1. Participation & Democratic Innovation
• Participation as foundational to thick democracy (J.S. Mill; Rousseau)
• New collaborative civic engagement beyond civic involvement,
electoral participation, & political voice (Keeter et al., 2002)
Youth PB & Place
• PB developed in Brazil in 1989 to grant citizens real power in
allocating real money, PB involves typically underrepresented
communities in civic processes (Smith, 2005). Today, PB exists in
more than 1,500 cities worldwide (PBP).
• In fewer cases, autonomous spaces in youth PB reverse
trends in youth civic and political disengagement
• In 2014, Cluj launched 1st youth PB in Romania (ages 14-35)
• 2nd largest city in Romania; Transylvania’s capital
• Population: 325,000 + 100,000 students
• Multicultural college town; European Youth Capital 2015
• Successful PB with low youth involvement
Impacts of PB Exceed Proposed Projects
• (1) promoting citizenship learning (Pateman, 1970; O’Connor, 2015)
• (2) reshaping social & religious dynamics (Pinnington et al., 2009)
• (3) addressing power imbalances (Fung & Wright, 2003)
Civic & Political Learning (KASP)
Intergroup Dynamics (Allport, 1954)
• Intergroup contact research suggests potential for enhancing
relations across ethnicities, religions, genders & generations
Power Distance
• In comparison with U.S. (score: 40), Romania scores high on
power distance (score: 90) (Hofstede Centre, n.d.)
• High score indicates acceptance of hierarchy & inequality with
frequent corruption & fear of older generations (Hofstede, 2011)
Introduction
Discussion & Recommendations
By the (Young) People: Youth Participatory Budgeting
in Cluj-Napoca (Romania)
Ashley J. Brennan
D. Schugurensky
O. Almasan
Arizona State University
Copyright 2016 Ashley BrennanThis material is based upon work supported by Barrett, the Honors College; the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict; Tillman Scholars; & ASU Psychology Department.
Participant Results
Method
• 50 participants (50% female, 33.3% Hungarian, Mage = 23.07
[SD = 4.53]) participated in an interview or facilitator focus group
• Pt. 1: Participant background (e.g., demographics, prior knowledge of
PB, participatory characteristics, youth PB project)
• Pt. 2: Learning & change including 28 self-report items* & narratives to
explain personal pre- & post- change(s)
Participants
Knowledge
Attitudes
Skills
Practices
Take-Away Points
Future Practice
• 1st year of Cluj youth PB was a pivotal step in expanding
youth civic engagement and empowering youth in Romania
• Although 1st youth PB resembles seed-funding
competition, Cluj City Hall plans to expand from online
process to hybrid model with in-person deliberation in
2015 - 2016 iteration
• Clarify facilitator role(s) to minimize frustration and bias
• Emphasize informal groups and individuals in outreach
• Utilize caravans to expand inclusion to ethnic minorities
• Integrate curriculum components and guided reflection
• Restructure voting process
• Shift emphasis from competition to collaboration
• Combine aspects of youth PB and general PB processes in
Cluj to maximize development of youth-adult partnerships
• Organized groups dominated PB process (existing projects, votes)
• Collaboration and deliberation within teams, not between
• Most participants supported performances or improvements
(as compared to educational programs, art exhibits, fitness)
• Most intended to impact all ages or specific youth demographic
• Female participants reported developing leadership skills, while
males reported learning to work within a team
• Romanian participants emphasized micro-level learning, while
Hungarian participants emphasized macro-level learning
• Younger participants gained better understandings of their own
community, while older participants expanded beyond their own
• Greatest potential for improving intergroup relations in youth PB
is for participants with low respect for other groups & infrequent
interaction with—& understandings of—others before YPB
• Communication with City Hall may increase trust in politicians
• Project delay partially accounts for change in trust in politicians
Ashley.J.Brennan@asu.edu
Cluj YPB Timeline
Aug. 2014 Initial YPB launch by City Hall & NGO partnerships
Sep. — Dec. 2014 Online & in-person outreach campaign
Jan. — Mar. 2015 Online proposal submission with minimum 3 team members
March 2015 Online voting process
April 2015 Winning projects announced
May — Dec. 2015 Project implementation & data collection (interviews/surveys)
• Research on experiential citizenship learning
reveals pedagogical dimensions of PB for
participants (Dewey, 1986; Lave & Wenger, 1998; Cohen, 2015)
• Less research on dimensions of intergroup
learning for youth in civic processes
1. What are the main dynamics of Cluj youth PB process?
1.1. Team Development and Organization
1.2. Project Themes and Intended Impact
1.3. Inclusion of Process
2. What are the main impacts of youth PB on participants?
2.1. How does youth PB impact learning and change?
2.2. What are the key effects on intergroup relations?
2.3. To what extent does PB empower participants?
Questions
Data Analysis
Content Coding Team development, learning, empowerment
Paired samples t-test Individual learning and change
Moderated regression analysis Intergroup relations and power dynamics
Process Results
Project Theme %
Performance 46.7
City Improvement 22.2
Education 20.0
Art Exhibit 8.9
Fitness 2.2
Intended Impact %
All ages in Cluj 51.1
Specific youth group 46.7
All youth in Cluj 2.2
Outreach Type %
Informal groups 64.6
Organized groups 33.3
Not mentioned 2.2
Type & Development %
Organized group;
group created idea
73.3
Informal group;
idea created group
26.7
Total projects proposed 437
Key Learning Type n %
Skills 28 62.2
Attitudes & Values 9 20.0
Knowledge 5 11.1
Practices 2 4.4
Not mentioned 1 2.2
Table 6.8. Most Significant Changes Among All Participants (N=45)
Indicator Mean (SD) t df
1: developing & defending projects 1.11** (0.93) 7.97 44
2: coordinating & leading groups 0.89** (0.91) 6.56 44
3: understanding city government 0.89** (1.01 5.93 44
4: knowing people from other groups 0.89** (1.05) 5.68 44
5: understanding community needs 0.84** (0.85) 6.65 44
Table 6.9. — 6.18. Differences in Learning and Change
Female Participants Male Participants
1: developing & defending projects 1: developing & defending projects
2: coordinating & leading groups 2: knowing people of other groups
3: understanding community needs 3: understanding city government
4: seeking info. on social issues 4: working in a team & cooperating
Romanian Participants Hungarian Participants
1: developing & defending projects 1: understanding community needs
2: knowing people of other groups 2: addressing & resolving conflict
3: working in a team & cooperating 3: developing & defending projects
3: coordinating & leading groups 4: understanding city government
Ages 14-22 Ages 23-41
1: developing & defending projects 1: developing & defending projects
2: coordinating & leading groups 2: aware of other community needs
3: working in a team & cooperating 3: understanding city government
4: understanding community needs 4: knowing people of other groups
Table 6.8. Least Significant Changes Among All Participants (N=45)
24: voting in municipal elections 0.24* (0.58) 2.68 41
25: respecting different genders 0.16 (0.56) 1.86 44
26: respecting different ethnicities 0.09 (0.52) 1.16 43
27: respecting different religions 0.07 (0.50) 0.90 44
28: trusting politicians 0.05 (0.49) 0.63 41
Empowerment Level n %
All youth in Cluj 30 33.3
All of Cluj 10 22.2
Team 10 22.2
No mention 12 13.3
Individual 4 8.9
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Low High
-5
-3.75
-2.5
-1.25
0
1.25
2.5
3.75
5
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other Genders
Low Medium High
Graph 6.1. Change in Respecting Gender for Participants
With Different Degrees of Knowing People of Other Groups
Graph 6.2. Change in Respecting Gender for Participants
With Different Awareness of Needs of Others
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Low High
Graph 6.4. Change in Respecting Religion for Participants
With Different Degrees of Knowing People of Other Groups
-3
-2.25
-1.5
-0.75
0
0.75
1.5
2.25
3
Low High
Graph 6.5. Change in Respecting Religion for Participants
With Different Degrees of Interacting With Other Groups
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other Genders
ChangeinRespectingReligionChangeinRespectingReligionChangeinRespectingGenderChangeinRespectingGender
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other Religions
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other Religions
Limitations
• Self-report pre- & post- with retroactive reflection on change
• Ambiguous KASP indicators (e.g., level of politicians, groups)
• Biased sample comprised of successful & willing participants
• Group influence in team interview settings
• Relatively limited time in Cluj with language barrier
Future Theory
• Longitudinal multi-method experimental analyses
• Cross-cultural comparative data to increase generalizability
• Institute behavior measurements in addition to self-report data
• Application of Allport (1954) to collaborative PB components may
further improve intergroup relations
• Participatory action research for enhanced empowerment
• Skills: technical skills, project promotion,
listening, conflict resolution
• Attitudes: political self-efficacy, social
learning, change in trusting politicians
• Knowledge: understanding community
needs and city government
• Practice: talking with neighbors about
problems, interacting w/ different groups
All youth: “It’s a good way to involved the
young people who have ideas.”
All Cluj: “Com’On Cluj created a context
where people can realize their ideas.”
Team: “I learned that if [our team] really
wants to do something, we really can.”
Individual: “This was proof that if you don’t
have money and you have great ideas,
you can manage to do something big.”
Low
High
Notes: *p < .05, **p < .001.