The challenges of deliberative democracy in urban planning
the Budapest experience
Abstract
Nowadays, the active participation of people and the involvement of civil society in urban development and policy making is one of the key issues and challenges. In order to make our cities more liveable, sustainable and inclusive, we need to create the institutional frameworks where civic organisations can make their voices heard directly on local issues. Political actors tend to recognise that the involvement of civil society not only
makes urban development more efficient, but also legitimises it. In addition, members of the local society are also increasingly taking action on issues of local concern. This paper presents the international spread and domestic emergence of various forms of participatory or deliberative democracy, with a special focus on the capital city Budapest and its districts. The main questions of the research are: which forms of deliberative democracy have spread in the world regarding urban development, and which forms have been adapted in Hungary, and especially in Budapest. The research is based on content analysis and semi-structured in-depth interviews with policy makers, municipal professionals and representatives of civil society organisations conducted during 2023 and 2024. The interviews aimed to explore the emergence and current state of participatory democracy in the capital city. The focus of investigation was on the emergence of grassroots organizations in urban development since the change of regime, the use of deliberative tools, the relationship between civic organizations and municipalities. Based on the research we can conclude that several fruitful civic-governmental partnerships have been established in recent years in Budapest, but also many conflicts have emerged between the civil sector and local authorities, mostly due to differences in approach and operation. The research also showed that the most successful NGOs are those that have a strong local embeddedness and/or a larger base of experts, thus, they can provide help the local municipality. There has been an expansion of participatory tools in Budapest in recent years and there is a growing number of innovators who are able to catalyse these processes. The secret of success is found in stamina, priorities of local leaders, activity of civic organisations and the efficiency of cooperation between the two parties. The issue is likely to become even more prominent in the next five-year municipal cycle in Budapest and in many cities on the countryside in the light of the 2024 municipal elections. We argue that participatory democracy is the right way of urban development where citizens can actively shape their cities to be more efficient, sustainable and equitable, helping not only to improve urban infrastructure and services, but also to strengthen public discourse, solidarity and cohesion.
References
Ágh, A. (2016): A védekező társadalom, avagy a civilek hatalma: töprengések a magyar civil társadalom helyzetéről. Civil Szemle, 13., (1.), pp. 5–29.
Abers, R. (2000): Inventing Local D emocracy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Allegretti, G. (2000): Porto Alegre tra democratizzazione e sostenibilità. Radici locali e replicabilità diun’utopia realizzata [Porto Alegre between democratization and sustainability. Local roots and the repeatability of a realized utopia]. In: A. Magnaghi (Ed.): Democrazia fai-da-te [Do-it-yourself de¬mocracy]. Carta-Cantieri Sociali, Roma–Napoli.
Bassoli, M. (2012): Participatory Budgeting in Italy: An Analysis of (Almost Democratic) Participatory Governance Arrangements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36., (6.), pp. 1183–1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01023.x.
Boonstra, B.–Boelens, L. (2011): Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Research & Practice, 4., (2.), pp. 99–122, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2011.579767
Briggs, X. de Souza (2008): Democracy as problem solving: civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press,
Bródy L. S. (2022): Társadalmi részvétel a városfejlesztésben: változó szerepek Budapest tereinek alakításában. Tér és Társadalom, 36., (1.), pp. 82–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.36.1.3359.
Cabannes, Y. (ed.) (2003): Presupuesto participativo y finanzas locales. Documento Base. (Participatory budget and local finance. Frame Document]. Document presented at the opening session of the URBAL Network N°9, PGU-ALC/ European Commission, Porto Alegre.
Campbell, A. (1976): Subjective Measures of Well-Being. American Psychologist, 31., (2.), pp. 117–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.31.2.117
Clark, T.N.–Carreira da Silva, F. (2009): Revisiting Tocqueville: citizenship norms, political repertoires, and cultural participation. In M. Cherkaoui and P. Hamilton Raymond Boudon. (Eds.), A Life in Sociology, Oxford: Bardwell Press.
Csanádi, G.–Csizmady, A.–Kőszeghy, L. (2010): Nyilvánosság és részvétel a településtervezési folyamatban. Tér és Társadalom, 24., (1.), pp. 15–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.24.1.1293.
Farrell, D. M.–Curato, N.–Dryzek, J. S.–Geißel, B.–Grönlund, K.–Marien, S.–Niemeyer, S.–Pilet, J.–Renwick, A.–Rose, J.–Setälä, M.–Suiter J. (2019): Deliberative Mini-publics: Core Design Features. Working Paper Series No 2019/5.
Fourniau, J-M. (2013): Débat public. In: I. Casillo–R. Barbier–L. Blondiaux–F. Chateauraynaud–J.-M. Fourniau–R. Lefebvre–C. Neveu–D. Salles (Eds.): Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la Parti¬cipation. DicoPart (1ère édition). GIS Démocratie et Participation.
Fung, A.–Wright, E. O. (2001): Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29., (1.), pp. 5–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001002
Gille, Zs. (2010): Is there a global postsocialist condition? Global Society, 24., (1.), pp. 9–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820903431953
Goldfrank, B. (2007): Lessons from Latin American experience in participatory budgeting. In: A. Shah (Ed.): Participatory budgeting, World Bank Institute. Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, Washington, DC.
Habermas, J. (1981): The theory of communicative action. (2 vols), Boston: Beacon Press.
Houtzager, P.–Gurza Lavalle, A. (2009): Participatory governance and the challenge of assumed representation in Brazil. Working Paper No. 321, I Brighton: Istitute of Development Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2009.00321_2.x
Kovács Z. (2017): Városok és urbanizációs kihívások Magyarországon. Magyar Tudomány, 178., (3.), pp. 302–310.
Legacy, C. (2016): Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, 16., (4.), pp. 425–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216667433.
Marans, R. W.–Rodgers, W. (1975): Toward an Understanding of Community Satisfaction. In: A. Hawley, –V. Rock (Eds.): Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. pp. 299–352. New York: Halsted Press.
Monno, V.–Khakee, A. (2012): Tokenism or political activism? Some reflections on participatory planning. International Planning Studies, 17., (1.), pp. 85–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2011.638181
Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2013): City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research, 110., (2.), pp. 433–451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9939-x
Pálné Kovács I. (2019): A magyar önkormányzatok korlátai a helyi gazdaságfejlesztésben. Tér és Társadalom, 33., (2.), pp. 3–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.2.3088
Pintér Á.–Merényi M. (2021): Birtokba vett helyi önkormányzás. Érdekérvényesítő csoportok és önkormányzatok együttműködése Magyarországon, Lengyelországban és Romániában. Budapest: K-Monitor Közhasznú Egyesület.
Péterfi F. (2015): Közösségi tervezéssel a városok-városrészek megújulásáért. Civil Szemle, 12. (2.), pp. 39–56.
Portes, A.–Landolt, P. (1996): Unsolved mysteries: the Tocqueville files II. The downside of social capital. The American Prospect.
Portugali, J. (2000): Self-organization and the city. Heidelberg–Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Purcell, M. (2008): Recapturing democracy: neoliberalization and the struggle for alternative urban futures. New York: Routledge.
Reisinger A. (2010): Civil szervezetek és a civil elit szerepe a társadalmi folyamatokban. Tér és Társadalom, 24., (2.), pp. 107–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.24.2.1316.
Silver, H.–Scott, A.–Kazepov, Y. (2010): Participation in Urban Contention and Deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34., (3.), pp. 453–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00963.x
Sintomer, Y.–Herzberg, C–Röcke, A. (2005): Participatory budgets in a European comparative approach. Perspectives and chances of the cooperative state at the municipal level in Germany and Europe. Berlin: Centre Marc Bloch.
Sintomer, Y.–Herzberg, C.–Röcke, A. (2008): Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32., (1.), pp. 164–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x
Susskind, L. (1999): Building consensus: a response to ‘Beyond backyard environmentalism’ by C. Sabel et al. Boston Review, 24., (5.), pp. 18–19.
Szabó M. (2015): Az új autoritarizmus és a hibrid rendszerek kihívása a posztkommunista civil társadalom számára. Civil Szemle, 12., (4.), pp. 5–23.
Udvarhelyi, T. É. (2013): „If we don’t push homeless people out, we will end up being pushed out by them”: The Criminalization of Homelessness as State Strategy in Hungary. Antipode, 46., (3.), pp. 816–834. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12068
Zeisler, J. (2022): Közösségben a közösségi költségvetésért. Transparency International Magyarország.
