital through the action of the NGO National Taxpayers Association,
was inspired by the Cameroon experience, as well as relying on technical
assistance from ASSOAL Pour le Développement Local.7 This can be seen
as a movement of internal transfers and circulation of consultants. There
were also pilot projects from the World Bank focused on the construction
of PB as part of the path to modernization of the structure of local gover-
nance in municipalities, as is the case of Maputo, rural communities with
the recent discovery of mineral resources and also in diverse collectives in
Madagascar.8
The experiences of Anglophone Africa are unique, due to their histori-
cal legacy and the political administrative structures. With the exception
of only a few cases, such as Makhado in South Africa, which adopted the
PB model from Porto Alegre, the Anglophone countries implemented
processes of implantation of participatory planning and participation in
budgetary discussion and constituted hybrid experiences (Sintomer et al.

2012; Shall 2005).
7.2.2 Africities as the Gateway for PB
It is not an issue of model importing, it’s about mak-

ing the citizen participate. […] This device, effec-
tively, was started in Brazil, […] [but] the general
principle of popular participation its an universal
principle. This is not a model in itself, […] it’s the
implementation of the principle as a model.
Jean Pierre Elong M’Bassi
(General Secretary of CGLUA)9
The Africities event was an important space for the diffusion of PB among
other public policies in the region. The event was essentially a regional
meeting of local authorities,10 but it crossed paths with other global-scale
events such the World Urban Forum already mentioned. The first edi-
tion of Africities occurred in 1997 and is held every three years. With the
emergence of a regional branch of UCLG in Africa (UCLGA) Africities
began to progressively increase in size. Africities is a gateway of PB in the
African region.11
The meeting in Yaoundé, in 2003, according to Jean Pierre Elong
M’Bassi, secretary-general of UCLGA,12 was an initial reference point
for the process of diffusion of PB. In his words, “it was on this occasion
that young African mayors aspired to create closer ties with society and
decide to adopt PB”.13 There is a link between the African summit and
the World Urban Forum. In 2004, in the Barcelona edition, “a network
of academics, NGOs and municipalities” held a session on the theme of
PB.14 The World Urban Forum comes through the UN-Habitat and has
the objective of maintaining debates on the themes of interest of collective
territories which are priorities on the agenda of this institution. It is worth
noting that 2004 was an intense year for international actions in relation
to PB. In Barcelona, there was not only the World Urban Forum, but
also a meeting of the FLA which, in that year, moved from Porto Alegre
and from the WSF, as described in Chap. 4. 2004, local representatives of
Benin, Ivory Coast and Tanzania attended the FLA meeting.
Differently from the Habitat I (Vancouver, 1976) and II (Istanbul,
1996) events, the World Urban Forum opens up to events proposed by
partners of this UN agency, whether they are NGOs, community orga-

nizations, researchers or even companies (Sintomer et al. 2012, p. 46).
PB gained even greater space in 2006, when training and sensibiliza-
tion sessions were held; the event saw different participants from Africa.
Often in Africities, as well as in the World Urban Forum, the organizers
of PB meetings—roundtables, workshops and discussions—are the same,
according to Sintomer et al. (2012, p. 46).
In the 2003 edition of Africities, there were various tables on PB. With
special invitees from Latin America appearing at the event, with members
of a delegation from Caxias do Sul (Brazil) and Montevideo (Uruguay),
presenting their experiences of PB. These experiences brought together
representatives of Saint-Denis (France), and Nguediana (Senegal).15 At
this point, there already existed a range of experiences of participation,
previously to PB, in Sub-Saharan Africa. These were developed in ter-
ritorial collectives such as Fissel in Senegal and Dondo in Mozambique.
This last municipality implemented, in 1999, a model of participatory
planning, with the support of the Austrian co-operation, which became a
national and international reference point (Nguenha 2009). These are, to
some extent, autonomous processes of participation, which did not have
much contact with other experiences in the world apart from local NGOs,
which developed, further, the technical part of the PB model.
The Africities summits, in the same way as other spaces such as FLA,
became spaces for organizing transnational mobilization, building agendas
exercising political pressure and legitimating practice ideas and solutions
for public action (Porto de Oliveira 2011). In these spaces, international
relations of cities strengthened and the paths to transnational public action
were defined.
Over time, an image of PB was being constructed and positive results
were spread from specific cases. The successful examples gained greater
attention. It is important to note the success that PB had in various tables
during Africities in 2012, with more than 100 participants in the main
table.16 In the documents from presentations at the African summit, PB
was considered to be “Best Practice” and public policy that diffused the
most in Africa (Africities 2012).
The legitimation of experiences can be seen through the observation of
the giving of awards for “Best Practices” as occurred in Africities in 2009.
There is a process of evaluation by specialists to present this award. As well
as attracting attention to experiences not widely known, giving awards
shows the path towards which other new practices or those in progress
could or should follow (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Evolution of activities related to PB at Africités

City/country Elements of the evolution of PB in Africités Date
Windhoek/Namíbia Declaration of the Victoria Falls: Signing a pledge 2000

Yaoundé/Camaroon Session organized by PGU-ALC, together with Assoal and 2003
MDP;
Intervention of representatives of experiences from
Caxias do Sul (Brazil);
Montevidéu (Uruguay);
Saint-Denis (France);
Senegal (Nguediana).
First document of co-operation for OP in Africa
Nairobi/Kenia Participation of more than 100 people in the sessions on 2006
PB;
Presence of Mayors of
Dondo (Mozambique);
Matam (Senegal);
Batcham (Camaroon);
Mutokol (Zimbabwe).
Marrakech/Morocco Interventions were not identified 2009
Awarded to Antananarivo—6 (Madagascar)
Dakar/Senegal Various sessions on PB: 2012
UCLG Afrique—Budgets participatifs.
Session on participation of inhabitants and citizenship
promoted by Slum Dweller international/Budget
participatif.a
Launch of the International Observatory for
Participative Democracy in Africab;
Session on ICTs promoted by the World Bank.
Intervention of representatives of experiences from
Dondo (Mozambique);
Guarulhos and Porto Alegre (Brazil);
Ampassi Nahampoana (Madagascar);
Yaoundé—5 and Yaoundé—6 (Camaroon);
Rufisque Est (Senegal).
Launch of the African Document for Citizen Participation;
Accord of co-operation in material on PB between a Latin
American and African city (Porto Alegre and Yaoundé-5);
Award to Ampassy Nahampoana (Madagascar)
Note: The main table on PB had between 150 and 200 participants
a
Counting on the participation 155 participants from Europe, the United States, Latin America and
Africa. Source: IOPDA
b
Source: Authors’ development based on information collected through field research, analysis of docu-
ments and from Sintomer et al. (2012)
If the event in Yaoundé is remembered as a landmark in the process of

diffusion of PB, in Africa, another milestone can be identified ten years
later in Dakar, Senegal, with the VI Africities summit, in 2012. On this
occasion—at which the experiences of PB in Africa had already gone
beyond the first 100—the perspective presented by the speakers was to
expand it to 300 local collectives, in 40 African countries by the next three
years (Africités 2012, p. 10). It is possible to observe as well the increase
in terms of interventions and of sessions with respect to PB. If the event
in Namibia in 2000 had only one important element, the Declaration of
the Victoria Falls, as these editions went on, an award of “Good Practice”
was included and sessions were amplified and diversified. Among those
sessions, at the Senegal event in 2012, the session organized by the
World Bank on PB and ICTs stood out. There was a coming together of
Latin America and Africa, with an accord of international co-operation
signed between two municipalities. The participation of delegates from
European municipalities with experiences of PB was eclipsed in the event
that year, but representatives of IOPD from Barcelona were present. The
big innovation there was the launch of the International Observatory for
Participatory Democracy in Africa (IODPA).
Inter-regional events also contributed to the rapid process of diffu-
sion. A big meeting was organized by the MDP-ESA, with the support
of the World Bank and other financial institutions in 2008 in the region
of Durban, already mentioned in Chap. 5. The event in Durban was a
watershed in the process. At this point, besides the specialists who formed
the core of PB in the World Urban Forum and in Africities, there were
also regional actors from Latin America, Europe and Asia. The event
offered training and capacity-building to diverse teams in Africa. Latin
American specialists were present, in particular from CIGU and Belo
Horizonte. The event brought together experiences and specialists from
diverse countries of the world, and served for strengthening unusual
international connections between them. In a variety of our inter-
views, with technical and political teams of different cities, the Durban
event was mentioned, for example, in Cotacachi (Ecuador), in Maputo
(Mozambique) and in Belo Horizonte (Brazil).17 One of our interviewees
in Belo Horizonte describes the rapprochement of relations with Africa in
the following manner:
I knew Jorge Matovu at the World Social Forum, which is perhaps a

name that has already came up, […] we met maybe in 2008 at the World
Social Forum in Porto Alegre. Belo Horizonte was already known for its
importance and, as was stated, there was also in a project which had the
participation of the World Bank, the idea was to establish an African net-
work of Participatory Budgeting, therefore I was also there to share the
experience of the Brazilian network and help with the structuring of the
network for African Participatory Budgeting. […] So we went there to
this seminar in Durban in about 2008 or 2009, […] it was a really impor-
tant space to establish projects of co-operation. Again, the city of Belo
Horizonte with other cities [was] already in the world, Maputo emerged
from this movement in a project for international bilateral co-operation
between Belo Horizonte and Maputo, […] with the result of this project
of co-operation we launched a guide called, Step-by-Step Guidebook for
Participatory Budgeting, […] the idea was not to have a little model but as
a reflection for other municipalities who wished to implement Participatory
Budgeting, what they should consider or, anyway, reflect on before starting
their processes.18
The difference between Africités and the Durban Workshop was that, in
this case, the event was specifically about PB. The dimension of technical
training was present at this meeting, which had shown the first results
of partnerships on PB in Africa and created new transnational co-opera-
tion between this continent and Latin America. The accord between the
mayor’s office of Belo Horizonte and the municipality of Maputo for
the transfer of knowledge on PB and the relations established with the
Brazilian Network of Participatory Budgeting emerged in this event.19
This meeting marked the trajectory of PB in the region, created new
agendas of co-operation and showed the pathway for participation and
its importance.
The signing of protocols of co-operation, the involvement of new part-
ners and the legitimation of practices are elements which all contributed to
the process. In Africa, the main events were successive editions of Africities
and the workshop promoted by MDP-ESA with the support of the World
Bank and other financial institutions. However, a range of sub-regional
and global events held on the continent also occurred throughout the
process and contributed to the diffusion in different ways. Some examples
are the edition of the WSF in Nairobi and the FLA which followed it,
working as propagators, considering the scale of the event and its proxim-
ity to the ideas of PB.
7.2.3 International Co-operation: Constructing

Institutions from Territories
For the representative of the World Bank, Victor

Vergara, the definition of whatever type of interna-
tional technical assistance starts with the criterion of
participation. He stated that. Last Tuesday, he was
in a meeting with 15 ministers from African, talking
about Porto Alegre and “about how Participatory
Budgeting is the beginning of a form of dialogue
and of knowledge which should grow”.
Jornal do Comércio (1999)20
International organizations and national agencies of international co-

operation (from Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Denmark and Norway) are
the largest financers of PB international diffusion in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Their action is driven either through direct support with their own proj-
ects or by financing NGO projects, especially in regional catalysts or just
through the promotion of events.
Co-operation coming from agencies for international co-operation con-
sists of the financing of certain experiences of PB, as well as offering sup-
port for events.21 In certain cases international organizations and agencies
for international co-operation came together to carry out common projects
on PB, as was the case of the pilot project developed by the World Bank in
partnership with Swiss co-operation and from a programme of Technical
Assistance on Social Accountability in Madagascar (World Bank 2010).
German co-operation is noteworthy, insofar as it is present in 13 coun-
tries of the region. The GIZ had in 2011 ongoing PB projects in four of
these (Cameroon, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia) and planned to
implement PB in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Malawi as well (Gruenewald
and Smith 2011). As will be shown in the next section, German co-opera-
tion is fundamental in the transfer of PB to Makhado in South Africa.
The promotion of PB by international organizations fitted into their wider
institutional agendas and was frequently linked to the promotion of trans-
parency, good government and empowering civil society. The action of the
United Nations in Africa occurred in a specific manner, working with the
production of technical material and financial support for specific experi-
ences of PB. UN-Habitat is one of the agencies with the greatest involve-
ment in PB, but it’s not the only one. Agencies such as the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have also been involved in PB projects in Cape
Verde, as mentioned, and in Senegal with PB for children (UNICEF, undated

document).
In Africa the dimension of technical literature was important in the
spread of PBs, even though the production of intellectual material had
been limited.22 Fomented by UN-Habitat, two manuals were devel-
oped with the same aim for two different contexts (Francophone Africa
on the one hand and the South and East of Africa on the other); these
became a reference point for the implementation of PB. Entitled respec-
tively “Le Budget Participatif en Afrique: Guide pour la formation en
pays Francophones” (Participatory Budgeting in Africa: A Training Guide
for Francophone Countries) and “Participatory Budgeting in Africa: A
Training Companion with cases from Eastern and Southern Africa”, the
first was developed by Enda-TM and the second by MDP-ESA.23 These
are distinct guides which take into consideration the specificities of each
context of decentralization in Africa. One of our interviewees who was
involved in the production of the French volume relates his experience:
Interviewee: Yves [Cabannes] came here, it was at that moment when we

needed to elaborate the guide on Participatory Budgeting.
So, well, we said to people “you said that this is Participatory
Budgeting, but we didn’t know the Participatory Budgeting,
send us someone who knows Participatory Budgeting, so that
he comes, we work together, so that we can capitalize. They
sent then Yves [Cabannes]. Well, considering what we had in
terms of material, we have worked together to elaborate the
guide. […] The support to us and to the MDP [[Municipal
Development Partnership]. […]
Interviewer: This means that Enda and MDP produced the guide?
Interviewee: We the Francophone guide and the MDP the Anglophone
[…] each one its own guide. The context of decentraliza-
tion in Francophone Africa is different from the context of
decentralization in Anglophone Africa, […] we preferred that
there were two completely different guides, which were based
on their own context. […] It is needed to say that after this,
things went very fast [for PB diffusion].24
The actions of the World Bank in Sub-Saharan Africa also follow wider
agendas and count on regional offices as supporting institutions.25 Part
of the actions of this institution in the promotion of PB is carried out in
regions where there are already ongoing projects. PB is, in these contexts,
an additional instrument to assure better local development, in accordance

with the guidelines of the World Bank. In Mozambique, as we shall see
in the next section, in Madagascar and in the Democratic Republic of
Congo, projects followed in this direction.
Projects of this nature are also opportunities for meeting and connec-
tions between actors. In the process of developing the manual, the interview
cited suggests that Yves Cabannes was put forward to help in producing
the guide. It is on this occasion that we have the first contact between the
co-ordinator of ENDA-TM and the French specialist.26 Further, they went
on to work together in organizing workshops in the Africités events.
Differently to the teams from regional international organizations, the
teams from the World Bank are composed of technicians from different
parts of its sectors and offices. The World Bank also hires regional or inter-
national consultants, who are specialists on the participatory governance
and PB. In certain cases, external consultants of the World Bank are from
international or regional NGOs. They have expertise in PB and/or on poli-
cymaking in the African Region. As mentioned, the World Bank was also
responsible for the organization of one of the biggest conferences on PB in
Africa which was held in Durban in 2008. The event was fruitful and helped
launch PB in the region as well as connecting many actors and experiences.
7.2.4 Catalysts of Diffusion: From Dakar to

Harare, Via Yaoundé
The action of a range of individuals and institutions was important for
embedding PB in Sub-Saharan Africa. If the events are specific episodes,
actions of operators of transfers remain constant throughout the process.
The specialists, technicians of local governments, international organiza-
tions, NGOs and universities, among other institutions, contributed to the
diffusion of PB in the region. In addition to these actors, there was a set
of specialist organizations on PB which mobilized resources, acted in the
transfer of know-how and stimulated the adoption of this device. From field
research conducted in 2012, it is possible to identify three organizations
which are ASSOAL, in Cameroon, Environnement et Développement du
Tiers-Monde (ENDA—TM or Enda-Ecopop), in Senegal; and Municipal
Development Partnership for Eastern and Southern Africa (MDP-ESA),
in Zimbabwe.27
The regional NGOs reflected the intense work of specific individuals
with PB. This means that in these institutions the work with PB is carried
out by one or a small group of specialists over the years. These operated
as direct propagators or technical trainers. In certain cases, the action of
institutions is strongly oriented by its director, making it difficult to dis-
tinguish responsibility for actions (individual or institutional). In effect,
sometimes institutions ceased to exist as in the case of the UMP-LAC, but
individuals continued its action, very often throughout other institutions.
In the interview with Jaime Vásconez, the role of the CIGU in relation
to PB in Sub-Saharan Africa clearly emerges, as we can observe in the fol-
lowing excerpt:
We managed to get the CIGU continued functioning thanks to three things.

The first was the support of a colleague we knew from Nairobi to boost PBs
in Africa […] from 2005 to 2008. […] Raf [Rafael] Tuts […] he, in the
end, was the advisor to the UMP at a global level and soon became director
of what was called the Urban Branch for the entire structure of Habitat.
[…] He was in office at that moment, that is he took the decision to pro-
mote PB in Africa. Originally […] there was organised a regional seminar on
Participatory Budgeting to which I was invited and we worked there with 30
to 40 delegates from municipalities from the whole of Africa in Nairobi and
had a publication about this seminar. There the decision was taken to boost
Participatory Budgeting in Africa and which was and firmly established. This
must have been around 2004 and 2005, and a couple of years later, in 2007,
it got established and we were contacted at the CIGU to conduct a form
of coaching […] on the process of Participatory Budgeting, working with
two African NGOs. One is from one of the colleagues which has its head-
quarters in […] Zimbabwe [the MDP-ESA and the other is Enda Ecopop
from Senegal]. We worked with them and they created a manual in French
and another in English about Participatory Budgeting. Yves Cabannes was
in Senegal […] it was an interesting theme which resulted in a publication.28
The role played by each of these regional organizations (MDP-ESA and

ENDA Ecopop) was, essentially, to provide technical assistance and prac-
tice for new experiences, create manuals for implementation of PB, con-
duct internal political advocacy to develop the national diffusion of PB
in their countries of origin, organize sessions and workshops on PB in
international events and create transnational networks. In each of these
institutions there are specific people responsible for PB. They are the
great regional specialists and are the ones who circulate, offering train-
ing courses, evaluating and spreading PB on the continent, a task which
demands continuous energy and movement.
Individuals and institutions mix like a nebula, exercising roles which

are difficult to define and often imprecise and coincidental to the diffusion
of PB. The action of regional NGOs frequently coincided with the action
of a protagonist. The individuals are those who mobilize forces, prepare
sessions in events, connect people and organizations, search for funds to
sustain projects and assure the future of experiences. This element clearly
emerges from participant observation of events, in interviews and lectures
and in various documents. By offering technical training, they exercised
the role of transmitters of experiences. One of our interviewees affirms
that a good part of his work consisted in lobbying on political decisions in
states and international organizations.
The energy mobilized by individuals is intense in the circulation of
PB. All these efforts become evident and observable in events which hap-
pened in Porto Alegre (Metrópolis, 11/2011), in Naples (World Urban
Forum, 08/2012) or in Dakar (Africités, 12/2012), over the course of
one year, as well as interviews and multiple meetings, which happened
throughout field research work carried out during this thesis.
The trips for training allowed various municipalities to come into
contact or deepen their experiences with PB, as well as to progres-
sively gain more autonomy. The Malagaxies experiences, for example,
received capacity-building training through the local organization called
Programme d’Appui au Développement Rural (Support Programme for
Rural Development—SAHA) and by Enda Ecopop, which brought one of
its greatest specialists to offer training, Bachir Kanouté. He affirmed that
60 % of his time at work consisted in training activities, with instructions
offered in 13 countries and the process of capacity-building involving the
equivalent of 234 specialist advisers on PB in Francophone Africa.29 The
Mozambique experiences received support from MDP-ESA, the catalys-
ing organization in the region. In the same sense, the model adopted by
Nairobi in Kenya was inspired by the experience in Cameroon.30
One of the technical experts from Enda Ecopop told us that, during
one of his visits to Mali, he took the opportunity to organize a public
conference and present PB as an instrument of participatory democracy.
After his presentation, he received an invite from the Swiss co-operation
to intervene in Sikassa, in the region of Koutiala, and in Madagascar, in a
World Bank project offering technical support. In his words:
In the international forums there is always an African spokesman, this made

me travel to many countries, in terms of international intervention. I have
intervened many times in other countries to present State authorities what is

a Participatory Budgeting, what this can bring to them, especially in a con-
text where decentralization advances, […] in contexts where is needed to
promote democracy, good governance, so I have made many interventions
in these countries. […] When I intervened in Mali for the first time it was in
the ambit of a project I had – and that had nothing to do with Participatory
Budgeting – I have took advantage of this trip to organize a public confer-
ence […] in which we invited different categories of actors, to present them,
in the ambit of an approach to governance, the Participatory Budgeting as
an instrument of participatory democracy, after that the Swiss Co-operation
wished that I came back to follow them in a region, is the region of Sikasso
and more precisely of Koutiala. On the contrary, in Madagascar was dif-
ferent, in Madagascar, in reality I believe that the World Bank heard about
what we were doing in the ambit of Participatory Budgeting in 2008, when
we had this big conference [the already mentioned event in Durban], the
World Bank involved us to organize a conference for Francophone Africa
and from there we had the connection with Madagascar.31
The interviewee also reported that he could bring together funding from
different sources, such as the UN, the European Union and the Canadian
co-operation in order to promote a PB transfer process internally in
Matam in Senegal, as well as in nine other municipalities of the coun-
try. Specialists from institutions from outside of Africa, such as CIGU, in
Ecuador, analysed in Chap. 6, and the In Loco association, from Portugal,
were also important in the training and capacity-building of specialists in
Africa. Jaime Vázcones and Yves Cabannes (when CIGU did not exist),
from the accumulated knowledge with the UMP and URB-AL, offered
technical support to the first generations of experiences in Africa. Their
work was continued after that from these catalyser institutions. For his
part, Nelson Dias, from In Loco, contributed to the introduction of PB in
Cape Verde and to the redefinition of PB in Maputo.
7.3 FOUR CASES OF SPECIFIC TRANSFERS

The second part of this chapter deals with the micro dynamics of the phe-
nomenon of the international circulation of PB—the transfers. These cases
are representative of the reality of PB in Africa, but have only been super-
ficially treated, or even neglected, in the literature. The territorial collec-
tives are Fissel in Senegal, Ampasy Nahampoana in Madagascar, Maputo
in Mozambique and Makhado in South Africa.
7.3.1 Fissel
The process of decentralization in Senegal is a crucial element in the emer-
gence of PB in the country. In contradiction to the majority of African
countries which developed legal structures for decentralization in recent
times, Senegal started this process in 1972 and in this sense is an excep-
tion on the continent. The creation of rural communities goes back to the
1970s and occurred progressively over a period of almost ten years. The
policy of decentralization opened up space for citizen participation (Gaye
2005). The rural community of Fissel was one of the first to be established
in the country.
In 2003 two experiences of PB in Senegal were launched: Fissel and
Ndiaganiao. Fissel is located in the region of Thies, about 100 km from
Dakar. The rural community is composed of 28 small villages and close
to 34,000 inhabitants. Particular to the Senegalese context, Fissel has a
long tradition of social mobilization being, for example, the place where
the first community radio emerged in 1996 (Sintomer et al. 2012, p. 48),
developed by grassroots organizations.32 Prior to the implementation of
PB, there had already been a programme to strengthen citizen participa-
tion in 2001 (Gaye 2005, p. 1). PB was introduced through the local
NGO Innovation Environnement Développement Afrique (IED) as part
of a partnership between the Institut International pour l’Environnement
et Développement (IIED), in the programme “Réussir la décentraliza-
tion” (Achieve decentralization), for a range of countries in the arid region
of West Africa.
The initiative came from local civil society via an organization called
Communitary Group for Development (Regroupement Communautaire
pour le Développement, Recodef), which requested the evaluation of the
participation of citizens in the process of decentralization and local devel-
opment (Gaye 2008, p. 10). The technical side was developed by IED,
which operationalized the implementation of PB (between 2003–2004).
The transfer happened independently. The experience in Fissel became
important in the Senegalese context because, as well as being pioneering,
it is a case in which PB is implemented in a rural community.
7.3.2 Ampasy Nahampoana

The entry of PB into Madagascar happened in 2004 with a pioneering
experience in the community of Ambalavao, Analamanga region, and
was taken forward by the local NGO—SAHA. It was financed through

international co-operation funds and followed by a range of pilot projects
promoted by the World Bank. Madagascar is a country characterized by
its geography, which stands out for its massive biodiversity and vast rural
areas. With a French colonial legacy, the country recently entered into the
process of decentralization, with incentives from the World Bank (Amis de
la Terre, 2012). The first experiences of PB were part of this process and
are concomitant to the discovery of vast reserves of natural resources in
the country, in particular, minerals.33
Between 2006 and 2008, the World Bank prepared the field in
Madagascar to begin a range of actions with its Programme for Technical
Assistance and Social Accountability, which resulted in the implementation
of pilot projects for PB in nine communities. The action was developed
in partnership with the agency of Swiss co-operation and SAHA, which
were in charge of offering technical assistance. The NGO SAHA became a
specialist in PB in the country. The projects represent experiences in terri-
torial communities where there is a strong presence of recently discovered
mineral resources and in others where there are no resources.
The action of the World Bank relies on three wide projects of co-
operation with the government of Madagascar, which are, respectively,
the Programme for Governance of Mineral Resources (PGRM), the
Project for Institutional Governance (PGDI2) and Integrated Projects for
Growth (PIC) (World Bank, undated document, p. 9). The World Bank
contacted the PB specialist Bachir Kanoute to organize a conference for
Francophone Africa. It was at this moment that the link with Madagascar
occurred. The state had just signed a transparency clause for the mining
companies,34 obliging them to transfer part of their profits to the state,
which would then be transferred to local communities. There was insecu-
rity in relation to the transformation which was happening in the country
or, rather, the cities that had until that time small revenues and would
considerably increase their resources.
The political stability of Madagascar was threatened in 2009 with a
state coup which took a dictatorial regime into power. The political cri-
sis, which was already on the horizon at the end of 2008, damaged the
projects for the implementation of PB. This happened also due to the
fact that a large part of the international institutions funding PB projects
embargoed their loans and, consequently, the amount of resources avail-
able was reduced, as well as of facilitators working on the project (World
Bank, undated document, 12). In this situation, communities had to find
solutions to continue the PB experiences. Among the nine rural commu-

nities which participated in the programme was Ampasy Nahampoana,
a region of 8938 inhabitants, whose experience is illustrative of the
Malagaxy context and which it is worth remembering received an award
in Africités in 2012.
The mayor of Ampasy Nahampoana, Rondramala Sylviane Hortencia
Andriamahasoro, elected in 2007, had already shown significant inter-
est in local development, an element which helped accelerate the process
(World Bank 2011, p. 81). The community of Ampasy Nahampoana was
one of the areas with mineral deposits in its territory. With the start of her
mandate in 2008, the mayor became involved with PB in an international
experience, with the workshop promoted by the World Bank in Durban.
From then on, an experimental form of PB was introduced in her munici-
pality.35 The PGRM contributed to improve the technical dimension of
PB and Bachir Kanoute carried out technical training.
7.3.3 Maputo
Whoever invented PB had a brilliant idea.

Local Government Worker, Maputo
Among the diverse actors involved in the diffusion of PB is the World

Bank, as we saw in Chap. 4. The promotion of the device by this institu-
tion takes place through various agencies and programmes and follows the
guidelines of more than one agenda. Its presence in Africa is, in certain
cases, a condition to “give a start to” the processes of PB and its develop-
ment. In the following paragraphs, we will present a case of a municipality
in whose process of implementation and revision of PB the World Bank
was directly involved.
The city of Maputo, as the capital of Mozambique, is a specific case
in the process of transfer of PB. There are limited numbers of capital cit-
ies which have implemented the method in Africa. Districts of Yaoundé
in Cameroon, as well as Antananarivo in Madagascar, are such examples.
Mozambique is a country in which the extremes of poverty are stark.
Despite this situation, the country registered a median rate of economic
growth from 1994 to 2007 of 8 %.36 The Mozambican municipalities were
created in 1997 and, in the following year, the first elections were held.
The cities have an important role in the consolidation of democracy as
they are the only elected local governments.
According to the World Bank, the colonial legacy left institutions with
little capacity to function, with a fragile organizational structure and little
infrastructure. This scenario saw relative improvement over the period of
ten years, in terms of the quality of local governance (World Bank 2009).
Mozambique is one of the African countries with a large urban popula-
tion, with 36 % of people living in cities and an expected growth to 60 %
by 2030 (United Nation, apud World Bank 2009). The budget for munic-
ipalities is also limited and not sufficient to supply services and activities
under its remit, and equal an average of US$12 per capita.
PB entered Mozambique with experiences to the north of Maputo,
one of which is the city of Dondo in the Beira region. International co-
operation had created mechanisms to stimulate the expansion of PBs in the
country. Swiss and German co-operation, for example, made significant
efforts in this sense.37 It is worth noting that the German co-operation
did not work in a homogeneous manner in all countries but, instead, pri-
oritized projects according to regions and interests. Their action for PB
was strong in Mozambique, but not necessarily a priority in South Africa.
PB was introduced in Maputo by Enéas Comiche, economist and rep-
resentative of the Liberation Front of Mozambique (FRELIMIO), who
was elected mayor of the municipality in 2003. There are two domi-
nant parties in Mozambique whose origins derive from the Mozambican
civil war which took place between 1976 and 1992. One of them is
FRELIMO, which is in the presidency of the country and the other is the
National Mozambican Resistance (RENAMO). Comiche had already, at
the start of the 1990s, been minister for finance and, formerly, president
of the administrative council of the International Bank of Mozambique.
When Comiche entered the mayor’s office of Maputo, there was already
in his plan for governance a wider project for the implementation of a
participatory policy: PROMAPUTO. PB was in the municipal strategy
and, in 2008, was implemented, strongly inspired by the model from
Porto Alegre.38
Since 2004, the mayor had aspired to widen dialogue with society via
diverse channels. At the time, there were already meetings and visits from
the head of municipal executive to citizens, meetings with different social
groups (economic, political and social), popular rallies and public hearings
for citizen. The introduction of channels for participation reached its peak
with PROMAPUTO in 2008. PB was implemented with a central team
of between 5–7 strongly motivated people, but without much technical
experience in the area of participatory governance, which created difficul-
ties for planning and construction of the participatory device in the long
run.
Implementation was top-down or, rather, coming from a political ini-
tiative in the municipality, which maintained widespread power over PB
and led the process. In its preparatory phase, delegations from Maputo
undertook journeys for training in PB. Among the first was a trip to Porto
Alegre. One of the teams from the municipal government involved in
PB took part in a training workshop in Porto Alegre, promoted by the
World Bank in 2006. The journeys for training contributed to develop
the first version of PB in Maputo. The model of PB in Maputo was in the
words of its team members “very ambitious” at the start.39 Following a
political change with a new Mayor, PB was interrupted in Maputo without
completing the planned work (Nguenha, undated document, 9).40 From
the difficulties which emerged with PB and the impasse created by the
municipal government, the World Bank began a project to give continuity
to PB. The model of the tool used in Maputo was revised from 2010 with
the assistance of external consultants, in particular the In Loco expertise,
and has resumed its activities.
7.3.4 Makhado
In my heart I believe in PB.
Staff member from international co-operation
In South Africa, the first democratic elections for local governors hap-
pened in 1994. Characterized by the legacy of the apartheid regime, social
participation was limited. From the 2000s, a new system of budgeting and
planning was implemented at a local level, it was uniform and mandatory
and named “Integrated Development Planning” under the “Municipal
Systems Act” (MSA). The progressive evolution of this normative device
produced years later the introduction of a system which defined both bud-
geting and planning in annual cycles (Smith 2004).
In drawing up legislation for local governors in post-apartheid South
Africa, a range of methods such as the 1996 Constitution and the
“Municipal Finance Act” (2003) foresaw participation of communities in
subjects of public interest, in general, being obligatory in budgeting, in
particular, (Smith 2004, p. 17). The municipalities, however, promoted
participation in budgeting in a variety of forms. Moreover, according
to Terence Smith (2004), the problems of participation were diverse,
for example, the difficulty in accessing and understanding the technical

dimensions of budgeting on the part of citizens.
Despite the limits to the process of social participation in budget-
ary debates in South Africa, a range of emblematic and internationally
renowned cases emerged such as in the municipalities of Ekhuruleini in
the Johannesburg region and eThekwini (Durban).41 The city of eThek-
wini is the second largest in South Africa with close to 3 million inhabit-
ants. It is a municipality with a high level of resources in the South African
context. In this region, there was a previously mentioned seminar on PBs,
organized by MDP-ESA in 2008, together with a diverse range of part-
ners. This was the element which contributed to the internationalization
of PB in this municipal area in particular.
The experience of PB in Makhado was not a case of planning and par-
ticipatory budgeting, but rather of an experiment following the line of
PB in the Porto Alegre model. It was the first case of this nature. PB in
Makhado came from an initiative of a range of three institutions, whose
action was strongly characterized by the individual action of those work-
ing in the process of transfer: the NGO Planact, the German Agency for
Co-operation and the municipal government of Makhado. The idea of
conducting a denser and deeper experience of PB in South Africa emerged
at the World Urban Forum in 2010 when two specialists watched the
workshops on PB organized at the event in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).42
Makhado is a small, predominantly rural municipality of close to
500,000 inhabitants situated in the district of Vhembe, in the Province
of Limpopo (approximately 400 km from Johannesburg in the direction
of Zimbabwe). A report published by the NGO IDASA had already rec-
ommended Makhado as one of the cities engaged in the participatory
process in a consultation of community leaders and organizations to
improve the formulation of public policies. The city was therefore consid-
ered appropriate to become a pilot project for PB for two reasons: “the
municipality had already embarked on a process of attempting to signifi-
cantly improve its performance in terms of public participation and bud-
get allocation”, on the one hand, and “the municipality had been actively
engaged in a Project to determine the perceptions of its constituents in
order to identify specific priorities for improvement”, on the other (Good
Governance Learning Network 2012, p. 89).
The process of PB transfer to Makhado was organized technically by
Planact with support from GIZ and political support from the munici-
pality. Mike Makwela recalls hearing specialists like George Matovu and
Giovanni Allegretti discussing the best way to implement PB in Makhado:
I was fortunate to attend a couple of presentations. I don’t know if you

know this guy called George Matovu from Zim [Zimbawe]? […] he is also
a specialist on PB. George Matovu has come to South Africa, he was invited
by one NGO [Build Environment Support Group] and I attended his work-
shop […] it was in Durban. […] They invited him because they also wanted
to do PB in their municipality, […] I also attended the presentation […] of
this guy [Giovanni Allegretti], we exchanged some tips and advice, but basi-
cally we learned [to implement PB] by doing.43
The project happened over three phases: first the preparatory, second the
implementation and third the evaluation. The first phase consisted essen-
tially in designing a model of PB, which transformed a simplified version
of the model from Porto Alegre. In addition to design, there was also a
process of training leaders on PB, which included a copy of a manual “The
Implementation Handbook and the Facilitator Guide” (Good Goverance
Learning Network 2012, p. 90).
PB did not become embedded in Makhado. After a political change of
the mayor, in the local government, the experience stagnated. The des-
tiny of PB in Makhado is still uncertain today.44 Despite the suspension
of PB in the interviews conducted in South Africa and in the documents
examined, the reports presented were that the experience was performing
well. The case of Makhado reveals that political will was the determining
element for the experiment to enter into an impasse.
7.4 CONCLUSION
The first evidence of PB in Africa goes back to the meeting of Africités
and, in particular, the event in Yaoundé in 2003. The same year, the
national law in Peru was approved. The WSF was in its third edition.
In Latin America, in general, there were different experiences of PB and
international events on the theme were frequent. In Europe, a range of
pioneering cities had adopted PB and transnational networks were already
advocating the theme as Radically Democratize Democracy (RDD). The
UMP-LAC again performed a fundamental role in organizing, together
with other institutions, a panel in Africités in Yaoundé, connecting Latin
American and African local authorities.
Local authorities do not stand out in the process of regional diffusion

in Sub-Saharan Africa as ambassadors of PB in the cases observed. Political
will is the necessary condition for the experiences to be implemented, but
that is not enough. In Maputo, despite the political will of the former
mayor, there were technical difficulties the team faced in developing PB,
which was then taken up with support from the World Bank after reaching
an impasse. In Makhado, despite the combination of technical support
from Planact and the German co-operation, a political change at the top
level of government left PB in limbo. In the case of Senegal, the intention
of the Minister for the Interior to make PB a national law, cited from a
press article, was abandoned.
The actors who stood out in PB diffusion throughout Sub-Saharan
Africa were specialists like Bachir Kanoute and Jules Dumas for
Francophone Africa, George Matovu for Anglophone Africa and Nelson
Dias for Lusophone Africa. Effectively, in around 2000, there had emerged
a group of specialists on PB in the region. These were technicians trained
in international NGOs, who circulated in the African continent offering
training and capacity-building. These are the transfer operators who held
the technical authority and know-how in relation to PB. The relations with
Latin America were important for knowledge transfer. The international
circulation of representatives of municipalities such as in the case of Belo
Horizonte and Porto Alegre, as well as international NGOs like CIGU
and, in the reverse sense as well, with Africans travelling to Brazil, con-
tributed to the interchange between the two regions. The relations with
previous networks, as in the case of Jules Dumas with RDD, mentioned in
Chap. 4, facilitated the diffusion in Cameroon and in other municipalities
in Central Africa.
The mechanism of networking is present in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this
region, in general, networking occurs progressively, as it was possible to
observe in the regional events on PB in which participation grew incre-
mentally. Municipalities such as Dondo in Mozambique were already pres-
ent at international events, as shown in previous chapters. The case of
Makhado is revealing in this respect as it was flagged up in Rio de Janeiro
in 2010, during the World Urban Forum, as the spark that boosted the
experience in South Africa.
Training and capacity-building also made up one of the mechanisms
which accelerated the process of diffusion. In fact, the specialist teams
of PB in Sub-Saharan Africa were very few and were located in Senegal,
Cameroon and Zimbabwe. When new teams of NGOs and local govern-
ments were trained to work with PB, it increased the possibilities of imple-
menting the experience. Training occurred in international workshops,
many of which were financed by the UN or the World Bank, with the
support of other agencies of international co-operation as happened in the
workshop in Durban in South Africa. The training helped take PB to the
centre of Africa and also to Mozambique and Madagascar. The case of the
NGO SAHA is illustrative in this respect.
The local and regional institutions in which specialists are rooted
and also international institutions are important catalysts for securing
funds and promoting meetings. International organizations and agen-
cies of co-operation are important for directly financing experiences of
PB. International co-operation and induction through financing or incen-
tives are indispensable elements. External financing is fundamental and
was present in many cases in the region. In the case of ONU-Habitat, the
action of one individual in Nairobi was pivotal: Rafael Tuts, who launched
co-operation with CIGU and promoted a range of training events in rela-
tion to PB. The World Bank was also involved in activities of meetings and
training. In this case, André Herzog was the individual involved in these
actions. The World Bank still pushed forward pilot projects in a variety of
municipalities in certain cases as in Madagascar, associating it with other
institutions, with Swiss co-operation and the NGO SAHA. Moreover,
producing technical material facilitated transfers, as presented with the
training manuals for Francophone and Anglophone Africa.
Translation also operated in Sub-Saharan Africa. PB took on a predom-
inantly technical rather than political nature in the region, in the sense of
radicalizing democracy. The idea underpinning PB in Sub-Saharan Africa
coincided with an appropriate technical instrument to modernize public
administration through “good governance” and this translated in a form
of management of public resources, which included population, allowing
transparency on public spending and leading to confidence in political
institutions. Experiences of radicalization of democracy were not traced.
The case of Fissel, in Senegal, is somehow deviant, insofar as its purpose
of transforming society; it had already had an important experience with
community radio and it also received technical support from local NGOs.
The technical tendency of PB can be associated with the presence of inter-
national co-operation in most of the experiences and the lack of local
authorities acting as “ambassadors of PB”.
Sub-Saharan Africa brings together a body of solid experiences. The
arrival of PB in Africa completes a triangular movement that started in
Latin America and then flowed to Europe. New mechanisms of diffu-

sion in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as new actors and new dynamics, all
emerged. The experiences of PB are predicted to increase quickly in the
coming years. Advances in terms of quality and stability are still a challenge
whose outcome we will only know in future years.
NOTES
1. Madagascar, for example, aspired to expand PB to 300
municipalities.
2. Excerpt from an interview with an international consultant in rela-
tion to the proposal for PB in North Africa.
3. Two studies produced by GTZ and the World Bank respectively
conducting a study and summary of PB in the African region
(Sintomer et al. 2012; Shall 2005).
5. Speech of the Malagasy delegation at Africités and interviews car-
ried out in Dakar in 2012.
6. Interviews carried out in Dakar in 2012. See equally, World Bank:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2012/09/10/participatory-
budgeting-an-experience-in-good-governance. Consulted in October
2013.
7. Intervention with Hellen Nyawaira Muchunu (Regional co-
ordinator of NTA) at Africités in Dakar in 2012; interview with
Jules Dumas (ASSOAL) carried out in Dakar in 2012.
8. Interviews, Dakar, 2012.
9. Interview, Belen, 2009.
10. Africités is not exclusively aimed at local authorities but also brings
together diverse political opinions such as those of ministers, rep-
resentatives of associations of civil society, teams from international
organizations, journalists, academics and the private sector.
11. There still exist networks operating on the continent and recent
experiences of PB, sustained by international co-operation.
12. UCLGA is an association of sub-national governments, created
with the aim of serving as spokesperson of African local govern-
ments in the defence of their interests. Its creation took place at the
beginning of the 2000s, from the fusion of three associations of
local collectives, respectively, African Union of Local Authorities
(AULA), Union des Villes Africaines (UVA) and the African sec-
tion of Lusophone organization of local authorities, the Gathering

of Cities and Lusoafroasian capitals (UCCLA). At UCLGA, See
http://www.localafrica.org/pages/content/?language=FR
&Id=24
13. Interview, Belen, 2009.
14. Olívio Dutra (PT), who implemented PB in Porto Alegre, was
present at the FUM in Barcelona; at that time he was Minister for
Cities in Brazil.
15. Note published by Africités, available at http://www.africites.org/
sites/default/files/docutheque/budget.pdf. Consulted in
October 2013.
16. Participant observation, during Africities in 2012, Dakar.
17. One part of the people interviewed; technical teams and politicians
in cities from South Africa, Brazil, Ecuador, Madagascar,
Mozambique, Portugal and Senegal participated in the event.
19. Analysis of Official Protocol granted by the Local Government of
Belo Horizonte.
20. Jornal do Comércio, “Seminar debate on popular participation”,
Porto Alegre, 11/11/1999.
21. The Dutch Organization for International Solidarity (SNV) incor-
porated participation in its mission and advised local collectives in
Benin to adopt them; with Adjarra adopting, in fact, there occurred
an adoption.
22. Differently from Latin America and Europe, which produced a
huge volume of work in intellectual literature, Africa has a limited
bibliography. The involvement between research centres and uni-
versities on PB in the African region is also limited.
23. In various interviews the interviewees cited the manual as a refer-
ence or guide for the implementation of PB.
27. MDP-ESA is one of the imbedded institutions which emerged for
the UMP in sub-Saharan Africa.
31. Interview, Dakar, 8 December 2012.
32. Interview, Dakar, 2012 and Gaye, Le Budget Participatif en

Pratique, 2008, p. 10.
33. Cf. report from Les Amis de la terre, 2012.
36. Banco Mundial, site consulted on 11 April 2013: http://web.
worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/
AFRICAEXT/MOZAMBIQUEEXTN/0,,menuPK:382142~pag
ePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:382131,00.html
37. Interview, Maputo, 2012.
38. Various interviews, Maputo, 2012.
41. See World Bank (2005) or Sintomer et al. (2012).
42. Interview, Videoconference Johannesburg/Pretoria, November
2012.
43. Interview, Johannesburg, 2012.
44. Interviews, Johannesburg, 2012.
REFERENCES
Africités. (2012). 6th Summit Africities: Evaluation of the Africities Process and
Monitoring of Recommendations. United Cities and Local Governments of
Africa.
Dias, N. (Coord.). (2013). Esperança democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos
Participativos no Mundo. Lisbon: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Gaye, B. (2005). Décentralisation et participation citoyenne: Évaluation participa-
tive de la décentralisations et amélioration de la transparence budgétaire. IIED.
Gaye, B. (2008). Le Budget Participatif en Pratique: Un guide pratique destiné aux
acteurs locaux. IED.
Good Governance Learning Network. (2012). Putting Participation at the Heart
of Development/Putting Development at the Heart of Participation: A Civil
Society Perspective on Local Governance in South Africa. South Africa: The State
of Local Governance Publication.
Gruenewald, L., & Smith, T. (2011). GGA Sector Network Conference. GIZ
Presentation. 27.10.2011, Maputo.
Kanouté, B. (2013). OP: visão geral, ganhos e desafios de um processo de pro-
moção da cidadania e construção da democracia. Local em África. In N. Dias
(Coord.), Esperança democrática: 25 anos de Orçamentos Participativos no
Mundo (pp. 77–86). Lisbon: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Nguenha, E. (2009). Governação Municipal Democrática em Moçambique:

Alguns Aspectos Importantes para o Desenho e Implementação de Modelos do
Orçamento Participativo. Trabalho apresentado em II Conferência do IESE
sobre Dinâmicas da Pobreza e Padrões de Acumulação em Moçambique,
Maputo.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2013b). As dinâmicas da difusão do Orçamento Participativo
Lisboa: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2011). L’implication des réseaux dans la circulation des
politiques de gouvernance participative: Le cas du Forum des Autorités Locales.
In XIème Congrès de l’Association Française de Science Politique. Section
Thématique – 26 “Agir par réseaux: Les réseaux en science politique: méthodes et
objets. Estrasburgo.
Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank,
300 p.
Shall, A. (2007). Sub-Saharan Africa’s Experience with Participatory Budgeting.
Participatory Budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting (pp. 191–
224). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Allegretti, G. (2012). Aprendendo com o Sul: O
Orçamento Participativo no mundo – um convite à cooperação global. Bonn:
Engagement Global.
Sintomer, Y., & Herzberg, C., & Allegretti, G. (2013). Participatory Budgeting
Worldwide – Updated Version. Dialog Global, Study No. 25. Bona: Engagement
Global.
Smith, T. (2004). The Potential for Participatory Budgeting in South Africa: A
Case Study of the “People’s Budget” in eThekwini Municipality. Centre for Civil
Society, University of KwaZulu Natal.
World Bank. (2009). Municipal Development in Mozambique: Lessons from the First
Decade. Volume I: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2011). Evaluación del Presupuesto Participativo y su relación con el
presupuesto por resultados. Washington, DC: World Bank. Documento Resumen,
34 p.
CHAPTER 8
Conclusions and Implications
The analysis of the international diffusion of PB is more than a comple-

mentary study for the bibliography on democracy and participation. From
the theoretical perspective, the analysis of diffusion serves to illuminate a
series of interconnected questions which are still to be explored in various
literatures. In effect, many scholars still understand the analysis of public
policy as limited to the borders of the state, while studies of international
relations serve to understand those interactions that occur beyond domes-
tic frontiers. This book offers, above all, an analysis of the processes of
globalization of public policies. Throughout this study, the backstage of
this phenomenon is revealed, showing the different dynamics present, not
only in the case of PB, but that can also be found in public policies in
general.
In the case of democracy and social participation, a large part of the
analysis is dedicated to studies on the institutional dimensions of the
devices, on the actors that participate or on the participation itself. Still, it
is interesting to understand why, in the last decades, there has been a rapid
and intense proliferation of participatory institutions around the world.
Studies which consider the international dimension of participation and of
participatory devices can offer explanations about why and how this pro-
cess occurred, as well as which entities were responsible for its outcome.
It is not possible to satisfy these problems by looking only at the internal
dimensions of participatory devices, it needs to move beyond and take
into account a range of external factors.

Nowadays, studying diffusion is somehow an empirical imposition,

owing to the large number of policies that are flowing from one country
to another. Understanding the internationalization of PB is also related to
a recent transformation in the position of Brazil in relation to the world.
This is especially the role the country has been performing in global gov-
ernance, in regard to technical co-operation, above all, in the South–South
area, but also in its strategies for international insertion through a form
of “diplomacy of social policies”, which today has involved programmes
of cash transfer and food security, among others. PB is the precursor in
this sense, insofar as it is a local policy which becomes a reference point
and helps construct the image of a city. Moreover, it is one of the first
Brazilian public policies to reach such a level of international prestige and
invert the traditional argument that countries of the South need to learn
from Northern countries, frequently used in the times of the “Washington
consensus”.
Accessing this type of information and understanding the causal pro-
cesses which are part of phenomena of this nature is not simple. It requires
a profound investment on the part of the researcher, who must get directly
into the field. However, this field is not limited to territorial frontiers;
the researcher must go beyond these. The researcher should engage in a
transnational political ethnographic study, which allows visits to interna-
tional fields, exploring different sites where the phenomenon occurs and
that make it possible to produce comparisons from which the researcher
can extract rigorously researched and detailed information about the pro-
cesses under analysis. It is needed, therefore, to investigate the micro-
foundations and the causal mechanisms which operate in the phenomenon
under observation. The commitment to this type of research and the dedi-
cation to this study has taken me many places where it was possible to
identify institutions which were important to the process of diffusion and
to delve even deeper to get to the level of individual action, that is, to the
“Ambassadors of Participation”. These actors made the difference to the
process of international diffusion of PB.
The conclusion is organized in three parts. The first looks at the
theoretical limits of studies on diffusion. The second presents the theo-
retical contribution that this work offers to the literature, considering
different levels analysed, the type of agency—institutional and individual,
and recurrent mechanisms. The final section looks to the next steps for
research.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 231
8.1 LIMITS TO RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL

DIFFUSION: CLEAVAGES, CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
The literature on international diffusion is still a vast and very fragmented
area of political science and international relations. It is worth remember-
ing that, in the past 50 years, international journals on political science
have published more than 800 articles on policy diffusion (Graham et al.
2013), with the majority published in the last 15 years. This is partly due
to the association of the literature with its objects of study and the absence
of dialogue between the different research areas.
If we widen this to literature on social movements, the result is a
profusion not only in relation to the diverse forms of approaching the
phenomenon—based on strategy to confirm theories or describe macro
processes—but also the terminologies and styled narratives which end up
becoming jargons of sub-fields of studies. This causes the following prob-
lem: the new generation of researchers on entering the field of study find
themselves disoriented, on the one hand, and, on the other, feel induced
to adhere to one or other filiation of research such as diffusion studies,
transfer analysis, quantitative or qualitative methods. If there was greater
dialogue and interchanges on this field of study, this would contribute
without doubt to increase the heuristic potential of findings on diffusion
and reduce the confusion in respect to terminology, stylized arguments
and approaches.
The terminology, as already emphasized, to treat the phenomenon of
diffusion is vast. Terms such as waves, lesson-drawing, bandwagon and
benchmarking, among others, which make up more than a hundred forms
of designating policy diffusion (Graham et al. 2012, p. 891), are common-
place in the field. This can be seen as terms utilized to refer to very simi-
lar processes. The stylized narratives of “scale-shift” or “norm cascade”,
“spillover” or “globalization of palace wars” are too often reductive to the
realm of diffusion. In the same way debates can become excessively spe-
cific, such as the literature on the mechanisms for policy diffusion. On the
one hand, stylized narratives are useful to describe macro process, as was
the case in Chap. 5 which uses the idea of a “norms cascade” (Finnemore
and Sikkink 1998) to explain the passage of the entrance of PB onto the
international agenda to the point of mass diffusion.
However, the process is completely permeated with micro-dynamics, as
well as with previous and post circumstances, which are indispensable to
better understand diffusion. It is therefore needed to take into account a

more micro-sociological dimension of the phenomenon, so as to reach a
more profound understanding of the process in question.
Causal mechanisms are in vogue in social science and, particularly,
in political science. The objective of using mechanisms is to access the
micro-fundamentals of policy. Despite the analytical gains which may
be obtained through the notion of mechanisms these are still employed
unequally and applied in an unclear manner by different authors.
“Mechanistic” positivism complicates qualitative research in that it is dif-
ficult to find elements which have the characteristics of necessity or suffi-
ciency. Moreover, mechanisms have worked in isolated contexts whereas,
if applied very often in different contexts or circumstances are frequently
not pertinent or do not produce the same effect. Not only is there confu-
sion in the area of defining mechanisms, as shown by Mahoney (2003),
but there is also difficulty in their coherent application in the study of
diffusion.
The combination of macro-processes and micro-dynamics was an
important step to describe and explain the stages of diffusion of PB and
the elements which helped this phenomenon to occur. In turn, the mul-
tiplicity of actors operating in the process of diffusion represents a very
complex template to be reconstructed. Identifying the totality of actors
who participated in the process is a great challenge. To be reductive is
inevitable. In this work, for example, it was impossible to present all the
actors participating in the international diffusion of PB. We have, instead,
concentrated essentially on certain protagonists identified at important
moments and in essential regions to understanding the process.
8.2 RESEARCH GAINS IN RELATION TO

THE DIFFUSION OF PB
Currently, the phenomena of “Big Data” and quantitative analysis are in

fashion in social sciences and, especially, in political science, and we need
to increasingly reinforce the role of field research. Visiting political experi-
ences in loco is a great analytical instrument that allows one to observe and
understand an object of study in its own natural habitat. The analysis of
phenomena which are not territorially localized, such as the international
diffusion of public policies, requires field research. In fact, accompanying
the international circulation of PB permits the identification of actors who
advocated for its adoption, the “Ambassadors of Participation”, and who
operated the transfers. The multi-sited transnational field research made

it possible to monitor the process and observe the micro-dynamics oper-
ating in the diffusion of the most celebrated practice of institutionalized
social participation on the planet.
There are objects of study which are accessible from database from
remote origins. However, there are cases in which reliable data are not
yet available, or simply do not exist; nor is there literature on the subject.
This was especially the situation of PB in sub-Saharan Africa and, to a
lesser extent, in Latin America. In the case of sub-Saharan Africa, it was
possible to carry out pioneering research which, without a doubt, will aid
future researchers intending to access this field of study. Conducting field
research in these two regions allowed us to garner information which was
not available to international literature. Conducting interviews, combined
with the analysis of documents, is a reliable form of reconstructing pro-
cesses. To the present day, the process of international diffusion of PB
had not been presented with such richness of detail. The 127 interviews
conducted in nine different countries was certainly a determining element
to attain this research result.
In synthesis, despite the limits in terms of variation in the intensity of
the field, this work gives to the academic community of social sciences,
and especially to studies of international diffusion and social participa-
tion, one contribution: a presentation, based on empirical evidence, of the
combination of micro-dynamics and macro-processes in the diffusion of
PB, since its origin in Brazil. This contribution reveals the significance and
importance of conducting field research to understand the actual nature
of political phenomena.
With this research on PB a first step was made towards the associa-
tion of a study of diffusion, which integrated its different levels. The field
research—with interviews and participant observation, combined with
document analysis—helped to gather information which could reveal the
micro-dynamics of the phenomenon and the agency of actors and their
effects throughout the diffusion process. As mentioned above, we found
a range of levels of the international diffusion of PB, as well as identified
mechanisms operating systematically in a variety of contexts. These were
achievements attained by this research, which increased our knowledge
in respect to the phenomenon of international diffusion, in general, and
of PB, in particular. This means that it is necessary to access the most in-
depth levels of information, in order to understand when the individuals
are crucial and when the institutions, in fact, matter to the outcome of
the process, as well as those mechanisms which either facilitate or, on the
contrary, constrain diffusion.
8.2.1 A Study at Different Levels: Local, Regional and Global

There is still little analysis of the process of diffusion which integrates
the different levels of the phenomenon—local, regional and global. The
result is that very often arguments are produced which leave to one side
diverse aspects of the question such as the external recognition of a prac-
tice, the process of entering onto an agenda and the variations in terms
of international trajectory of the object in circulation. Integrated analysis
of the three levels of diffusion of PB allows us to identify the complete
arc of the movement of international diffusion, from its initial stages of
internationalization to the moment when PB gained legitimacy from the
international community and diffused massively across continents.
Public polices, in general, and PB, in particular, do not diffuse randomly
and not all the ideas and techniques have the same level of repercussion.
Why did PB circulate massively and not other policies of participatory
governance? In this book, we have shown the process for the fight for
recognition of PB from Porto Alegre, with its mayors and teams from the
municipality, but also by activists in other countries, such as members of
the RDD. The analysis of different levels allows the identification of actors
operating at all levels and, very often, on more than one continent.
The device created in Brazil was initially transferred within Latin
America itself before it reached Europe—where relations of co-operation
with institutional support and financing from the European Union (EU)
were established—and then it spread out and moved to sub-Saharan Africa.
Lastly, more recently, experiences have begun to emerge in the United
States, Canada and Asia. The dynamic of global diffusion has shaped itself
as a triangular movement, initially tracing back to Latin America, Europe
and Africa in the first decade of the 2000s. At the regional level, it is possi-
ble to observe actors operating as catalysts. That was the role of the UMP-
LAC in Latin America, on the one hand, and Enda-Ecopop and ASSOAL
for the local governments in Francophone Africa, on the other. The action
of these institutions was crucial to centralize information and teams of PB
and accelerate the process of regional diffusion. Latin American mayors
such as Tituaña and Martin Pumar were important for the implementation
of practices of PB.
8.2.2 Two Types of Agency: Between Individuals

and Institutions
From the literature integrated from various levels we can recognize two
types of agency and when they are fundamental to the process: agency
of the individual and institutional agency. To identify this element, the
research technique of in-depth interviews was fundamental, in that it
allowed access to the necessary information to reconstruct the process and
trace the role of the agents.
The protagonists in the process of diffusion were the “Ambassadors of
Participation”, true transnational militants for PB. These individuals, who
were very often activists, academics or technical staff of non-governmental
or international institutions, utilized their skills and capacities to promote
PB. These were people who were cosmopolitan, fluent in different lan-
guages, with theoretical, technical and practical authority in social par-
ticipation. These attributes facilitate the legitimation of PB. In addition,
the “ambassadors” used transnational spaces, such as forum meetings and
workshops, to disseminate PB or construct networks on the theme. These
individuals contributed to take PB not only to the municipalities, but also
into international institutions, such as the United Nations (UN) and the
World Bank. This relation which appears sometimes as a blurred image, in
which individuals and institutions are confused, was a necessary condition
to get PB to diffuse internationally.
Individual agency manifests itself when it is necessary to introduce
PB onto the international agenda, take the device into the government
(local or national) or an institution, spread the experience and operate the
transfers. The agency was clear when we interpreted information through
process-tracing. Individuals such as Tarso Genro, Raul Pont, Jean-Blaise
Picheral, Patrick Braoezec and Bernard Bissinger were identified as crucial
in constructing relations between Porto Alegre and France and transfer-
ring the first experiences of PB. These individuals still play an important
role in leading transnational networks, such as RDD and the FLA. The
presence of mayors from Porto Alegre in Andean America is less, but the
political will of Auki Tituaña and Martín Pumar is decisive regarding the
implementation of PB in cities, and this became an exemplar, respectively,
in Cotacachi and Villa El Salvador.
In turn, the action of Yves Cabannes, through the UMP-ALC, was
important to the diffusion of PB in the Latin American region and in the
passage of this participatory governance policy to sub-Saharan Africa, at
the start of the decade. In this region, specialists such as Bachir Kanouté
or Jules Dumas functioned as operators of transfers, not only for PB but
also in offering technical assistance and training to teams. This signifies
that without the action of motivated and determined individuals to pro-
mote PB, it would not have achieved the same outcomes in the process of
international diffusion. In the World Bank, the presence of André Herzog
was central to stimulating South–South co-operation in respect to PB in
general.
Institutional agency, in turn, can be recognized by tracing the experi-
ences, legitimating them, financing them and inducing the adoption of
PB. This agency is revealed in actions from the EU, through the subsidies
it offered to municipalities with the URB-AL programme. This interna-
tional public policy put into practice by the EU contributed to consolidat-
ing relations, producing know-how and exchanges between Europe and
Latin America, as well as forming new teams, consolidating and legiti-
mating PB. The World Bank, with projects of co-operation, stimulated
the transfer of PB between Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. The
organization of events and workshops allowed teams to come together
from both continents. Meanwhile, the most significant programmes of the
World Bank in South Kivu, Madagascar and Maputo were indispensable in
introducing or reinforcing PB in these countries through direct financing.
The individual and institutional agencies complemented each other
over the process stimulating the international diffusion of PB. It is impor-
tant to note how this complex web of actors and institutions is intercon-
nected, circulating and intersecting in more than one continent. There
are individuals and institutions which operate over three continents, while
others operate in their own regions. The city of Porto Alegre is, to a large
extent, a great hub, the point where individuals and institutions meet.
We have intersections between CIGU in Ecuador, on the one hand, and
Enda-Ecopop in Senegal, on the other. Similarly, we can note the meeting
between RDD in France, Solidarity in Brazil and ASSOAL in Cameroon.
8.2.3 Recurring Mechanisms

The results of our research show a range of mechanisms in operation in the
process of international diffusion at its different levels. The mechanisms
are not interpreted as determinant entities as one part of the literature
has postulated, that is, in the sense of entities which, on being activated,
produce determined results. The proposal of using the notion of mecha-
nism is to identify “forces” which, when they come into action, facili-
tate the way to produce determined outcomes. The intervention of these
mechanisms is of greater or lesser intensity according to the case, scale of
diffusion (local, regional, global) and circumstances. At the end of each
chapter, the mechanisms which stood out in the process and whose action
accelerated diffusion were highlighted.
Construction, understood as an abstract process, was one of the mecha-
nisms which operated in various cases, especially in the Brazilian experi-
ences with Porto Alegre which were the most emblematic. The city of
Porto Alegre established an image as a capital of participatory democracy,
which not only attracted actors to find inspiration from their model, but
also contributed to making it recognized around the world. The mecha-
nism of external scanning occurs systematically. In fact, the international
organizations sought successful experiences, which could be replicated in
other contexts. PB was one of these and the UN, as well as the World
Bank, was involved in this type of action. Besides that the pioneering activ-
ity of Porto Alegre made it a leader, so that other municipalities were
inspired by its experience, leading to a mechanism of “follow the leader”.
International co-operation between individuals and institutions was
also a decisive mechanism. In the case of the RDD, activists and local
authorities worked together to promote PB in the French context and, to
a lesser extent, in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, with particular attention
to Francophone countries (i.e. Senegal and Cameroon). Co-operation is
also important to the extent that it does not limit the transfer only to
the efforts of individual actors in the promotion of a cause. In fact, co-
operation also takes an institutionalized shape when it evolves into trans-
fer of financial resources for the same policy transfers. The projects of
co-operation from the EU, such as URB-AL, and those put into practice
by the World Bank fostered the circulation of PB between Latin America
and Europe, on the one hand, and sub-Saharan Africa, on the other.
The mechanism of technical capacity-building of teams also favoured
international diffusion. To the extent to which projects of co-operation
increased, new specialists trained in PB also increased, and they were
capable of reproducing it in their own institutions, cities and countries
of work.
The flux of PB in this wide variety of contexts and institutions would
not have been possible without the different translations of this device. The
written instruments (books, manuals, reports etc.) were translated into
different languages, from Portuguese to French, and to Italian, for exam-
ple. Moreover, its content was also translated absorbing different mean-
ings, from a device capable of radicalizing democracy to an instrument
capable of increasing municipal “good governance”. The multiples com-
ing and going between idioms and meanings were indispensable mecha-
nisms to facilitate and accelerate the process of diffusion. Networking is
also a mechanism which is systematically present in the process. The action
of connecting people is almost an obligatory passage to the circulation of
ideas and techniques on PB.
Carrying out interviews and observation focused on the individu-
als who participated in international diffusion allows the identification
of movements and unique actions of actors throughout the process.
Individual circulation, whether between institutions of the same country,
through political renovation, or between international institutions or dif-
ferent countries, was the mechanism which facilitated diffusion. The case
of transfer on a national scale in Peru is illustrative in this respect. In fact,
mayors who implemented PB in their municipalities were later elected
to Congress, and there—within this institution—they continued promot-
ing this policy. The Peruvian case not only reveals the operation of this
mechanism, but also highlights the influence of institutional induction.
The creation of normative devices, such as national laws which prompted
municipalities to carry out PB, is an important mechanism to increase the
scale of PB. Induction also has its origins on the international level, when
international organizations encourage municipalities to adopt PB in their
manual, directly financing experiences, or in contracts, where they put a
condition of adopting PB to the concession of credit.
The identification of mechanisms is an analytical task which helps the
researcher to better understand the dynamics of taking up a process and
how these unfold in different circumstances. Mechanisms are entities
understood by the researcher. In this book, a range of mechanisms were
developed to analyse PB diffusion.
8.3 THE NEXT STEPS OF THE RESEARCH

The analysis of PB reveals the dynamics of diffusion of a municipal public
policy. Nevertheless, there remain many unanswered questions, equally
in the literature on the subject under analysis, that is, policy diffusion, as
in relation to the empirical object, participatory democracy devices and
the increase of the international circulation of Southern models, especially
from Brazil.
It still remains to compare PB to negative cases of diffusion or, rather,

why PB did not spread in some cases, as well as to identify the mechanisms
which obstructed or constrained its adoption. One possibility is to observe
places where PB has still not managed to spread, such as in Norway, where
it was attempted, or in many Asian countries. In addition, a comparison
can also be made between the diffusion of PB with other international
models or the models produced in Brazil, such as municipal councils,
described in the introduction of the book.
In this work, two big ideas in relation to PB were identified. The first
includes the ideal of deepening and radicalizing democracy, whereas the
second associates PB with “good governance”. This dimension was not
the priority of the analysis. We opted to maintain it as an abstracted issue.
Even so, these two abstract images of PB can be distinguished in other
ideas, even smaller and more specific ones, taking on greater concreteness
and precision.
Effectively, if we observe the case of Porto Alegre, the initial idea was
to produce an experience of radicalizing democracy and, after a change
of government in 2005, PB came progressively closer to the idea of
“governance”. For its part, the case of Cotacachi associates with PB as
a legitimate device for the construction of a social fabric and integration
of genders and ethnicities, and not necessarily as dealing with democratic
radicalization. The city of Recife, in turn, insisted on the idea of mass
participation. There are, therefore, internal variations within cases as well
as variations between cases. There is still a gap, with rare exceptions, such
as the work by Talpin and Sintomer (2011), which identified the dimen-
sions of ideas of PB in a more detailed manner, as well as the work of
Ganuza and Baiocchi (2012). Tracing the dimension of the underlying
idea within PB is, without a doubt, an important step to better understand
the abstract element or, to be more direct, the political content which
circulated alongside PB.
The exponents of policy transfer have insisted on the possibility of study-
ing the phenomenon as a dependent or independent variable (Dolowitz
and Marsh 2001). In other words, it is about studying the transfer as
a process in itself, as was the case in this study, or as a variable which
influences the final outcome, that is, the success or failure of a public
policy. The aforementioned authors define that causes of failure in public
policies owe themselves to incomplete or inappropriate transfers. A large
part of the research on PB, in Brazil and abroad, deals with the positive
cases, the successful ones. There are still no significant studies on nega-
tives cases of PB, that is, where the following question has still not been
answered: what happened with PB, in certain cases, for it not to be suc-
cessful? Understanding the process of diffusion can be the key to impor-
tant material to advance this open question in the field of studies of PB.
PB received great attention in the field of social sciences, generating
many case studies and few comparisons. Among the case studies, the cases
of success and those that became emblematic were studied as mentioned.
Comparisons are carried out in ambits which are primarily intra-national
or inter-regional. Few studies venture into comparative research. This
work seeks to present cases coming from three different continents and
juxtaposes a range of international trajectories of PB. The international
template shows the richness of experiences of PB nowadays. This reveals a
field of study which is still relatively unexplored and should be tackled by
the next generation of studies, whose analysis can be enriched by theories
of social and political sciences, as well as international relations.
Chapter 4 presented two transnational networks which were important
in the process of the diffusion of PB. The FLA and RDD are precur-
sory networks, promoting PB since the end of the 1990s and the start
of the year 2000. If RDD became inoperative in the last decade, many
other national networks and some transnational ones have emerged since
then: the Brazilian network for PB, as well as the Chilean, Colombian,
Dominican and Argentinean ones, and even a network in Portugal. Besides
that the IOPD, and its branch in Africa, the IOPDA, are other examples.
There are still no studies on these networks of PB, which are fundamental
actors in the process of its different adoptions and diffusion.
An additional step for further research is also to analyse the entrance
and development of the theme of participation within the agenda of inter-
national organizations such as the UN and the World Bank. It is worth
remembering that Goldfrank (2012) insisted on the fact that PB was not
a priority for the Bank. Still, participation was integrated into an agenda
in the area of public policies promoted by the World Bank which seemed
to have weight, as indicated in the statement from Wolfensohn, the ex-
president of the World Bank in Chap. 5. What led the World Bank and the
UN to introduce the promotion of social participation onto their agendas?
How did different devices gain space on internal agendas? Why did PB in
particular have prominence? In Chap. 5, these questions were explored,
but a more in-depth study could be made through an internal analysis,
with field research, and from an approach of the sociology of international
organizations.
The big step for the next piece of research is to understand the diffu-
sion of PB in comparison with other Brazilian public policies. As shown
here PB is a local experience that took a precursor path of this new wave
of Brazilian policy diffusion. In the introduction of this book, it was men-
tioned that the innovations produced in Brazil in recent years in the field
of ideas, models and technologies of social policies, especially at the State
level, have made the country an exporter of public policies. This move-
ment has turned upside down the “Washington Consensus” and enabled
the emergence of the “Consensus of Brasilia”. To compare PB with this
reality of Brazilian policies is an interesting direction for new research.
The diffusion of Brazilian social policies, and those of the South in gen-
eral, is a promising field and an unexplored object for study. Some particu-
larly interesting policies include the policy to fight against poverty (e.g. the
models of conditional cash transfers), those in food security and agriculture
(e.g. plantation technologies, programmes to purchase food and school
feeding), as well as health programmes (e.g. general pharmaceuticals pro-
duction for malaria and HIV). This is a new empirical phenomenon, which
imposes demands on social and political sciences and contemporary inter-
national relations. In fact, if the reality today inverts North–South relations
in the world, and takes South–South relations to another level, it will pres-
ent a challenging field for the public policies analyst. In order to fulfil this
research we need to get our “boots dirty” and get into the field.
REFERENCES
Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012c). The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory
Graham, E., Schipan, C., & Volden, C. (2013b). The Diffusion of Policy Diffusion
Research in Political Science. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 673–701.
Mahoney, J. (2003). Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory
and Method. Sociological Forum, 16(3), 575–593.
Talpin, J., & Sintomer, Y. (Dir.). (2011b). La démocratie participative au-déla de la
proximité: le Poitou-Charentes et l’échelle regional (pp. 145–160). Rennes: Presses
Universitaires de Rennes.
EPILOGUE: THE ARRIVAL IN
NORTH AMERICA
In September 2011 The New York Times published an article about

Participatory Budgeting (PB).1 The policy developed in Porto Alegre at
the end of the 1980s took more than 20 years to “arrive in the United
States”. During the voyage it made stop-offs in Latin America, Europe
and Africa and currently there are experiences of PB emerging in the Far
East. I undertook my last fieldwork in 2013 in the United States; it was a
small incursion that I complemented in 2015, with some information on
Porto Rico. From visits to PB in Chicago and New York, I could observe
that there were some elements that were constant in the process of diffu-
sion. There was a similar pattern to the other cases I had analysed.
The entrance of PB into the United States came, in particular, with the
action of the Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) a non-governmental
organization (NGO) co-ordinated by Josh Lerner, who also became an
“ambassador” of PB in the country. The process was initiated precisely in
2008 in an edition of the regional World Social Forum (WSF) when Joe
Moore, alderman of the 49° district in Chicago, had contact with PB in a
workshop organized by PBP during this event. After the WSF, Moore got
in touch with Josh Lerner, who helped design a model of PB for Chicago
through the PBP. A little while later, Moore became the first alderman to
implement PB in the United States. In short, his policy consisted of allow-
ing inhabitants of neighbourhoods to participate in the allocation of close
to US$1 million of his discretionary budget.

Participatory Budgeting, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43337-0
244 EPILOGUE: THE ARRIVAL IN NORTH AMERICA
There have been academics in the United States studying the Brazilian
PB experience since the 1990s. Important international analyses were
produced, such as the works by Rebeca Abers (2001), Gianpaolo Baiocchi
(2005), Benjamin Goldfrank (2011) and Brian Wampler (2009). It was,
however, later in Chicago in 2008 that for the first time theories, analyses
and abstract studies on PB were moved towards the public policy realm
and put into practice in the United States.2
In March 2012 the first international meeting on PB in the United
States took place, in the city of New York where some districts had already
begun their experiences. The event featured specialists from various coun-
tries. Close to six months later the New York Times published more material
on PB. It is worth noting that the publication of Le Monde Diplomatique,
mentioned in Chaps. 3 and 5 by Bernard Cassen, had appeared 14 years
previously in France. The article in The New York Times entitled “Putting
in Their 2 Cents” was about an assembly which happened in a district of
New York and emphasized in one of its paragraphs the following:
The event in Brooklyn was part of something called participatory budget-

ing, in which constituents in four City Council districts were given control
over a slice of their council members’ discretionary budgets—$1 million in
each district. […] [T]his is only the second time that participatory budget-
ing, originally developed in Brazil, has been tried in the United States, and
the first time in New York City, said Josh Lerner, executive director of the
Participatory Budgeting Project, a nonprofit organization. Whether it will
become entrenched here is unclear. But what is known is that over the past
six months, 250 regular New Yorkers jumped into the trenches and dirtied
their hands with democracy. (New York Times, 2012)
PB took a while to enter the political debate in the United States, but
quickly won the attention of the media and institutional recognition in
Washington. Around 2013, the White House recognized in a public doc-
ument the success of PB in Chicago. In the end of 2015, in the ambit
of a Partnership for Open Government, the White House deepened its
engagement and stated its commitment to expand PB in the United
States, through different channels (United States of America 2015, p. 16).
History seems to repeat itself once again, with a range of local adapta-
tions. What is worth noting is that the United States also followed a range
of standards which characterized the diffusion of PB in particular, but
which can be understood for municipal policies in general. It is certain
that each country has its own specificities. Still, it is possible to observe
EPILOGUE: THE ARRIVAL IN NORTH AMERICA 245
the importance of the event as a space for socialization and divulging of

PB as was the WSF in Atlanta. The NGOs had the role of assisting the
implementation of PB and in this case this activity was exercised by the
PBP. The media played an important role in presenting and spreading PB
to society as The New York Times did. Finally it had to also to pass through
the winnow of august institutions to gain recognition, which in this case
was the White House. Recently, as well as the experiences of Chicago and
New York, PB was implemented in the district of Vallejo in California in
2012 and in a district of San Francisco in January 2013.
New York was the second city in the United States to adopt PB after
Chicago. The initiative took hold in 2011, through a group of pioneering
city councillors, among who was Melissa Mark-Viverito, elected in 2005 in
Brooklyn. Born in San Juan in Puerto Rico, Viverito graduated from the
University of Columbia and had a career characterized by activism in the
non-governmental sector. The councillor represents the 8° District in
New York which includes El Barrio/East Harlem and Southern Bronx.
She was also the first Puerto Rican elected in New York.3 One could also
say that Viverito became an “ambassador of PB”. This instrument did not
only serve to give a new “spirit” to her district, but was also important to
mobilize the inhabitants around choosing projects for the neighbourhood
through social participation. PB became one of the characteristics of the
Viverito way of management in her neighbourhood.
At the start of 2014, Viverito was elected “City Council Speaker” of
New York, with the support of 30 of the 51 members of the chamber. PB
was inserted onto the city agenda the following year, in 2015, in a more
intense manner. The institutional circulation of Viverito, associated with
other factors, influenced the “spillover” of PB into different districts in
New York. In the 2015-2016 cycle, PB is being carried out in 28 dis-
tricts out of a total of 51. In the previous cycle close to 51,000 partici-
pants allocated a total of US$ 32 million through PB. Just to compare,
Chicago implemented PB in only five of its districts. It is worth noting
that in New York PB immigrants can also participate and, in the words of
Viverito, this process is “validating all voices in our community”.4
At the end of May 2015, in a trip to Puerto Rico I embarked upon
an unimaginable and completely new experience in a PB field trip. In an
informal conversation with a councillor in San Juan, I was informed that
the city had also begun an experience with PB. The process started in
2013 and the most interesting aspect was that in this Caribbean island,
contrary to what would be expected, the model adopted was not that of
246 EPILOGUE: THE ARRIVAL IN NORTH AMERICA
Porto Alegre, but that of New York.5 The international circulation of ideas,

models and political institutions continues to follow a curious movement
of constant fusion, adaptation and, again, diffusion of different practices.
NOTES
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion/4-on-ny-city-
council-will-let-public-decide-some-spending.html, consulted on
September 2013.
2. In certain municipalities of the USA representatives are elected by
district and have at their disposal discretionary funds to use during
their mandate.
3. Cf. biography of Melissa Mark-Viverito no site: http://council.nyc.
gov/d8/html/members/biography.shtml, consulted on 7 June 2015.
4. Cf. video of PB on the Site do New York City Council: http://
council.nyc.gov/html/pb/home.shtml, consulted on 7 June 2015.
5. Cf. Information on PB in San Juan, Porto Rico: http://www.presu-
puestoparticipativopr.org/iquestcoacutemo-funciona.html, con-
sulted on 7 June 2015.
APPENDIX: LIST OF INTERVIEWS
ORGANIZED IN DATE ORDER
Interviewed Role at the time of the interview Date Location

(and/or prior to the interview)
1 Ex-Co-ordinator of Programme 03/15/2007 Paris/France

URB-AL—Network 3, Issy-les-
Moulineaux, France
2 Co-ordinator Démarches Quartier 11/30/2007 Saint-Denis/
Saint-Denis France
3 Regional Co-ordinator Démarches 02/2008 Saint-Denis/
Quartier Saint-Denis France
4 Secretary of Cités Unies France 02/21/2008 Paris/France
5 Secretary for International Relations 03/2008 Saint-Denis/
Pleine Commune (Ex-Secretary for France
International Relations Saint-Denis)
6 President of Plaine Commune 03/19/2008 Saint-Denis/
(Ex-Mayor of Saint-Denis) France
7 Co-ordinator of International 04/2008 Saint-Denis/
Relations Saint-Denis France
8 Regional Co-ordinator of Démarches 04/2008 Saint-Denis/
Quartier Saint-Denis France
9 Co-ordinator for the Sector for Local 04/2008 Saint-Denis/
Studies Saint-Denis France
10 Staff member—Governance Sector 07/2008 Porto Alegre/
Porto Alegre/Person overseeing Brazil
thematic projects for PB
11 Adviser on PB 07/2008 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
(Continued)

248 APPENDIX: LIST OF INTERVIEWS ORGANIZED IN DATE ORDER
(Continued)
12 Person overseeing the sector on 07/12/2008 Porto Alegre/

governance Porto Alegre/OP Brazil
13 President of NGO FRACAB of Porto 07/12/2008 Porto Alegre/
Alegre Brazil
14 Secretary for Cités et Gouvernement 01/29/2009 Belem/Brazil
Locaux Unis pour l’Afrique
(CGLUA)
15 Secretary for International Relations 02/01/2009 Belem/Brazil
Pará State (Brazil)
16 PB Co-ordinator, Guarulhos and the 03/14/2011 São Paulo/Brazil
Brazilian Network of Participatory
Budgeting
17 Councillor for Rio Grande do Sul 06/28/2011 Porto Alegre/
(ex-Mayor Porto Alegre) Brazil
18 Ex-Mayor Porto Alegre 06/28/2011 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
19 Member of the bench for PT-RS (one 06/29/2011 Porto Alegre/
of the originator of PB; ex-Co- Brazil
ordinator GAPLAN/PB in Porto
Alegre during governor Tarso;
receiver of the award at ONU-
Habitat in Istanbul in 1996)
20 Co-ordinator of International 06/29/2011 Porto Alegre/
Relations—Porto Alegre Brazil
21 Member of the bench of PT-RS 07/01/2011 Porto Alegre/
(ex-Secretary for International Brazil
Relations of Porto Alegre;
ex-Secretary for International
Relations of Guarulhos)
22 Community leader 07/01/2011 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
23 Co-ordinator of CAPACITAPOA 07/01/2011 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
24 President of NGO Cidade Porto 07/07/2011 Porto Alegre/
Alegre Brazil
25 Professor at the Federal University of 07/07/2011 Porto Alegre/
Rio Grande do Sul (ex-Secretary of Brazil
CGLU in Barcelona; ex-staff member
of SECAR in Porto Alegre)
26 Economist 11/17/2011 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
(Continued)
APPENDIX: LIST OF INTERVIEWS ORGANIZED IN DATE ORDER 249

27 Director General of Municipal 11/18/2011; Porto Alegre/

Chamber of Porto Alegre (ex-co- 11/22/2011 Brazil
ordinator of Community Relations
with the Municipality of Porto
Alegre)
28 Staff member of the Municipal 11/22/2011 Porto Alegre/
Government of Porto Alegre (in Brazil
charge of URB-AL - Network-9)
29 Staff member of the Rio Grande do 11/22/2011 Porto Alegre/
Sul Government (ex-Regional Brazil
Co-ordinator for PB)
30 Ex-Co-ordinator of the Regional 11/22/2011 Porto Alegre/
Administrative Centre of Porto Brazil
Alegre
31 Manager for Socio-Economic 11/24/2011 Porto Alegre/
Information Local Government of Brazil
Porto Alegre
32 Ex-Co-ordinator for the Cabinet for 11/24/2011 Porto Alegre/
Planning (GAPLAN) 1999–2004 Brazil
33 Vice-mayor of Nanterre 11/25/2011 Porto Alegre/
Brazil
34 Ex-Consultant UN-Habitat/ 12/12/2011 São Paulo/Brazil
Specialist on PB Mozambique
35 Mayor Cotacachi 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
Ecuador
36 Co-ordinator for Citizen 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
Participation of the Municipality of Ecuador
Cotacachi
37 President of the Regional 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
Assembly—Cotacachi Ecuador
38 Ex-participant of PB Children of 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
Cotacachi Ecuador
39 Quíchua Community Leader of 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
Cotacachi Ecuador
40 Staff member Cotacachi local 06/06/2012 Cotacachi/
government Ecuador
41 Cotacachi Councillor 06/07/2012 Cotacachi/
Ecuador
42 Ex-councillor of Cotacachi 06/07/2012 Cotacachi/
Ecuador
43 Representative of the Spanish NGO 06/07/2012 Cotacachi/
Xarxa in Cotacachi Ecuador
(Continued)
(Continued)
44 Ex-consultant of Programme 06/08/2012 Cotacachi/

URB-AL for Cotacachi Ecuador
45 Activist in the Regional Assembly of 06/08/2012 Cotacachi/
Cotacachi Ecuador
46 Ex-Mayor of Cotacachi 06/09/2012 Cotacachi/
Ecuador
47 Secretary of UN-Habitat 06/11/2012 Quito/Ecuador
48 Team 06/11/2012 Quito/Ecuador
member of NGO Ciudad—Quito
49 Representative of NGO 06/11/2012 Madrid/Spain
SODEPAZ-Spain
50 Staff from the UMP-LAC and 06/12/2012 Quito/Ecuador
president of CIGU
51 Co-ordinator—Committee on Social 07/16/2012 Barcelona/Spain
Inclusion, Participatory Democracy
and Human Rights /United Cities
and Local Governments (UCLG)
52 Professor Universidad Auteonoma de 07/16/2012 Barcelona/Spain
Barcelona
53 Secretary of the International 07/17/2012 Barcelona/Spain
Observatory for Participatory
Democracy
54 Ex-member of Fedération des Cités 07/20/2012 Barcelona/Spain
Unies/Representative of CGLU
55 Ex-consultant of the World Bank for 09/14/2012 São Paulo/Brazil
the municipality of Porto Alegre
56 Ex-Principal Official Principal in 09/19/2012 São Paulo/
Human Settlements for the Curitiba
UN-Habitat for the Region of Latin (videoconference)
America and the Caribbean
57 Staff member for PB in the 11/14/2012 Maputo/
municipality of Maputo Mozambique
58 Staff of the Municipality of Maputo 11/14/2012 Maputo/
Mozambique
59 Ex-staff member for PB in the 11/14/2012 Maputo/
municipality of Maputo Mozambique
60 Sector Co-ordinator for Municipal 11/15/2012 Maputo/
Finance of the Municipality of Mozambique
Maputo
61 Staff of the Municipality of Maputo 11/15/2012 Maputo/
Mozambique
(Continued)

62 Ex-staff member for PB for the 11/15/2012 Maputo/

Municipality of Maputo Mozambique
63 Ex-staff member for PB for the 11/15/2012 Maputo/
64 Staff member for PB for the 11/15/2012 Maputo/
65 Local Governance Co-ordinator of 11/20/2012 Johannesburg/
NGO Planact South Africa
66 Staff member GIZ 11/21/2012 Johannesburg/
Pretoria (video
conference)
67 Co-ordinator IED-Afrique 11/28/2012 Dakar/Senegal
68 Community Leader Sud-Kivu RDC 12/06/2012 Dakar/Senegal
69 Mayor of Ampasy Nahampoana 12/06/2012 Dakar/Senegal
(Madagascar)
70 Mayor of Anosizato Ouest 12/06/2012 Dakar/Senegal
(Madagascar)
71 Mayor of Andriambilany 12/06/2012 Dakar/Senegal
(Madagascar)
72 Professor University College London 12/07/2012 Dakar/Senegal
(ex-co-ordinator of UMP-LAC)
73 Senior Governance Specialist of the 12/08/2012 Dakar/Senegal
World Bank Institute
74 President for the Executive Secretary 12/08/2012 Dakar/Senegal
of NGO Assoal
75 Staff of ENDA-Tiers Monde 12/08/2012 Dakar/Senegal
76 Secretary for International Relations 03/26/2013 Belo Horizonte/
of the Local Government of Belo Brazil
Horizonte
77 Adviser on International relations to 03/26/2013 Belo Horizonte/
the Local Government of Belo Brazil
Horizonte
78 Manager for PB for the Local 03/26/2013 Belo Horizonte/
Government of Belo Horizonte Brazil
79 Adviser on PB for the Local 03/26/2013 Belo Horizonte/
80 Adviser on PB for the Local 03/26/2013 Belo Horizonte/
81 Staff Member for the Department on 03/27/2013 Belo Horizonte/
Indicators of the Local Government Brazil
of Belo Horizonte
(Continued)
(Continued)
82 Ex-secretary for Shared Governance 03/27/2013 Belo Horizonte/

of the Local Government of Belo Brazil
Horizonte
83 Manager for PB for the Local 03/27/2013 Belo Horizonte/
Government of Belo Horizonte in Brazil
the north eastern Region
84 Community leader for the north 03/27/2013 Belo Horizonte/
eastern region/PB activist in the Brazil
Local Government of Belo Horizonte
85 Ex-Secretary for planning, current 03/27/2013 Belo Horizonte/
secretary for finance in the Local Brazil
Government of Belo Horizonte
86 Ex-manager for PB in the Local 03/28/2013 Belo Horizonte/
Government of Belo Horizonte and Brazil
ex-co-ordinator for the Brazilian
Network for Participatory Budgeting,
also regional administrator between
1993 and 1997
87 Co-ordinator of NGO FASE—Recife 04/02/2013 Recife/Brazil
88 Community Leader (Recife) 04/02/2013 Recife/Brazil
90 Director NGO FASE—Recife 04/02/2013 Recife/Brazil
91 Ex-Co-ordinator PB—Recife 04/03/2013 Recife/Brazil
92 Ex-staff member PB Recife 04/03/2013 Recife/Brazil
95 Scientific Director of the Centre for 04/04/2013 Recife/Brazil
Studies and Research—Recife
96 Technical Team NGO Etapas—Recife 04/04/2013 Recife/Brazil
98 Community Leadership and 04/08/2013 Recife/Brazil
ex-delegate for PB
99 Pedagogue, Community Leadership 04/08/2013 Recife/Brazil
and ex-delegate for PB
100 Ex-staff member PB 04/08/2013 Recife/Brazil
101 Adviser of International Relations— 04/08/2013 Recife/Brazil
Municipality of Recife (2001–2005;
Co-ordinator of International
Relations—Municipality of Recife
(2005–2012)
(Continued)

102 Intern of International Relations— 04/09/2013 Recife/Brazil

Municipality of Recife (2006–08);
Staff of International Relations—
Municipality of Recife (2008–2012)
103 Senior Social Development 04/28/2013 Washington/
Specialist—Sustainable Development United States
Department of the World Bank
104 Senior Urban Specialist in the World 04/29/2013 Washington/
Bank Institute United States
105 Lead Urban Specialist in the World 04/29/2013 Washington/
Bank Institute United States
106 Staff member of the World Bank— 04/29/2013 Washington/
Latin America and Caribbean Region United States
107 Specialist in Open Government of the 04/29/2013 Washington/
World Bank Institute United States
108 President Participatory Budgeting 05/08/2013 New York/United
Project States
109 Councillman for the 39. District in 05/08/2013 New York/United
New York States
110 Chef of the Urban Programme— 05/21/2013 Villa El Salvador/
NGO DESCO—Villa El Salvador Peru
111 Co-ordinator for PB in Villa El 05/21/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Salvador Peru
112 Community Leader in Villa El 05/21/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Salvador Peru
113 Community Leader in Villa El 05/21/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Salvador Peru
114 Professional in Public Budgeting for 05/24/2013 Villa El Salvador/
the Ministry of Economics and Peru
Finance of Peru
115 Junior Professional Associate world 05/24/2013 Lima/Peru
Bank, Department for Governance
and Anti-corruption—World Bank
section for the region of Latin
America and the Caribbean
116 Ex-staff member for PB in Villa El 05/24/2013 Lima/Peru
Salvador
117 Ex-mayor Villa El Salvador 05/24/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Peru
(Continued)
(Continued)
118 Councillor Villa El Salvador 05/24/2013 Villa El Salvador/

Peru
119 Ex-staff member of UMP-LAC 05/27/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Peru
120 Co-ordinator of “Programa 05/28/2013 Lima/Peru
Vigilancia Ciudadana” of NGO
Propuesta Ciudadana in Lima
121 Director for the Directorate of 05/29/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Quality in Public Spending in the Peru
General Directorate of Public
Budgeting in the Ministry for
Economics and Finance of Peru
122 Ex-mayor of Villa El Salvador 05/30/2013 Lima/Peru
123 Researcher in the institute of 05/30/2013 Villa El Salvador/
Peruvian Studies and in habitants of Peru
Villa El Salvador
124 National Co-ordinator for the 05/30/2013 Lima/Peru
Gender Responsive Budgeting
Programme of Unifem
125 Co-ordinator of NGO In-Loco, 06/06/2013 Lisbon/Portugal
Portugal
126 Senior Researcher at the Centre for 11/24/2011; Porto Alegre/
Universal Social Studies, University 09/05/2013 Brazil; Bordeaux/
of Coimbra France
127 Ex-councillor 20° District of Paris; 10/11/2013 Paris/France
Member of Réseau Démocratiser
Radicalement la Démocratie (RDD)
REFERENCES
Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. (2002). Conducting and Coding Elite Interviews.
PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 673–676.
Africités. (2013a). Budget Participatif. Disponível em: http://www.africites.org/
sites/default/files/docutheque/budget.pdf. Acesso em: outubro de.
Africités. (2013b). Évaluation du Processus des Africités et Suivi des Recommanda-
tions. Rabat: CGLUA.
Asemblea de Unidad Cantonal de Cotacachi. (2000). Estatuto. Cotacachi.
Assotiation pour la Démocratie et l’Éducation Locale et Sociale Adels. http://
www.adels.org/association/index.htm, consulted on August 21, 2013.
Attac. http://www.france.attac.org/, consulted on October 2013.
Avritzer, L. (Org.). (2004). A Participação em São Paulo. São Paulo: Ed. UNESP.
Avritzer, L., & Navarro, Z. (Orgs.). (2003). A inovação democrática no Brasil: O
Orçamento Participativo. São Paulo: Cortez.
Azevedo, S., & Fernandes, R. B. (2005). Orçamento Participativo: construindo a
democracia. Rio de Janeiro: Revan.
Baiocchi, G. (2001). Participation, Activism, and Politics: The Porto Alegre
Experiment and Deliberative Democracy Theory. Politics and Society, 29(1),
43–72.
Barbosa, E., & Silva, N. (2003). Gestão Participativa no Recife do PREZEIS ao
Orçamento Participativo. Recife: Etapas.
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in
Case Study Methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 455–476.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2007). Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy
Research. In P. Sabatier (Org.), Theories of Policy Process (pp. 223–260).
Boulder: Westview Press.

256 REFERENCES
Berry, J. (2002). Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 35(4), 679–682.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des
idées. Actes de la recherche em sciences sociales, 145(1), 3-DAHL, R. A. Poliarquia.
São Paulo. Edusp. 2005, p. 475.
Cassen, B. (2003). Tout à commencé à Porto Alegre: mille forums fociaux. Paris:
Mille et une nuits.
Centro Brasileiro de Análise e Planejamento; Núcleo Democracia e Ação Coletiva.
(2011). Relatório Final: I Seminário Nacional de Participação Social. Brasília:
Secretaria Nacional de Articulação Social/Secretaria Geral da Presidência da
República Federativa do Brasil. Disponível em: http://www.secretariageral.
gov.br/art_social/seminario/relatorio-final, consulted on October 2013.
Cidade. Histórico do Orçamento Participativo de Porto Alegre. Disponível em:
http://www.ongcidade.org/site/arquivos/biblioteca/historico.pdf, con-
sulted on October 2013.
Cités et Gouvernements Locaux Unis. (2004). Estatuto. Paris: CGLU. Dis-
ponível em: http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/upload/docs/docs_
en_telechargements/Statuts.pdf, consulted on June 2013.
Cités et Gouvernements Locaux Unies Afrique. Disponível em: http://www.
localafrica.org/pages/content/?language=FR&Id=24, consulted on January
2013.
Cling, J. P., et al. (2011). La Banque mondiale, entre transformations et résilience.
Critique Internationale, 4(53), 43–65.
Coêlho, D. B. (2009). Competição Política e a Difusão de Programas de
Transferência de Renda no Brasil: um estudo empírico com a metodologia de
Event History Analysis. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Política), Universidade
Federal de Pernambuco.
Coêlho, V. S., & Nobre, M. (Orgs.). (2004). Participação e Deliberação: Teoria
Democrática e Experiências Institucionais no Brasil Contemporâneo. São Paulo.
Ed. 34.
Confederaçao National Dos Municipios. (2011). As áreas internacionais dos
municípios brasileiros. Brasília: CNM.
Côrtes, S. (2005). Fóruns participativos e governança: uma sistematização das
contribuições da literatura. In C. Em Lubambo, D. B. Coêlho, & M. A. Melo
(Orgs.), Desenho institucional e participação política: experiências no Brasil con-
temporâneo. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
Cotacachi. (2008). Impactos De los Presupuestos Participativos En Ciudades
Multietnicas y Pluriculturales. URB-AL/Rede – 9. Relatório técnico.
Dd Francesco, F. (2013). Transnational Policy Innovation: The OECD and the
Diffusion of Regulatory Impact Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Dorothy, D., & Garand, J. (2005). Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and
Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking, 1989–1998. American
Politics Research, 33(5), 615–644.
REFERENCES 257
Dumoulin, L., & Sarugger, S. (2010). Les Policy Transfer Studies: analyse crityque
et perspectives. Critique Internationale, (48), 9–24.
Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Studies and Theory in Political Science. In Regarding
Politics: Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Economist. http://www.economist.com/news/international/21574454-internet-
helps-politicians-listen-better-their-electors-if-they-want-processing, consulted
on October 2013.
Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/16690887, consulted on October
2013.
European Union. URB-AL. Aailable in: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/
latin-america/regional-cooperation/urbal/index_en.htm, consulted on
November 2013.
Eyestone, R. (1977). Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation. The American
Famsi, Red Fal, Diputación de Málaga, Red Estatal por los Presupuestos
Participativos (Ed.). Los Pressupuestos Participativos y Sus Redes. Diputacion de
Malagá, s/d.
Farah, M. F. S. (2008). Disseminação de inovações e políticas públicas e espaço
local. Organizações & Sociedade, 15, 107–126.
Faria, C. A. (2003). Idéias, conhecimento e políticas públicas: um inventário
sucinto das principais vertentes analíticas recentes. Revista Brasileira de Ciências
Sociais, 18, 21–29.
Fórum das Autoridades Locais. Declaração de Porto Alegre. Porto Alegre, 30 de
janeiro de 2002. Disponível em: http://www.redfal.org/es/quienes-somos/
historia-del-fal?start=2, consulted on June 2013.
Fórum das Autoridades Locais. FAL. Disponível em: http://redfal.org/, con-
sulted on June 2011.
Fórum das Autoridades Locais. (2004). Foro de Autoridades Locales por la Inclusion
Social de Porto Alegre: Relatoria del Foro y Propuestas. Unpublished document.
Forum Europeu de Autoridades Locais. (2004). Actes. Saint-Denis.
Genieys, W., & Smyrl, M. (2008). Elites, Ideas, and The Evolution of Public Policy.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
George, A., & Elman, C. (2007). Case Study Methods in the International
Relations Subfield. Comparative Political Studies, 40(2), 170–195.
George, A., & Elman, C. (2008). Case Study Methods. In C. Reus-Smit &
D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 499–517).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerring, J. (2006). Case Studies Research: Principles and Practices. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Goertz, G. (2006). Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
258 REFERENCES
Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (Orgs.). (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs,
Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press.
Gomes, M. A. (2005). Orçamento Participativo de Belo Horizonte: um instru-
mento de planejamento e gestão democrática. In S. Azevedo & R. B. Fernandes
(Eds.), Orçamento Participativo: construindo a democracia (pp. 49–65). Rio de
Janeiro: Revan.
Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study. The American
Political Science Review, 67, 880–889.
Gret, M. (2002). L’expérience de démocratie participative de Porto Alegre: étude
comparative de pratiques de gouvernance en Amérique latine. PhD thesis in
Political Science, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle/IHEAL, Paris.
Hadas, M. (1959). Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Hall, P., & Taylor, R. (2003). As três versões do neo-institucionalismo. Lua Nova,
(58), 193–224.
Hay, C. (2006). Institutional Constructivism. In R. Rhodes, et al. (Orgs.), The
Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 56–76). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and
Policy Subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurd, I. (2008). Constructivism. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of International Relations (pp. 298–316). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Izzo, A. (2000). Storia del pensiero sociologico. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Jobert, B. (1985). L’État en action. L’apport des politiques publiques. Revue
française de science politique, 35(4), 654–682.
Jornal do Comércio. (2013a). PSB acaba com OP e cria novo modelo. Recife, 16 de
Julho de 2013, p. 3.
Jornal do Comércio. (2013b). Seminário debate participação popular. Porto
Alegre, 11/11/1999.
Katz, E., Levin, M. L., & Hamilton, H. (1963). Traditions of Research on the
Diffusion of Innovation. American Sociological Review, 28(2), 237–252.
King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific
Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Landman, T. (2007). Issues and Methods on Comparative Politics: an Inroduction.
Oxon: Routledge.
Le Galès, P. (1995). Introduction: Les réseaux d’action publique entre outil passe-
partout et thèorie de moyenne portée. In P. Le Galès & M. Thatcher (Dir.), Les
réseaux de Politique Publique: Débat autour des policy networks (pp. 13–27).
Paris: L’harmattan.
REFERENCES 259
Levi-Faur, D., & Vigota-Gadot, E. (2006). New Public Policy, New Policy
Transfers: Some Characteristics of a New Order in the Making. International
Journal of Public Administration, 29(4–6), 247–262.
Libération. (2008). March, 31st.
Louault, F. (2006). Coups et coûts d’un échec électoral: La défaite du Parti des
Travailleurs à Porto Alegre (octobre 2004). Lusotopie, 13(2), 73–90.
Lüchmann, L. (2002). A Experiência do Orçamento Participativo de Porto Alegre:
Possibilidades e limites da democracia deliberativa. PhD Thesis, Instituto de
Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Unicamp.
Mairie de Saint-Denis. Protocole d’intention de coopération. Saint-Denis – Porto
Alegre, s/d.
Manin, B. (1996). Principes du Gouvernement Représentatif. Paris: Champs/
Flammarion.
Marques, E. C. L., & Faria, C. A. P. (2013). A Política pública como campo multi-
disciplinar. São Paulo: Ed. Unesp.
Marquetti, A., & Campos, G. (2008). Democracia e Redistribuição: apontamen-
tos iniciais. In A. Marquetti, G. A. Campos, & R. Pires (Orgs.), Democracia
participativa e redistribuição: análise de experiências de orçamento participativo
(pp. 13–30). São Paulo: Xamã.
Marquetti, A., Campos, G. A., & Pires, R. (Orgs.). (2008). Democracia participa-
tiva e redistribuição: análise de experiências de orçamento participativo. São
Paulo: Xamã.
Melo, M. A. (2004). Escolha institucional e a difusão dos paradigmas de política:
o Brasil e a segunda onda de reformas previdenciárias. Dados, 47(1).
Meu Rio. Não é por 20 centavos é por 20 Bilhões! http://www.meurio.org.br/na_
atividade/26/assine_embaixo/e-por-20-bi, consulted on September 2013.
Milani, C., & Laniado, C. (2007). Transnational Social Movements and the
Globalization Agenda: A Methodological Approach Based on the Analysis of
the World Social Forum. Brazilian Political Science Review, 1, 10–39.
Milani, C., & Pinheiro, L. (2012). Política externa brasileira: as práticas da política
e a política das práticas. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Mintrom, M., & Mossberger, K. (2008). The Politics of Ideas and the Diffusion
of Innovations. Paper prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Municipalidad Provençal de Ilo. Estudio de profundización. Desarrollo humano –
Genero y presupuesto participativo. Documento eletrônico, s/d.
Navarro, Z. O. Relatório: Seminário internacional sobre o “Orçamento
Participativo”. Porto Alegre, s/d, 11 p.
Neveu, C. (Org.). (2007). Cultures et pratiques participatives: Perspectives com-
paratives. Paris: L’Harmattan.
260 REFERENCES
New York Times. Putting In Their 2 Cents. Disponível em: http://www.nytimes.

com/2012/04/01/nyregion/for-some-new-yorkers-a-grand-experiment-in-
participatory-budgeting.html, consulted on March, 30th of 2012.
New York Times. 4 Council Members, Each With $1 Million, Will Let Public Decide
How It’s Spent. Disponível em: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/
nyregion/4-on-ny-city-council-will-let-public-decide-some-spending.html,
consulted on September of 2013.
Nguenha, E. (2009). Governação Municipal Democrática em Moçambique:
Alguns Aspectos Importantes para o Desenho e Implementação de Modelos do
Orçamento Participativo. Trabalho apresentado em II Conferência do IESE
sobre Dinâmicas da Pobreza e Padrões de Acumulação em Moçambique,
Maputo.
Ortiz, S. O. (2004). Cotacachi: una apuesta por la democracia participativa.
Flasco: Quito.
Palier, B., & Surel, Y. (2005). Les “trois i” et l’analyse de l’État en action. Revue
Française de Science Politique, 55(1), 7–32.
Participatory Budgeting Project. White House highlights Participatory Budgeting as
Modelo for Civic Engagement. Disponível em: http://www.participatorybud-
geting.org/blog/white-house-highlights-participatory-budgeting-as-model-
for-civic-engagement/, consulted on September 2013.
Paulics, V. (2006). Disseminação de inovações em gestão local. In Colóquio inter-
nacional de poder local: desenvolvimento e gestão de territórios, 10. Salvador.
Anais. UFBA/CIAGS.
Petiteville, P., & Smith, A. (2006). Analyser les politiques publiques internation-
ales. Revue Française de Science Politique, 3, 357–366.
Pires, R. R. (2008). Regulamentação da Participação do OP em Belo Horizonte:
eficiência distributive aliada ao planejamento urbano. In A. Marquetti, G. A.
Campos, & R. Pires (Orgs.), Democracia participativa e redistribuição: análise
de experiências de orçamento participativo (pp. 55–76). São Paulo: Xamã.
Pont, R. (2000). Porto Alegre e a luta pela democracia, igualdade e qualidade de
vida. In R. A. Pont (Coord.) & A. Barcelos (Org.), Porto Alegre: uma cidade
que conquista: a terceira gestão do PT no governo municipal (pp. 11–28). Porto
Pont, R. (2002). Democracia, igualdade e qualidade de vida: a experiência de Porto
Alegre. Porto Alegre: Veraz.
Porto Alegre. Documento Base: Rede – 9 – Financiamento Local e Orçaomento
Participativo. URB-AL.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2012). Embaixadores do Orçamento Participativo: Um
prelúdio à circulação internacional de um dispositivo de governança participa-
tiva. Paper presented at the VI Congreso Latino Americano de Ciência Política
(ALACIP) Simpósio: Participação, representação, institucionalização: para onde
vão as relações entre Estado e sociedade civil na América Latina? Quito.
REFERENCES 261
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2013a). As dinâmicas da difusão do Orçamento Participativo

Lisbon: Ed. Associação In Loco.
Porto de Oliveira, O. (2013b). Do ponto de virada à difusão massiva: mecanismos
da internacionalização do Orçamento Participativo. In Conselho Europeu de
Investigações Sociais sobre a América Latina (Ed.), VII Congreso de CEISAL:
Memoria, presente y porvenir, Porto, Portugal.
Porto de Oliveira, O. Embaixadores da participação: a difusão internacional do
Orçamento Participativo a partir do Brasil. PhD thisis in Political Science,
Universidade de São Paulo, December 6, 2013.
Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte. (2009). Guia passo-a-passo para a implementação do
Orçamento Participativo em municípios africanos. Technical Report, [2008].
Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte. Orçamento Participativo de Belo Horizonte 15 anos.
Prefeitura BH. [2008], 54 p.
Prefeitura Municipal de Recife. Lançado o Ciclo 2012-2014 do OP da Criança e do
Adolescente. Disponível em: http://www2.recife.pe.gov.br/lancado-o-ciclo-
2012-2014-do-op-da-crianca-e-do-adolescente/, consulted on May 2013.
Prefeitura Municipal de Recife. Prefeito João da Costa recebe prêmio e assina acordo
de cooperação na Europa. Disponível em: http://www.recife.pe.gov.
br/2011/06/09/prefeito_joao_da_costa_recebe_premio_e_assina_acordo_
de_cooperacao_na_europa_177152.php consulted on May 2013.
Prefeitura Municipal de Recife. Quatro anos de avanços, 2009–2012, s/d, 98 p.
Quammen, D. (2013). Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human
Pandemic. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Quotidien d’Information Générale le Matin. 28th of April, 2012.
Rolnik, R. (1996). Cidades: O Brasil e o Habitat II. Teoria e Debate, No. 32.
Disponível em: http://www2.fpa.org.br/o-que-fazemos/editora/teoria-e-
debate/edicoes-anteriores/cidades-o-brasil-e-o-habitat-ii. Publicado em
09/05/2006, consulted on April 2013.
Rosanvallon, P. (2002). Le peuple introuvable: Histoire de la représentation
démocratique en France. Paris: Gallimard.
Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation and Comparative Politics. The American
Sauliere, S. (2009). Presupuestos Participativos en el Ecuador: análisis del camino
recorrido para definir pasos futuros. UN-Habitat. Digital document, 131 p.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper and Row.
Secretaria de Comunicação do Recife. (2006, de Novembro de 29). Boletim
Diário.
262 REFERENCES
SeVallos, J. J. M. (2011). Metodología para la articulación del Presupuesto

Participativo municipal con los Planes de Desarrollo del Cantón Cotacachi.
Master Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Equador. Quito.
Shall, A. (2007). Sub-Saharan Africa’s Experience with Participatory Budgeting.
Participatory Budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory Budgeting
(pp. 191–224). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Soares de Lima, M. R. (2013). Relações Internacionais e Políticas Públicas: a con-
tribuição da Analise de Política Externa. In E. C. L. Marques & C. A. P. Faria
(Eds.), A Política pública como campo multidisciplinar. São Paulo: Ed. Unesp.
Tatagiba, L. (2002). Os Conselhos Gestores e a democratização das políticas
públicas no Brasil. In E. Dagnino (Org.), Sociedade Civil e Espaços Públicos no
Brasil (pp. 47–104). Campinas: Paz e Terra.
The Economist. (2010, July 31).
UN-Habitat. http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=374&
cid=185, consulted on March, 7th of 2013.
UN-Habitat. (2004). 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting.
Quito: UN-Habitat.
Union Européene (URB-AL). http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latin-
america/regional-cooperation/urbal/index_en.htm, consulted on November
2011.
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UN-ESCAP). Disponível em: www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/
Ongoing/gg/governance.asp, consulted on May 2011.
United Nations Human Settlements Program; Municipal Development Partnership
Eastern and Southern Africa. (2008a). Le Budget Participatif en Afrique: Guide
pour la formation en pays francophones. Vol. II: Méthodes et Approches. Nairobi:
UN-Habitat, 92 p.
United Nations Human Settlements Program; Municipal Development Partnership
Eastern and Southern Africa. (2008b). Participatory Budgeting in Africa: A
Training Companion with Cases from Eastern and Southern Africa (2 Vols.).
UN-Habitat.
United States of America. (2015). The Open Government Partnership. Third
Open Government National Action Plan for the United States of America.
UNORCAC. http://unorcac.nativeweb.org/somos.html, consulted on July
2013.
URB-AL. (2007). Instruments and Mechanisms Linking Physical Planning and
Participatory Budgeting: URB-AL R9-A6-04. Technical Report.
URB-AL. Contacts list, s/d.
Urban Management Program. (2004). Participatory Budgeting: Conceptual
Framework and Analysis of its Contribution to Urban Governance and the
Millennium Development Goals. Quito: UN-Habitat.
REFERENCES 263
Villa El Salvador. http://www.amigosdevilla.it/Documentos/Doc001.htm, con-

sulted on August 2013.
Walker, J. (1969). The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States. The
American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
Wampler, B. (2012). The Spread of Participatory Budgeting Across the Globe:
Adoption, Adaptation, and Impacts. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2).
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
World Bank. Bilan des actions pilotes du Budget Participatif à Madagascar. Report,
s/d, 109 p.
World Bank. Mozambique. Disponível em: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/
EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/MOZAMBIQUEEXTN/0,,me
nuPK:382142~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:382131,00.html,
consulted on April 2013.
World Bank. Participatory Budgeting an Experience in Good Governance.
Disponível em: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2012/09/10/
participatory-budgeting-an-experience-in-good-governance, consulted on
October 2013.
World Bank. World Bank Institute. Disponível em: http://wbi.worldbank.org/
wbi/about/strategy, consulted on August 2013.
World Bank. (1990). World Development Report: Poverty. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
World Bank. (2008a). Empowering People by Transforming Institutions: Social
Development in World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2008b). Rumo a um Orçamento Participativo mais inclusivo e efetivo
em Porto Alegre. Washington, DC: Banco Mundial.
World Bank. (2008c). Rumo a um Orçamento Participativo mais inclusivo e efetivo
em Porto Alegre. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yin, R. (2007). Estudo de caso: Planejamento e métodos (3rd ed.). São Paulo:
Artmed.
Youtube. Finalists for the Reinhard Mohn Prize 2011: Recife Participatory
Budgeting. Disponível em: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHxVj4
IyWFo, consulted on May 2013.
Youtube. Reinhard Mohn Preis 2011 – Livemitschnitt. Disponível em: http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaMSM01xX74, consulted on May 2013.
Zapata, A. (2000). Villa El Salvador. In E. Jarquín & A. C. Pietri (Eds.), Programas
Sociales, pobreza y participación ciudadana (pp. 285–294). Washington, DC:
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.
INDEX
A AUCC, 187, 188

Alegretti, Giovanni, 116 Aycrigg, Maria, 150
ambassadors of participation, 6, 25, 48 Azcueta, Michel, 171, 173–6,
construction, 72–9, 89–91 193
international co–operation, 80–88
networking, 81–82
Ampasy Nahampoana, Madagascar, B
215–17 Belo Horizonte, 28
analysing international diffusion delayed internationalization,
ambassadors of participation, 6, 10, 81–82
25, 48, 230, 232 local dimension of PB, 68–9
causal mechanisms, 5 participative processes, genesis of,
Andean countries. See also Peru and 68–9
Ecuador Bolivia, 169
circulation of individuals, 193–4 Brazil
coercive induction, 194 democracy and social policy
diffusion dynamics, 170 innovation, 9–11
diffusion mechanisms, 170–1 importing models, 7–8
large–scale diffusion, 29 social policies, 11–14
UMP–LAC, 193 Braouezec, Patrick, 109–11, 117,
Andrango, Alberto, 184, 185 121
Anglophone Africa, 203 Brazilian Institute for Social and
Association for the love of book and Economic Analysis (IBASE),
local development (ASSOAL), 137
108 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), 11

266 INDEX
C D
Cabannes, Yves, 3, 20, 78, 81, 82, Dakar, Senegal, 207
86, 90, 107, 108, 138–41, 145, de Souza, Ubiratan, 66, 105
146, 154, 155, 158, 159, 178, Decentralization in Latin America
181, 187–9, 193, 210–12, 214, Learning through Experience, 76
235 Democracy in the City, 76, 143
capacity–building, 56
causal mechanisms, of diffusion
capacity–building, 56 E
construction, 51–2 Ecuador, 24. See also Cotacachi city
co–operation, 53 constitutionalizing PB, 191–3
external scanning, 54 Elong M'Bassi, Jean Pierre, 3, 120,
induction, 2–3 204
institutional circulation, 55 external scanning, 54, 159
leadership, 54
networking, 53
political renovation, 55 F
scale transfer, 55–6 Fissel, Senegal, 215
translation, 54–5 Forum of Local Authorities, 100, 117,
Centro Internacional de Gestion 118
Urbana (International Centre for France, 7, 20, 84–5, 100, 102–9, 112,
Urban Management, CIGU), 123
142, 146 Francophone Africa, 202
City Hall in Neighbourhoods
Programme, 70, 71
Consensus of Brazilia, 14 G
Comiche, Enéas, 218 Garcia, Ramiro, 172, 174–7
Comunidad Urbana Autogestionada de Gegou, Catherine, 104
Villa El Salvador, 172 Genro, Tarso, 19, 55, 63, 65, 67, 72,
Conseils de Quartier, 112 73, 75, 78, 88, 89, 103–107,
Constant, Benjamin, 7, 8 110, 111, 114, 115, 121, 123,
construction, 51–2 132, 151, 152, 158, 160, 235
co–operation, 53 Giuliani, Carlo, 133
Cotacachi city, 187–91 Goldfrank, Benjamin, 19, 21, 22, 53,
research on PB, 237 54, 149, 240, 244
Sub–Saharan Africa, 209–11 Granet, Estelle, 105–6, 133
transnational networks, 122
Cotacachi city, 146, 160, 169, 170,
182–93, 239 H
Curitiba, in Paraná State, 10, Habitat I, in Vancouver, 204
11 Habitat II, in Istanbul, 75, 110, 137,
cycle of diffusion, 17 204
INDEX 267
Herzog, André, 84, 86, 152–54, 158, Lerner, Josh, 243, 244
159, 223, 236 Liberation Front of Mozambique, 218
Hordjik, Michaela, 179 Local Financing and Participatory
Huntington, Samuel, 15, 42 Budgeting, 79, 145
Lusophonic Africa, 203
I
induction, 52–3 M
institutional circulation, 55 Madagascar, 202–3
Integral Development Plan (IDP), in Mahoney, James, 49–50, 232
Peru, 175 Makhado, South Africa, 219–21
Integrated Network of Transport, 11 Mancuso, Eduardo, 119, 134
international action, Porto Alegre, Maputo, Mozambique, 217–19
72–80, 88, 91 Mark–Viverito, Melissa, 245
international actors, 24 Marx, Vanessa, 115, 117, 120
international circulation, 23 Mercocities, 45, 73, 85, 89, 114
international co–operation, Minga, 182, 184
ambassadors of participation, Minha Casa Minha Vida, 13
80–8international diffusion, 4–6, Minister for Economy and Finances
90–1, 231–2 (MEF) in Peru, 156
International Meeting on Participatory Moore, Joe, 243
Budgeting (IMPB), 177 Mozambique, 203
International Observatory of multi–sited ethnography, 26
Participatory Democracy (IODP),
115
international organizations, 24 N
International Seminar on Participatory National Mozambican Resistance, 218
Democracy (SIDP), 77 neo-institutionalism, 15–16
International Union of Local Network-9, 145
Authorities (IULA), 78 networking, 53
New Participatory Budgeting, 70–1
New York Times, 243–5
L non-governmental organizations
La Mondialisation des Guerres de (NGOs), 44, 48, 66, 103, 108,
Palays, 55 130, 141, 205
large–scale diffusion, 27, 29 norm takers, 49
Latin America, 3, 15. See also Andean Nowerstein, Marcelo, 78
countries
Le Monde Diplomatique, 132
leadership, 54 O
legitimization, 27 Orçamento Participativo: A experiência
Lerner, Jaime, 10–11 de Porto Alegre, 75
268 INDEX
“Organisational Instruments between R

Territorial Planning and Recife, 28
Participatory Budgeting”, Rete Nuovo Municipio, 116
147 Romero, Fernando, 172
Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
(OECD), 135 S
Saint–Denis, 109–13
Santa Ana de Cotacachi. See Cotacachi
P city
paradiplomats, 49 scale transfer, 55–6, 56
Participatory Budgeting (PB), 3 scale–shift, 56
Participatory Budgeting Law (Ley Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path),
Marco de Presupuesto 174
Participativo), 179 Shining Path, 174
Participatory Budgeting: The Porto social participation, 229
Alegre Experience, 104 social policies, 11–14
Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), social policy innovation, 9–11
10 Spillover effect, 17, 136
Paulo, João, 70, 71, 86 Spirit of Porto Alegre, 131–6
Peru, 24. See also Villa El Salvador sub–national institutions, 45
Peterson, George E., 150 Sub–Saharan Africa, 202–14, 222–4,
political renovation, 55 233
Pont, Raul, 65, 72, 77, 88, 105, 110,
115, 122, 132, 148, 158, 188,
189, 235 T
Popular Front of the Workers Party takers, 49
(PT), 40 Territoires, 106
Porto Alegre, 11, 28, 46, 129. See also The Third Wave (Huntington),
Spirit of Porto Alegre 15
poverty, eradication of, 12 Thematic Assemblies, 65
Pro–Cerrado, 13 Theory of Elites, 47
Programa Bolsa Família (PBF), Tituaña, Auki, 182–9, 191, 193,
12 235
Public Management and Citizenship, trampoline movement, 24
10 transfer, 41, 43
Pumar, Martín, 171, 175–8, 193, 234, translation, 43, 54–5
235 transnational networks, 73, 101, 240
transnational political ethnography,
26–7
Q transnational political process, 25
qualitative methodology, 25–7 transnational spaces, 45–6
INDEX 269
U Velasco, Juan, 171–3

UCLG in Africa (UCLGA), 204 Vergara, Victor, 78, 151
UMP–LAC, 190 Vila Velha, 65
UN and Urban Management Villa El Salvador, 141, 170–4
Programme, Latin America and 1989 elections, 174
Caribbean, 137–42 self–management, 172–3
UN–Habitat, 138 Sustainable Development Plan,
United Cities and Local Governments 180
(UCLG), 78, 117
United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF), 137 W
United Nations Development Washington Consensus, 8, 11,
Programme (UNDP), 137 14
United States, 243–5 Weyland, Kurt, 15, 16, 50
URB–AL Programme, 143–7 Whitehead, Laurence, 15
Urban Management Program for Latin Wolfensohn, Paul, 150, 240
America and the Caribeen World Bank, 147–57
(UMP–LAC), 139, 158 “World Development Report (WDR),
Urban Management Programs 153
(UMPs), 138 World Economic Forum in 1972,
129
World Social Forum (WSF), 21, 23,
V 114, 129
Vasconcelos, Jarbas, 69, 70 World Urban Forum (WUF),
Vásconez, Jaime, 83, 138, 140, 142, 140
146, 154, 158, 185, 188, 190,
191, 212

(Urban Politics in A Global Society) Osmany Porto de Oliveira (Auth.) - International Policy Diffusion and Parti

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Urban Politics in A Global Society) Osmany Porto de Oliveira (Auth.) - International Policy Diffusion and Parti

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OSMANY PORTO DE OLIVEIRA

More information about this series at

The opinions, hypothesis and conclusions or recommendations

Urban Politics in a Global Society

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954256

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Image courtesy of Gus Morais

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

Sometimes a young academic comes along and reminds us how excit-

in PB studies”. This is a refreshing new analysis, illustrating that once dif-

Policy Diffusion and Participatory Budgeting1 is a continuation from Le

there are barriers at various levels to be overcome, including funding and

Washington, and Josh Lerner in New York. In Senegal: Bachir Kanouté in

1 Accessing International Policy Diffusion 3

2 The Dynamics of the Process of Diffusion: Institutions,

Part II The Process 61

3 Ambassadors of Participation: The Internationalization

4 Promoting Transnational Connections: The Networks

5 The Cascade: From the Tipping Point to Mass Diffusion 129

Part III Effects 167

6 Mosaics of Participation: Participatory Budgeting in

7 Sowing Democratic Seeds in the Desert: The Diffusion

Epilogue: The Arrival in North America 243

Appendix: List of Interviews Organized in Date Order 247

Osmany Porto de Oliveira is Professor of International Relations at the

Mark Hughes graduated from Glasgow Caledonian University, UK, in

Table 1.1 The process of international circulation 23

Accessing International Policy Diffusion

During a sunny week at the beginning of December in 2012 in Dakar, the

© The Author(s) 2017 3

Accessing international diffusion is no simple task. It means taking

This work regards areas such as public policy, international relations,

1.1 BRAZIL: FROM POLICY ADOPTION

Contemporary Brazil has become a laboratory of public policies from

1.1.1 Importing Models from the North

confer on him a moderating role. In Brazil in 1824 the Moderator of

1.1.2 The Transition to Democracy and

Brazilian law. Although institutionalized social participation had been a

the governor of Paraná state twice (1995–1999 and 1999–2003). The

1.1.3 From Local to Global: Brazil Exporting Social Policies

establishing school feeding as a right for students at public schools and

1.2 BETWEEN (INTERNATIONAL) POLICY

the policy diffusion research field, insofar as it identifies different mecha-

massive diffusion occurs and coincides with the movement of PB passing

1.2.1 The International Dimension of PB in Literature

Herzberg published in 2004 a pioneering article entitled “The Return

1.3 THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK

Table 1.1 The process of international circulation

Year 1989 1990–2000 January 2001–2003 2003–2013

tional institutions. There have even been mechanisms which facilitated

1.4 FOCUS ON THE TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL

1.5 THE RESEARCH STRATEGY

pluralist strategy, structured from qualitative methodology, enabling the

operators of transferences needs to study the places and spaces of interaction

researcher difficult. As a consequence, several experiences of PB emerge

Table 1.2 Trips for field research

Latin America (Brazil) Belém 2009

Following on from this to understand large-scale diffusion, we choose

documents—by means of triangulation (Gallagher 2013, p. 114). This

1.6 THE NARRATIVE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK

the moment when PB gained international legitimacy and began to be

5. The sociologist Tarde and the anthropologist Malinowski deliver

1 Accessing International Policy Diffusion 3

2 The Dynamics of the Process of Diffusion: Institutions,

Part II The Process 61

3 Ambassadors of Participation: The Internationalization

4 Promoting Transnational Connections: The Networks

5 The Cascade: From the Tipping Point to Mass Diffusion 129

Part III Effects 167

6 Mosaics of Participation: Participatory Budgeting in

7 Sowing Democratic Seeds in the Desert: The Diffusion

Epilogue: The Arrival in North America 243

Appendix: List of Interviews Organized in Date Order 247

Table 1.1 The process of international circulation 23