Introduction

Theory

Method

Empirical background

Empirical findings

Discussion and analysis

Conclusion

References

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore how participatory budgeting (PB) as a democratic governance tool has been translated within the Russian public sector by addressing the local specifics of its design and mobilization through the formation of networks.

Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on a case study of one pioneering municipality. Data have been gathered through triangulation of interviews, document search, video and netnographic observations. By relying on ideas from actor–network theory, the study focuses on the relational and rhetorical work of human (allies/inscriptors) and non-human (inscriptions) actors involved in the development of PB in Russia.

Findings: The findings indicate that the initial democratic values of PB underwent several stages of translation as a continuous inscription-building process and the formation of networks. The main finding is that putting democratic idea(l)s of PB into practice proved problematic, since PB depended on many “allies” which were not always democratic. Paradoxically, in order to launch democratic practices in Russia, PB relied largely on bureaucratic and even New Public Management inscriptions, which it was originally supposed to fight against. Notwithstanding, while these inscriptions can fog the democratic values of PB, they are also capable of uncovering its democratic potential over time, albeit not for a long time as the “external referee” is needed.

Introduction

Assiduous attempts have been made to reinvent the public sector worldwide, today including developing countries and emerging economies (van Helden and Uddin, 2016). A growing focus on what instruments/tools may be used in order to make the public sector more effective and responsive to current challenges of society with regard to democratic development has been documented in the research. In particular, one of the challenges has been a widening legitimacy gap between the citizenry and the representative “democratic” governments (e.g. Box et al., 2001; Brun-Martos and Lapsley, 2016; Nyamori et al., 2012). This issue has come to be known in the literature as “democracy crisis” (Fung, 2006). To deal with this crisis, public administration has been forced to move in novel directions, in so doing advocating governments to strengthen citizens’ accountability and be involved into government decision making that is based on deliberation and collaboration. One practical consequence of this advocacy has been the worldwide endorsement of citizenry involvement mechanisms in governments (Fung, 2006, 2015). In the aftermath of this, accounting and accountability tools such as participatory budgeting (PB) were propagated as a means to augment democratic values through deliberation. Although PB has a variety of meanings (see e.g. Sintomer et al., 2008), there is a common awareness that non-elected citizens should be somehow involved in the deliberation and negotiation of the public budget that may result in new forms of accountability relationships. That said, PB is intended to be a vital element/tool for promoting democratic governance, with its core values of democratic legitimacy, effectiveness and social justice (Fung, 2015).