POL101Y1 Chapter 3: Participation
Delegating work, accountability of mayors
▪
Government is more accountable
▪
New democratic regime in Latin America
○
Mayors may not be able to implement needed
○
Can check on mayor, allow citizens to vote for
representatives, relies on mobilization of citizens
▪
Lawsuits, public demonstrations, public hearings
□
Vertical: control of public officials via elections
▪
Requires network of third parties, have enough power
to affect change
□
Horizontal: distribution of authority amongst government
▪
Societal: pressure from CSO to state representative
▪
Three types of accountability
○
PB allows citizens to choose policy outcomes
○
PB has power to redistribute authority and resources
○
1990s CSO activists engaged in election campaigning new
public policies
▪
Activists organized new leaders, new coalitions
▪
Most successful instance of PB
□
People actively involved, have say, control
government
□
Porto Alger
▪
PB provides structure, but doesn't control mayor
□
Recife
▪
Not effective
□
Sao Paulo
▪
If not support properly, will fail
□
When implemented, PB holds office accountable
▪
History
○
Brian Wampler, “Expanding Accountability through Participatory
Institutions: Mayors, Citizens and Budgeting in Three Brazilian
Municipalities,” Latin American Politics and Society, vol.46, No.2
Summer 2004 www.jstor.org/stable/3177175 *
Why do citizens participate?
○
Why aren't they active?
○
Gratifications are self-interested
○
Selective benefits for those who participate
▪
Material benefits - low-cost insurance
▪
Social reward: integrating with people
Collective participation
○
Schlozman, Verba, and Brady, “Participation is not a Paradox: The
View from American Activists” British Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 25, No.1 (Jan., 1995) pp1-36
Reading 1.3: Participation
September 22, 2016
5:17 PM
READINGS Page 86
