Advertisement

Community-Based Funding and Budgeting: Participatory Budgeting as a Transformative Act

  • Jung Min ChoiEmail author
  • John W. Murphy
  • Ramsey Dahab
  • Charlene Holkenbrink-Monk
Chapter
Part of the International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice book series (IPSPAP)

Abstract

Jung Min Choi, John W. Murphy, Ramsey Dahab, and Charlene Holkenbrink-Monk, in this chapter, explore the issue of funding and budgeting. Often funds are directed to community organizations in ways that are either irrelevant or difficult to use. Additionally, budgets are formulated by agencies that are disconnected from the communities where services are needed. Community-based funding and budgeting, accordingly, are beginning to receive serious attention. Communities, accordingly, are given the latitude in some cases to establish budgets and spending strategies, along with identifying and pursuing sources of funds that are consistent ethically with these priorities and desires. Community-based funding and budgeting, in this way, are vital to supporting interventions in a community-sensitive manner.

Keywords

Community-based funding Community-based budgeting Participatory budgeting Community sensitivity Service agencies 

References

  1. Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  2. Abers, R. (1998). From clientelism to cooperation: Local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Politics and Society, 26(4), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baiocchi, G. (2005). Militants and citizens. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2013). Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics and Society, 42(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics in a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Bordo, S. (1987). The flight to objectivity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bauman, Z. (2008). Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chavis, D. M., & Newbrough, J. R. (1986). The meaning of community in social psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Durkheim, E. (2001). The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dussel, E. (1988). Ethics and community. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stark.Google Scholar
  15. Fals-Borda, O. (1988). Knowledge and people’s power. New York, NY: New Horizons.Google Scholar
  16. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neo-liberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Herrnson, P. S., Deering, C. J., & Wilcox, C. (2013). Interest groups unleashed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jordan, B. (2016). Building student power through participatory budgeting. https://www.thenation.com/article/building-student-power-through-participatory-budgeting/
  19. Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kasdan, A., & Markman, E. (2017). Participatory budgeting and community-based research: principles, practices, and implications for impact validity. New Political Science, 39(1), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Kleinman, A. (2010). Four social theories for global health. The Lancet, 375(9725), 1518–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lerner, J. (2017). Conclusion: Time for participatory budgeting to grow up. New Political Science, 39(1), 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lerner, J. (2014). Everyone counts: Could participatory budgeting change democracy? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lerner, J. (2011). Participatory budgeting: Building community agreement around tough budget Decisions. National Civic Review, 100(2), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levinas, E. (1998). Entre nous: On thinking-of-the-other. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. J. (1985). Social atomism, holism, and trust. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(4), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lune, H. (2010). Understanding organizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mathews, F. (1991). The ecological self. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mijuskovic, B. (1992). Organic communities, atomistic societies, and loneliness. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 19(2), 147–164.Google Scholar
  32. Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Community-based participatory research: From processes to outcome. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, J. W. (2014). Community-based interventions: Philosophy and action. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pape, M., & Lerner, J. (2016). Budgeting for equity: How can participatory budgeting advance equity in the United States? Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2), 9. https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art9Google Scholar
  35. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sousa, B. (1998). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Toward a redistributive democracy. Politics and Society, 26(4), 461–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Souze, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: Limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strauss, D. F. M. (2008). Atomism and holism in the understanding of society and social systems. Koers, 23(2), 187–205.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, C. (1985). Atomism. In Philosophical papers (pp. 187–210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thurow, L. C. (1981). Zero-sum Society. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  43. Wampler, B. (2007a). A guide to participatory budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory budgeting (pp. 21–54). Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  44. Wampler, B. (2007b). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation and accountability. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung Min Choi
    • 1
    Email author
  • John W. Murphy
    • 2
  • Ramsey Dahab
    • 2
  • Charlene Holkenbrink-Monk
    • 3
  1. 1.Department SociologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyCalifornia State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations