We have been discussing for (too) many years about increasing citizen participation in decision-making processes and about the lack of transparency of local administrations in Romania. Simply put, mayors and political majorities in many Romanian cities, big and small, believe they know better than the citizens what they want. What investments, what types of projects, maybe also what types of curbs and pavers. Of course, I’m exaggerating, no one wants the paving stones to be replaced every two years (obviously none of the citizens), and also proof that participatory budgeting processes show very different investments than those preferred by many cities in Romania .

The really bad part is that public investment priorities and projects are rarely part of the consultation process or consistently justified. For the most part, decisions are made internally, in the offices of the mayor’s office, without public discussion. Uploading on a web page (many times chaotically structured) a scanned document with already voted investments, with some arguments worthy of doctorates of some Romanian political leaders, and saying that this means a public debate is still a joke.

What is a participation budget? In short, it is one of many (very many) engagement tools through which citizens can have a say in the investments made by local governments, in our case town halls. The principle is quite simple. Local self-government bodies can allocate part of the investment budget to projects proposed and voted directly by citizens at the city, district or school level. And participatory budgeting is useful where public consultations and debates regarding (multi)year investments are quite formal, and there is no real dialogue between the community and the local administration. That is, the same as in many local administrations in Romania.

But this is not the Holy Grail of citizen participation in decision-making processes at the local level, it can only partially replace the lack of public debate on the priorities of the local administration, being limited in terms of financial weight and influence. However, it can indicate the issues citizens are addressing, compared to the administration’s decisions. These priorities, supported by a group of enthusiastic citizens, help, but large investment projects require much more extensive and structured forms of consultation. And it can also help the state administration – community cohesion, provided the program is successfully implemented.

At CRPE, we looked at what the participatory budgeting program in Romania has been up to over the past three years. At the level of county residences and Bucharest. We take them one at a time.

In 2022, only 13 county seats (we did not include Bucharest) had participatory budgeting programs in 2022. The total budget was 33.65 million lei (this may seem a lot, but it is only 0.2% of the income of the district residences). And we can be sure, this is the maximum allocation, many of these voted projects will never be realized. In 2021, the budget was just under 16.5 million RON, and in 2020 it was 3 million RON. We are progressing.

In Bucharest, also in 2022, only the City Hall of Sector 1, the City Hall of Sector 6 and the City Hall of the capital implemented participatory budgeting programs. With a theoretical budget of 7.2 million lei (1 million in the capital city hall, 1.2 million in the city hall of sector 6, 5 million lei in the city hall of sector 1). As I wrote above, these allocations are rather theoretical, because the City Hall of District 1, for example, although it launched the program, it prepared it so badly that it was already abandoned. Out of 7.2 million, 2.2 million lei remained.

If we wanted to characterize how many of our administrations see participatory budgeting or, more broadly, the involvement of citizens in any local decisions or investments, we would use the following expression: uD835uDC29uD835uDC28uD835uDC2F uD835uDC1AuD835 uDC2BuD835uDC1Ă uD835uDC1AuD835uDC1DuD835uDC26uD835uDC22uD835uDC27uD835uDC22uD835uDC2CuD835uDC5BuDC1A25 uD835uDC2DuDC25uDC25 uDC2FuD835uDC1Ă. It is also a consequence of administrative thinking, which often ignores the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process at the local level and does not see citizens, community groups or NGOs as partners for dialogue.

Unfortunately, the quality of the programs also leaves much to be desired. Even where they are being implemented or have been implemented in the past (we have, for example, 25 counties that have voted for participatory budgeting). Many municipalities have started and subsequently abandoned participatory budgeting programs. Programs often face unilateral decisions by administrations to vote on regulations without community consultation, inconsistencies in program management, (many) projects that were voted on and never implemented, and low program progress.

Let’s also look at the distribution by political parties. At the level of county seats (without Bucharest), 2 out of 4 departments of the UDR (Timişoara, Alba Iulia) implemented participatory budgeting programs in 2022, and in Brasov the new provision was under public discussion (previously the municipality launched the program in 2020 and 2021). 6 out of 15 (40%) administrations with PNL mayors introduced participatory budgeting in 2022 (Bistrica, Cluj-Napoca, Constanta, Oradea, Suceava, Tulcea). Only 2 out of 15 PSD administrations (Pitesti, Baia Mare) had a similar program. 1 out of 3 UDMR administrations introduced a participatory budgeting program in 2022 (Mierkurya-Chuk). Tirgu Mures City Hall, headed by an independent mayor, has a participatory budget this year. The mayor’s office of Rymniku-Vilcha (mayor of PER) introduced a participation budget in 2022 as well.

In addition to modest financial allocations, several characteristics stand out at the level of participatory budgeting programs (which paint a rather bleak picture) that affect any form of involvement in local decision-making. We emphasize again the lack of transparency of many local public administrations regarding the submission of data on participatory budgeting programs. This lack of transparency affects all stages of the program, but especially the stages of implementation of projects voted for by citizens, and accordingly their monitoring and evaluation.

1. The administration’s ability to implement projects voted for by citizens in the forecasted time frame and in a transparent manner is limited. This happens despite the fact that the projects themselves have been declared acceptable by a committee composed, in most cases, exclusively of City Hall employees, and the proposed goals, measures, and timelines have thus been internally vetted by the administration. As part of this eligibility review process, adjustments to project proposals, where appropriate, should be the result of dialogue between project applicants and local authorities. What does not happen.
2. Low participation of the local community (community groups, public foundations or NGOs) at all stages of the program, but especially at the stages of project proposal verification, implementation and monitoring. The process is coordinated almost exclusively by the local administration and, at best, those who submit projects play only a monitoring role. And this is limited by the opacity of the process and the lack of public data.
3. Lack of openness of the administration in the stages preceding the launch of the program. And this is a consequence of how public decisions are made without consultation and with limited transparency. We repeat, placing the participation budget on your own page, without other additional measures, does not mean transparency or public consultations. Without involving the community in establishing rules of conduct, organizing training seminars for the community, and an effective communication campaign, it is unlikely that the buzz around the program will increase.
4. Inconsistency in the execution of the program with numerous projects prepared superficially and subsequently abandoned. Municipalities with participatory budgeting programs voted in local councils do not implement the programs themselves. Municipalities that mention the participatory budget once every two or three years, and then launch a superficially prepared program. Municipalities with projects recognized as acceptable, voted by citizens, with an assumed calendar, which are not implemented even after two or three years, or are not implemented at all. Even participatory programs, limited in scope and with modest allocations, tend to be seen as an administrative burden. Read the full article and comment on Contributors.ro