TWO SIDES TO A HOT ISSUE

Participatory budgeting is often presented as an inherently superior approach to handling municipal finances. But it has legitimate critics among Latin American
mayors, accounting professionals and international experts. Below is a summary of arguments for and against.

FOR PARTICIPATION:

Transparency: Opening the budget to public scrutiny reduces the possibilities of corruption.
Accountability: When citizens participate, they have a clearer idea of expected benefits as well as limitations.
Efficiency: Chances increase that money for public works will be spent where citizens feel it is most needed.
Equity: The poor tend to participate more than the rich, spurring investments in low-income areas.
Budget balancing: Participatory budgeting typically increases spending on investments and reduces the amount spent on government salaries.

AGAINST PARTICIPATION

Manipulation: The governing political party can use the budgeting process to build popular support and improve its reelection prospects.
Sustainability: If a political party that gains office is not committed to participatory budgeting, the process dies.
Skewed power balance: Legislative bodies lose power when popular assemblies play a large role in the budget process.
Stagnation: Long-term development goals may be ignored in favor of more immediate neighborhood needs.
Co-optation: Since citizens feel like stakeholders in government operations, they are less likely to criticize the system.