participatory planning is a tool that can fairly well assess the relationship between local administration and citizens. And to what extent the administration is interested and able to take ideas from the community and implement them, as well as what the civic space looks like in big cities and the involvement of citizens in local decisions. Of course, this is only one of many tools, but it still shows how fragile this relationship is and how difficult it is to implement even programs with small budgets and limited topics.

The participation budget in 2023 remains very little used by the administrations of large cities in Romania. Not more 14 county residencesand a single sector town hall from Bucharest they ran participatory budgeting programs, and financial allocations and public participation were modest. Compared to 2022, there are few positive changes, unfortunately, there are more negative ones.

5 district town halls introduced the participation budget for the first time in 2023 (Bakeu, Vaslui, Buzeu, Satu-Mare, Tirgu-Zhiu), a 6 more left him (General City Halls of Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Suceava, Tulcea, Baia Mare and Rimnicu-Vilca). Not more District 6 of the Town Hall continued the program at the level of Bucharest, again District 1 of the Town Hallwhich in 2022 announced record funding, abandoned the program in 2023 after two years of failure and a program that was used more as a weak PR.

In 2023, large cities (county municipalities and Bucharest) allocated only 22.95 million lei to common budget programs, a sharp drop from 40.71 million lei in 2022. These budgets are one of the maximum, since in most cases the allocations are not used in full or some municipalities do not implement the program at all. At the same time, almost no city hall publishes data on the degree of implementation of projects and financial allocations, according to which they are evaluated annually. However, the significant decrease in the allocated budget emphasizes the great lack of interest in the implementation of the program.

Many of the projects submitted through participatory budgeting programs address small neighborhood-level issues, bring abandoned initiatives back to the administration’s attention, or are seen as pilot projects on topics where City Hall does very little. We recently published in CRPE an analysis of local development strategies and showed that the least prepared are initiatives related to noise pollution, circular economy, accessibility or, in general, to the quality of the environment and urban space. Shared budgeting programs abound with such initiatives, a sign that there is still a gap between the investments favored by administrations and participatory programs.

At the level of district municipalities, 4 out of 4 USR administrations (Timisoara, Brasov, Alba Iulia, Bacău) implemented participatory budgeting programs in 2023.4 out of 15 administrations with PNL mayors introduced a participatory budget in 2023 (Bistrica, Constanta, Oradea, Tirgu-Zhiu). 3 out of 15 PSD administrations (Buzeu, Pitesti, Vaslui) had a similar program. In 2023, 2 out of 3 UDMR departments introduced a participatory budgeting program (Wednesday-Chuk, Satu-Mare). Tirgu Mures City Hall, led by an independent mayor, has been conducting a participatory budgeting program for the second year in a row. At the Bucharest level, only the City Hall of Sector 6 (PNL) implemented a participatory budgeting program in 2023.

Several district municipalities stand out in our analysis. Timisoara continues for the second year in a row, perhaps the best program of participatory budgeting in Romania, extending it now also as financial allocations, as well as thematically, to disadvantaged areas. Mures Market it boasts a significant increase in the number of participants, a large number of funded projects and a transparent and modern participatory budgeting platform. Buzeuwhich, during the first year of participatory budgeting, benefited from a high boom around the program, but with low transparency regarding the voting phase and the monitoring platform, which raises some question marks.

District 6 of the Town Hall because it remained the only one in Bucharest with a functional and transparent participatory budgeting program, but limited in terms of action. Alba-Julia, because it is the only district municipality with a program that operated continuously in the period 2020-2023, but with a decrease in the popularity of the program. Special mention also about REŞIŢA which in 2024 will launch a participatory budgeting program developed together with civil society and with the support of the community.

However, the program of participatory budgeting stumbles the same issues we flagged in 2022. First, the combination of administrative incompetence and lack of interest of local administrations in the development and implementation of the program in a sustainable manner. This is often seen as another goal to tick, as regulations and platforms are copied from one administration to another, with no clear definition of who is responsible for project phases and very little transparency, especially when it comes to project implementation and monitoring. the public voted.

Promotion of the program is insufficient, as many local administrations limit themselves to publishing the program on the official page or in social networks, without public events, without workshops to promote and write projects, and without meetings with civil society, public groups or citizens. Local authorities do not take an active role in supporting the participation budget, and this is often reflected in the limited number of applications received and, due to misunderstandings about the topic, eligibility criteria or implementation stages, and in some cases in modest quality.

The stage of analysis of the received projects is also superficial, which ultimately leads to difficulties in their implementation. The evaluation committee is often chosen in a non-transparent manner, in many cases without members from outside the local administration, without project adjustments where necessary to facilitate implementation stages, and projects rejected as inappropriate do not always receive feedback. The monitoring and evaluation component is probably the most overlooked and very few local administrations provide a real-time updated platform on project implementation status and clear responsibilities for each project. This has often led to disillusionment on the part of investors with the projects they have promoted and proposed.

The increasingly limited civic space in cities (especially outside the very large ones) also results in a limited number of projects and very low popularity. In this situation, the role of local governments is particularly important in promoting the program, holding workshops for project writing and discussion, and ensuring sustainable participation. Unfortunately, this happens very rarely, and too often city halls are limited to the minimum possibilities. – Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro