2. On Participation in Democracy:
minimal participation & political indifference promote stability
(Berelson, 1954; Dahl, 1956)
participation as a threat to
political hierarchies and leadership
(Schumpeter, 1950)(Schumpeter, 1950)
electoral mass as a “stampede”
citizens should not act, but should
react to power
(Sartori, 1962)
participation is foundational to participatory democracy
(J.S. Mill; Rousseau)
democratic learning as output & input
(Pateman, 1970)
enhances government
accountability
(Fung & Wright, 2003)
demonstrates respect for participants
(Levine, 2007)
4. (Keeter, Zukin,Andolina, & Jenkins, 2002)
Civic Engagement
Civic
Involvement
• Volunteer service
• NGO involvement
• Active membership
in an association
• Fundraising
Electoral
Participation
• Voting consistently
• Campaign
contributions
• Volunteering with
political initiatives
Political
Voice
• Communicating with
elected officials
• Protesting
• Participating in petitions
5. Civic Engagement
Collaborative
Governance
.Citizen Power
in Partnership
Citizen Control in
Power Redistribution
(Arnstein, 1969)
Citizen Control
Delegated Power
Partnership
Placation
Consultation
Information
Therapy
Manipulation
“ALadderofCitizenParticipation”
7. Digital Divide & Deliberation
Where are citizens online?
Engagement preferences?
Government expectations?
(Leighninger, 2011)
less personal,
less spontaneous,
less rewarding
(Grier & Olivas, 2012)
problem-solving
decision-making
learning and change
(Levine, Fung, & Gastil, 2005)
8. Young people
comprise nearly 1/2 of the
global population
and remain
underrepresented
in political and social discourse
9. WHO ARETHE (YOUNG) PEOPLE?
Biological changes mark the start of adolescence & cultural shifts mark its conclusion
A universal and cross-cultural definition of youth may not exist.
(Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006)
Term Age Range
Middle adolescence 14 - 17
Late adolescence 18 - early 20s
Emerging adulthood 18 - 25
Youth up to 35
12. Participatory
Budgeting (PB)
.Porto Alegre, Brazil (1989) 1,500+ cities globally
Real people with real power
over real money
(The Participatory Budgeting Project))
potential to connect governors & the governed
(Smith, 2005)
13. Youth Participatory Budgeting
autonomous PB processes designated for youth alone
e.g., Cluj, Boston, Seattle, School PB
youth participate alongside adults
e.g., NewYork, Rosario
hybrid model combining separation and integration
e.g., Chicago
14. Civic Education
What is a good citizen and
how do we educate them?
Learning about democracy
Learning for democracy
Learning in democracy
(Dewey, 1986)
Experiential Learning & Communities of Practice
Learning through…
relationship & identity development (Lave & Wenger, 1998)
reflection on experience (Dewey, 1986)
15. (Positive)Youth Development
increased separation of youth & adults
greater possibilities for intergenerational stereotypes
(Camino & Zeldin, 2002)
(Lerner, 2005)
1. Competence
2. Confidence
3. Character
4. Connection
5. Caring
youth-adult partnerships
youth in positions of power +
mutual teaching & learning
(Zeldin et al., 2013)
(Allport, 1954)
Intergroup Contact
16. Primary Research Questions
1.What are the main dynamics of the Cluj youth PB process?
1.1Team Development and Organization
1.2 ProjectThemes and Intended Impact
1.3 Inclusion of Process
2.What are the main impacts of Cluj youth PB on participants?
2.1 How does Cluj youth PB impact learning and change?
2.2 What are the key effects on intergroup relations?
2.3To what extent does youth PB empower participants?
18. THE CASE STUDY:
CLUJ-NAPOCA
.
Capital of northwest
region,Transylvania
Home to ~325,000 people
+ 100,000 students
.
.
Region and city are unique within Romania
2015 EuropeanYouth Capital
.
Transylvania as a perpetual borderland regarding ethnicity & nationality
(Brubaker, 2006)
19. successful general PB interest & energy,
but low youth participation
(Almasan, 2015)
Com’On Cluj-Napoca:
community’s common investment + call to action
(Com’on Cluj-Napoca, n.d.)
Process goals:
Fund ~250 projects
social or cultural theme
Informal groups of 3 - 5
Ages 14 - 35
Timeline:
August 2014 -
summer 2015
20. Mixed Methods
qualitative + quantitative components
ASU program in Romania and Central & Eastern Europe
Five week summer program, 2015
Participants
N = 50 participants (45 youth PB participants + 5 facilitators)
50% female
Mage = 23.27 (SD = 4.53)
1 week Bucharest
3 weeks Cluj (Romanian language course + seminars at Babes Bolyai University)
1 week Budapest,Vienna, Prague, Bratislava
21. Youth PB Participants
Ethnicity n %
Romanian 24 53.5
Hungarian 15 33.3
Romanian &
Hungarian
3 6.7
Romanian &
German
2 4.4
Other 1 2.2
Table 5.3.
Ethnicity of ClujYouth PB Participants (N = 45)
Religion n %
Protestant 11 24.4
Eastern Orthodox 10 22.2
Not Practicing 7 15.6
Christian 4 8.9
Spiritual 4 8.9
Athiest 4 8.9
Roman Catholic 3 6.7
Unitarian 2 4.4
Table 5.4.
Religion of ClujYouth PB Participants (N = 45)
22. Youth PB Participants
Education Level n %
Some high school 5 11.1
High school 1 2.2
Some bachelors 20 44.4
Bachelors 8 17.8
Some masters 3 6.7
Masters 6 13.3
Some doctorate 2 4.4
Table 5.5.
Education Level of Participants (N = 45)
Occupation Status n %
Student & worker 16 35.6
Student 13 28.9
Worker 13 28.9
In job search 2 4.4
Student & volunteer 1 22
Roman Catholic 3 6.7
Unitarian 2 4.4
Table 5.6.
Occupation Status of Participants (N = 45)
23. 2-Part Semi-Structured Interviews
Part 1: Socio-demographic details and participatory characteristics
Part 2: 28 self-report items indicating knowledge, attitudes, skills, & practice
(Schugurensky, 2002)
Data Analysis: Content coded by theme—
• Team Development and Organization
• Learning and Change
• Intergroup Relations
• Empowerment
24. Team Development & Organization
OutreachType n %
Informal groups 29 64.6
Organized groups 15 33.3
Not mentioned 1 2.2
Table 6.1
Outreach for ClujYouth PB Participants (N= 45)
Type & Development n %
Organized group; group
created idea
33 73.3
Informal group; idea
created group
12 26.7
Table 6.2.
GroupType and Development Process (N = 45)
25. Team Development & Organization
ProjectTheme n %
Performance / Festival 21 46.7
City Improvement 10 22.2
Education / Workshop 9 20.0
Art Exhibit 4 8.9
Fitness 1 2.2
Table 6.5.
ProjectThemes Developed by Participants (N= 45)
Intended Impacts n %
All ages in Cluj 23 51.1
Specific youth
demographic
21 46.7
All youth in Cluj 1 2.2
Table 6.6.
Intended Impacts of Projects of Participants (N= 45)
26. The PB Process
Team Development
and Organization
Project Themes and
Intended Impact
• Organized groups dominated the
youth PB process
• Existing project(s)
• Voting support
• Collaboration and deliberation
within teams, not between
• Majority of participants
supported performances and
festivals or city improvements
(as compared to educational programs,
art exhibits, fitness)
• Most projects intended impact:
• all ages in Cluj
• specific youth group
(as compared to youth broadly)
27. Learning & Change
Key LearningType n %
Skills 28 62.2
Attitudes &Values 9 20.0
Knowledge 5 11.1
Practices 2 4.4
Not mentioned 1 2.2
Table 6.7.
Key Learning Moment for Participants (N= 45)
as reported during interview
.technical skills, project promotion,
listening, conflict resolution
.political self-efficacy, social learning,
change in trusting politicians
.understanding community needs,
understanding city government
.talking with neighbors about
problems, thinking of solutions to
problems, interacting with people
from different groups
28. Indicator Mean (SD) t df
S: developing & defending projects 1.11** (0.93) 7.97 44
S: coordinating & leading groups 0.89** (0.91) 6.56 44
K: understanding city government 0.89** (1.01) 5.93 44
K: knowing people from other groups 0.89** (1.05) 5.68 44
K: understanding community needs 0.84** (0.85) 6.65 44
Table 6.8.
Most Significant Changes Among All Participants (N= 45)
Least Significant Changes Among All Participants (N= 45)
Indicator Mean (SD) t df
P: voting in municipal elections 0.24* (0.58) 2.68 41
A: respecting people of different genders 0.16 (0.56) 1.86 44
A: respecting people of different ethnicities 0.09 (0.52) 1.16 43
A: respecting people of different religions 0.07 (0.50) 0.90 44
A: trusting politicians 0.05 (0.49) 0.63 41
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < .001.
29. Learning Among Females (N=22) Learning Among Males (N=23)
1: developing and defending projects 1: developing and 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
5: understanding city government 5: concern for city problems
6: knowing people of other groups 6: addressing & resolving conflict
7: working in a team & cooperating 7: public speaking abilities
8: self-confidence 8: understanding community needs
9: interacting with different groups 9: seeking info. on social issues
10: addressing & resolving conflict 10: coordinating & leading groups
11: public speaking abilities 11: interacting with different groups
12: being aware of needs of others 12: being aware of needs of others
13: thinking of solutions to problems 13: thinking of solutions to problems
14: concern for city problems 14: resolving conflict
15: listening carefully to others 15: self-confidence
16: resolving conflict 16: feeling connected to community
17: knowing citizen rights & duties 17: listening carefully to others
18: concern for district problems 18: willingness to help others
19: feeling connected to community 19: talking problems w/ neighbors
20: voting in national elections 20: concern for district problems
21: talking problems w/ neighbors 21: respecting different genders
22: feeling connected to neighbors 22: knowing citizen rights & duties
23: voting in municipal elections 23: respecting different ethnicities
24: willingness to help others 24: feeling connected to neighbors
25: trusting politicians 25: voting in national elections
26: respecting different religions 26: voting in municipal elections
27: respecting different genders 27: respecting different religions
28: respecting different ethnicities 28: trusting politicians
Table6.9.+6.10.
ChangesAmongFemalesAsComparedtoMales
Dofemale&maleparticipantslearndifferentthings?
DifferencesinLearning&Change
30. Table6.9.(cont’d)
ChangesAmongFemaleParticipants(N=22)
Indicator Mean (SD) t df
1: developing and defending projects 1.23** (0.97) 5.92 21
2: coordinating & leading groups 1.23** (1.02) 5.64 21
3: understanding community needs 1.09** (0.81) 6.31 21
4: understanding city government 1.00** (0.76) 6.21 21
5: seeking info. on social issues 1.00** (0.95) 4.83 20
6: knowing people of other groups 1.00* (1.31) 3.58 21
7: working in a team & cooperating 0.95** (1.13) 3.95 21
8: self-confidence 0.95** (0.72) 6.20 21
9: interacting with different groups 0.91** (1.11) 3.85 21
10: addressing & resolving conflict 0.91** (0.92) 4.63 21
11: public speaking abilities 0.91** (0.75) 5.68 21
12: being aware of needs of others 0.82** (0.91) 4.23 21
13: thinking of solutions to problems 0.82** (0.91) 4.23 21
14: concern for city problems 0.77** (0.87) 4.17 21
15: listening carefully to others 0.77** (0.69) 5.29 21
16: resolving conflict 0.77* (1.51) 3.15 21
17: knowing citizen rights & duties 0.71** (0.71) 4.56 20
18: concern for district problems 0.64** (0.79) 3.78 21
19: feeling connected to community 0.55* (0.86) 2.98 21
20: voting in national elections 0.53* (0.90) 2.54 18
21: talking problems w/ neighbors 0.50* (0.74) 3.17 21
22: feeling connected to neighbors 0.41* (0.67) 2.88 21
23: voting in municipal elections 0.37* (0.68) 2.35 18
24: willingness to help others 0.27 (0.77) 1.67 21
25: trusting politicians 0.21* (0.42) 2.19 18
26: respecting different religions 0.09 (0.53) 0.81 21
27: respecting different genders 0.09 (0.43) 1.00 21
28: respecting different ethnicities 0.00 (0.63) 0.00 20
31. Table6.10.(cont’d)
ChangesAmongMaleParticipants(N=23)
Indicator Mean (SD) t df
1: developing and defending projects 1.00** *0.90) 5.30 22
2: knowing people of other groups 0.78** (0.74) 5.10 22
3: understanding city government 0.78* (1.20) 3.12 22
4: working in a team & cooperating 0.74** (0.81) 4.38 22
5: concern for city problems 0.74**(0.86) 4.10 22
6: addressing & resolving conflict 0.65** (0.78) 4.04 22
7: public speaking abilities 0.61** (0.72) 4.04 22
8: understanding community needs 0.61* (0.84) 3.48 22
9: seeking info. on social issues 0.57** (0.59) 4.60 22
10: coordinating & leading groups 0.56** (0.66) 4.09 22
11: interacting with different groups 0.56 (0.66) 4.10 22
12: being aware of needs of others 0.50* (0.67) 3.49 21
13: thinking of solutions to problems 0.48* (0.73) 3.14 22
14: resolving conflict 0.43* (0.79) 2.65 22
15: self-confidence 0.36* (0.73) 2.35 21
16: feeling connected to community 0.35* (0.71) 2.34 22
17: listening carefully to others 0.35* (0.49) 3.43 22
18: willingness to help others 0.30* (0.56) 2.61 22
19: talking problems w/ neighbors 0.27* (0.46) 2.81 21
20: concern for district problems 0.22 (0.67) 1.55 22
21: respecting different genders 0.22 (0.67) 1.55 22
22: knowing citizen rights & duties 0.18* (0.39) 2.16 21
23: respecting different ethnicities 0.17* (0.39) 2.15 22
24: feeling connected to neighbors 0.17 (0.72) 1.16 22
25: voting in national elections 0.13 (0.46) 1.37 22
26: voting in municipal elections 0.13 (0.46) 1.37 22
27: respecting different religions 0.04 (0.47) 0.44 22
28: trusting politicians - 0.09 (0.51) -0.81 22
32. Differences in Learning & Change
Do Romanian & Hungarian participants learn different things?
Indicator
1: developing & defending projects
2: knowing people from other groups
3: working in a team and cooperating
4: coordinating & leading groups
Indicator
1: understanding community needs
2: addressing and resolving conflict
3: developing & defending projects
4: understanding city government
Table 6.13.
Most Significant Learning of Romanians (N=24)
Table 6.14.
Most Significant Learning of Hungarians (N=15)
Micro- and macro- level differences
(interpersonal vs. community)
33. Indicator
S: developing & defending projects
S: coordinating & leading groups
S: working in a team and cooperating
K: understanding community needs
Table 6.17.
Most Significant Changes of Ages 15-22 (N=22)
Table 6.18.
Most Significant Changes of Ages 23-41 (N=23)
Indicator
S: developing & defending projects
K: aware of other community needs
K: understanding city government
K: knowing people from other groups
Differences in Learning & Change
Do participants of different age groups learn different things?
personal community vs. separate community
35. Moderated Regression
Table 6.21. (cont’d)
Variables of Moderated Regression Analyses
Variable N, %Yes Example Item
Pre-youth PB score:
connecting with other
groups
43, 3.45 (1.01)
I interacted with people from
other groups before youth PB
Pre-youth PB score: aware
of needs of other
communities
44, 2.91 (0.98)
I was aware of needs of other
communities before youth PB
Pre-youth PB score:
knowing people from
other groups
45, 2.73 (1.35)
I knew people from other
groups before youth PB
36. Intergroup Dynamics: Gender
ChangeinRespecting
Gender
-4
-2
0
2
4
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other
Genders
Low High
Low
High
Graph 6.1.
Change in Respecting Gender for
Participants With Different Degrees of
Knowing People from Other Groups
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other
Genders
Low Medium High
Graph 6.2.
Change in Respecting Gender for
Participants With Different Awareness
of Needs of Others
38. Intergroup Dynamics: Religion
Graph 6.4.
Change in Respecting Religion for
Participants With Different Degrees of
Knowing People from Other Groups
ChangeinRespecting
Religion
-1.6
-0.8
0
0.8
1.6
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other
Religions
Low High
Low
High
Graph 6.5.
Change in Respecting Religion for
Participants With Different Degrees of
Interacting With Other Groups
-3
-1.5
0
1.5
3
Pre-youth PB Respect for Other
Religions
Low High
39. Variable N, %Yes Example Item
Project Delay 45, 44.4%
My project was affected by the
funding delay (Y/N)
City Hall communication 45, 26.7%
I communicated with youth PB
facilitators at City Hall while
applying (Y/N)
Trust in PoliticiansTable 6.21.
Variables of Moderated Regression Analyses
• Significant moderation effect of City Hall communication on relationship
between trusting politicians before youth PB and change in trust,
(R2= .51, F(3,41) = 13.15, B= 0.96, p < .001).
• Significant moderation effect of project delay on relationship between
trusting politicians before youth PB and change in trust,
(R2= .47, F(3,41) = 11.22, B= 1.02, p < .001).
40. Empowerment
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
Table 6.22.
Level of Empowerment for Participants (N= 45)
86.6% of participants shared
feeling empowered
(without prompting)
To what extent does youth PB empower participants?
.
..“That we can do something as a student…
and especially when you’re in a group.”
.
“Com’On Cluj created a context where
people can realize or materialize their ideas.”
“It’s a good way to involve the young people
who have ideas.”
“I embrace it because it gives [young
people] the chance to speak.”
“I learned that if [our team] really
wants to do something, we really can.”
“This was proof that if you don’t have
money and you have great ideas, you
can manage to do something big.”
41. Limitations
• Generalization
• Ambiguous KASP indicators (e.g., politicians level, groups)
• Self-report with retroactive reflection on change
• Relatively short time spent in Cluj
• Language barrier
• Biased sample (funded projects)
• Research bias (intergroup dynamics)
42. In FutureTheory & Practice:
• Cross-cultural comparative data
• Longitudinal multi-method
• Experimental analyses
• Pre- & post- tests
• Manipulated & control groups
• Institute behavior measurements
in addition to self-reported data
• Participatory action research
• Add in-person components
• Use challenges for learning
• Clarify facilitator role(s)
• Emphasize informal groups &
individuals in outreach
• Caravans to expand inclusion
• Deliberative components
• Competition —> collaboration
• Restructure voting process
. .
43. “I think it shows the faces of a lot of actors from the city and I think
it’s important to see not only the good parts, but if you don’t dig,
you don’t see the Earth consistency, so I think it’s a good indicator…
Eli [youth PB Facilitator]
I always believe in processes more than results lately
because in projects you always have to have the strict results,
but we always forget about the processes
that make us who we are.”
