22nd World Congress of Political Science (IPSA)
July, 8 -12, 2012. Madrid (Spain)
Panel: Global Governance and Citizens’ Political Participation
Participatory Budget in Brazil: The Case of
Rio Grande do Sul State
Author: Vanessa Marx, Ph.D
Postdoctorate and Collaborator Professor Post graduation in Political Science
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).
Scholarship PRODOC/CAPES
Co-author: Alfredo Alejandro Gugliano, Ph.D
Professor Post graduation in Political Science
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
PARTICIPATORY BUDGET IN BRAZIL: THE CASE OF RIO GRANDE DO
SUL STATE.
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the development of the Brazilian participatory
budget after more than 20 years of its foundation in Porto Alegre, in
1989. The proposal is to analyze how the expansion of this budget in a
context in which the federal government leadership is being done by
the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), the party that was responsible for
the introduction of this kind of experience in Brazil and its
achievement.
This presentation shows the results of a research that is being done in large,
medium and small cities of Rio Grande do Sul state, with
both urban and rural population. It also searches for the verification
of how these experiences develop: the citizen participation rules and
quality (participatory budget structure, social control in government
decisions and participant public profile), as well as the impact of this proposal to
the growth of the cities.
1- INTRODUCTION
The present article is a result of the beginning of a research which has been
developed concerning cities which have participatory budgets in Rio Grande do
Sul state (Brazil). This first article shows that the cities in the state follow the
same growth trend of the number of participatory budgets in Brazil since the
1980s.
Therefore, in the first part we will start from a theoretical reference which
justifies the importance of the theme for the cities, the state, the country and the
world as the Participatory Budget (PB) experience has been used in several
cities around the globe. The theory mentions authors who have highlighted the
Participatory Budget importance for the transparency, the politicization and the
participation of citizens in the public administration and developing studies and
researches on the quantification of the PB in Brazil and probing the method with
2
the several models adopted by citizens and governments involved in such
practice.
In the second part we will focus on the research general scope which is being
developed. This scope is comprised by the general characteristics of the cities
in the state. We will check whether the cities in Rio Grande do Sul state are
developing some kind of participatory budget and what the profile of these cities
would be like. The profile of these cities will be composed by the following
factors: number of inhabitants and if these are located in rural and/or urban
areas, index of social-economic development (IDESE) 1, GDP per capita and
political party that is leading the government.
In the third part we will approach the Participatory Budget designs. In order to
do so, we will take the Participatory Budget design of three different cities as a
first try to check some existing Participatory Budget models and designs. This is
an important point as the researches on the Participatory Budget have tried to
quantify the number of existing Participatory Budgets, but there is a difficulty in
detailing the experience and working it in micro-scale to check the Participatory
Budget quality.
Finally, we will gather all the three studied points and reach the first research
conclusions, as it is still in its beginning, but already providing with the general
data the number of cities in the state which develop participative policies in
public management through the use of the Participatory Budget and the
characteristics of these cities as well.
1
IDESE is a synthetic index, inspired in the HDI, which involves a wide range of economic and social
indicators, ranked in four theme blocks: education; income; sanitation and housing; and health. It aims to
measure and follow the level of development in the Rio Grande do Sul State, its cities and its Coredes,
informing the society and guiding the governments (city and state) in their socio-economic policies. Idese
ranges from zero to one and, like the HDI, enables ranking the State, the cities or the Coredes in three
levels of development: low (index up to 0,499), medium (between 0,500 and 0,799) or high (bigger or
similar to 0,800).
3
2- THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGET AS A DEMOCRATIC INNOVATION.
A little more than twenty years ago, when examples of popular participation in
terms of urban policies reorganization in Latin America were sought, one of the
few existing examples was the occupation of lands by families who founded
Villa El Salvador, in 1971, which had developed into the condition of a district of
the Província de Lima since 1983. Later came the participatory budget in Porto
Alegre, in 1989, with the proposal of discussing with the population the
investments of the city. Almost at the same time, the basis of participatory
decentralization of Montevidéu were launched, in 1990, with the idea of
communal zonal centers (GUGLIANO, 2008).
The rising of new forms of public policies organization, based on the citizens’
participation, represents an important challenge for the democratic theory as,
especially in the 20th century, there was a consolidation in the idea of electoral
representation as the only way for the citizens to express themselves to the
governments, almost restricting the citizenship condition to election procedures.
Impoverishing a primitive idea of democracy used by the Greeks who
considered it quite present in the life in the polis, the contemporary political
theory ended up identifying as democratic only the forms of government while
all the rest of social institutions remained as in a parallel world. This is quite
explicit as we see the different characterizations of rules that should identify a
government
as
a
democratic
one,
but
which
remain
silent
about
democratization, for example, the economic institutions into the society
(CASTORIADIS, 2002).
The rising of new participatory experiences of public management ended up
bringing the discussion of several aspects considered as natural ones in the
characterization of democracies. One of them is the principle of representation.
Several arguments collaborated to transform the electoral representation into a
type of essence of the democratic system. MANIN (2006) calls attention among
these propositions, the idea that the growing of the States, more specifically the
expansion of the number of citizens, influenced the development of forms of
indirect political participation. Others, like COTTA (1995), for instance, center
the defense of representation in the public deliberation process itself, rescuing
4
the idea of better training of the representatives to decide. URBINATI (2000)
highlights that this can be a way to potentiate the diversity of opinions which are
found among the voters, as long as there are guarantees of communication
processes involving the representatives and those represented.
With the development of participatory experiences since the end of the 80s,
especially in Latin America, these arguments were questioned. In particular, the
fact that this proposal had its beginning in the election of popular governments,
many of them related to the theme of opening channels for the population
political participation, it did not represent eminent risks for the political stability
of governors who applied them. On the contrary, the increase of public
participation in public management raised, in several cases, positive impacts
both in terms of the legitimacy of the government actions, as well as concerning
the increase of the electoral potential of the political parties involved with these
proposals.
Moreover, these participatory practices broke the retaining walls which
separated the participatory mechanisms from the representative mechanisms of
political participation, as in most policies to expand the citizens’ participation in
public management pointed to a development of a participatory design in which
the political forums of direct participation, quite responsible for the enrichment of
public debate and the deliberation of political guidelines, were associated to
representation spaces, commonly linked to the social control of the defined
policies, something which happens in several experiences of participatory
budgets in international level (LUCHMAN, 2007).
As AVRITZER (2003) highlights, the literature specialized on participatory
budgets advances in three central aspects in terms of the democratic theory. In
the first of them, it could be said that it brings back the debate on the role of
social movements and the organized civil society in terms of creating new
alternatives of democratic political organization. The second aspect refers to the
innovation of the institutional design resulting from these experiences that not
only point to the strengthening of spaces of public debate, as the author
underlines, but also stimulates the reform of the State as a phenomenon
caused by the need to adapt to new spaces for popular participation. Finally the
author suggests the participatory budgets contribute for the rethinking of what
5
democracy is, substantiating the need to create complementary instruments to
the electoral mechanisms.
As a way to accentuate the deliberative shape of participatory democracies, it is
possible to adopt the characterization of three types of participatory budgets: (a)
participatory proposals which have an assembly foundation, (b) others that
adopt a delegative form and, finally those which (c) mix these elements being,
therefore, mixed models.
The assembly model of participatory budget is based on the idea of direct
democracy. It privileges the existence of open popular assemblies in which the
vote of each citizen has the same value, and the main decisions are made
during the assembly concerning priorities of public investments. In this model
there can be other organizational spaces of representative character. However,
these are not the spaces for deliberation of priorities, but to process the
deliberations of the assemblies. In other experiences the participatory budget
develops differently, as the participation of the population in public debates
takes place through the intermediation of organizations from the civil society
and, therefore, it has a character of political delegation. Finally, a third type of
participatory budget, in which the direct participation and the delegation in the
process of defining priorities of public investments coexist (GUGLIANO, 2008).
The
different
forms
of
organization
of
the
participatory
budget
are
consequences of some structural conditions, from which this proposal was
developed. In situations where there are high levels of political and political
party organization, with strong institutions legitimized by the citizens, the trend
is the structuring of mixed forms of participatory budget, articulating participation
and delegation. On the contrary, in conditions in which the institutions are not so
consolidated, the political party system is volatile, but, on the other hand, the
civil society participates and there is a tradition of strong popular organization,
then a trend of forming assembly participatory budgets is found. Lastly, in
contexts in which neither the State nor the civil society have strong
organizational levels, there is a predisposition to form participatory budgets
without direct forms of citizen participation.
6
3- THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGET IN CITIES IN RIO
GRANDE DO SUL
Rio Grande do Sul is known for its public participation, due to the Porto Alegre
case, the capital city assessed as birthplace of the proposal. This capital city
participatory budget reached, in 2010, twenty-one years of activities and it can
be considered as one of the most widely studied cases of participatory public
management, both in Brazil and abroad. However, so far there is a scarcity of
studies that specifically analyze the impact of the participatory budget in terms
of other towns in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Considering the state level,
there are several works dedicated to the extinct state participatory budget, not
to the city budgets within the state. Meanwhile, the vast majority of works on
participatory processes in the region are exclusively dedicated to the case of
the capital city of Rio Grande do Sul state.
In terms of sources related to the proposed investigation theme, we could not
forget the researchers developed in national level which provides information
that, although limited, is meaningful as well. Aiming at mentioning some works
to illustrate the theme, we could highlight the investigation coordinated by
RIBEIRO and GRAZIA (2003), on the participatory budget in Brazil, in the
period 1997-2000, where some general data is found on the characteristics of
cities which had participatory budgets in the so-mentioned period, studied by
the authors, as well as on the functioning of participatory budgets. Still, the
results of this research were announced in national level raw data, without a
bigger emphasis on regional or municipal aspects, a fact which makes it harder
to offer a perception of the phenomenon regionally speaking. In particular, the
information provided by the researchers refer to Rio Grande do Sul data,
especially concerning the number of cities where the proposal had been
executed within that period, as well as their population. The publication, for
instance, does not show details of which cities in Rio Grande do Sul developed
participatory budgets in that period.
These data, undoubtedly, are important because they place Rio Grande do Sul
as the second region in the country with the biggest number of participatory
budget cases, just after São Paulo. Besides this, it is also relevant that the
7
authors call attention for the fact that, in the Rio Grande do Sul state, almost
60% of all the 21 cases of participatory budget analyzed correspond to
experiences in towns with less than 20 thousand inhabitants. However, as it is
not a specific regional study, the research lacks more detailed information on
the characteristics of the cities of the state where such cases were developed,
as well as, mainly, the way the cities themselves organize the process to
include the citizens in the city management.
Another studied developed in national level which presents data on the Rio
Grande do Sul case, was conducted through a survey effected by Brian
Wampler and published by the Instituto Pólis (POLIS, 2006), which has a list of
18 cities in Rio Grande do Sul where there was the implementation of
participatory budget proposals between 1989-2004.
Analyzing the participatory budget in the state period after the previous studies,
a first conclusion we can reach in this first part of the research developed in
2012 is that a greater precision is made necessary of what characterizes the
PB. Around 100 of the 496 existing cities in Rio Grande do Sul responded using
the participatory budgets in their administrations, but when asked about the
experiences, the answers are not very clear and they in fact say that: there are
meetings with the communities (which may or not refer to the budget), do
popular queries through the Regional Development Councils of Rio Grande do
Sul (COREDES) debate the government Multiannual Plan and the Master Plan
in a participatory way. In this first part we can notice an increase in the number
of cities which have some experience of participatory public management, in a
total of about 100 cities in a universe of 496 cities. Secondly, that the cities
developing participatory budgets and that somehow accurately responded2
correspond to 59 cities (period 2008-2012): Alecrim, Aratiba, Bagé, Barra do
Quaraí, Barracão, Bento Gonçalves, Boa Vista do Incra, Boa Vista do Buricá,
Boa Vista do Sul, Bom Progresso, Canoas, Casca, Caxias do Sul, Cruz Alta,
Erechim, Esperança do Sul, Estância Velha, Esteio, Flores da Cunha,
Garibaldi, Getulio Vargas, Gravataí, Ibirubá, Itapuca, Itati, Itatiba do Sul,
Mariano Moro, Nova Palma, Novo Hamburgo, Novo Tiradentes, Novo Xingu,
2
It can be considered that there was an accurate response when the participatory policy
concerns the budget and when working on an annual cycle.
8
Paim Filho, Palmeira das Missões Panambi, Paraí, Passo Fundo, Pejuçara,
Planalto, Porto Alegre, Pouso Novo, Rio Grande, Rodeio Bonito, Santa Rosa,
Santo Antônio do Palma, São Gabriel, São Jerônimo, São José das Missões,
São Leopoldo, São Lourenço do Sul, Sapiranga, Sapucaia do Sul, Serafina
Correa, Soledade, Tenente Portela, Tucunduva, Vacaria, Venancio Aires,
Veranópolis e Viamão.
It can be seen that the cities correspond to a bigger number than the ones
mentioned in the national research made by Wampler and published by Pólis
(2006), but some have a continuing line in time even though there had been
political party changes in their administrations such as: Boa Vista do Sul,
Canoas, Caxias do Sul, Esteio, Gravataí, Palmeira das Missões, Passo Fundo,
Porto Alegre, Sapucaia do Sul, Soledade and Viamão.
An important characteristic is that if in a first moment the Partido dos
Trabalhadores – Labor Party (PT) was the pioneer in the experience of public
participation in its administrations being able to implement the PB in its
administrations; this has beeb changing along the years. PT still has the biggest
number of city governments in the state that have the participatory budget, but
there is a bigger spread and diversification of political parties. In the 59 cities
with some type of PB program in their administrations, 20 are from PT, 11 from
PMDB, 11 from PP, 9 from PDT, 3 from PTB, 2 from DEM, 2 from PSDB and 1
from PPS3. This movement could be explained due to some reasons: a)
consolidation of the participatory budget as a transparent practice and public
management participation; b) the city scenario could be following trends in
terms of national and state levels in order to have broader coalitions of political
parties4; c) the changes of political parties in some city governments does not
deconstruct the participatory budget project developed in the previous
administration, but present changes and modifications in the structure
mischaracterizing at times the essence of the project.
3
Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (PMDB), Partido
Progressista (PP), Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT), Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro (PTB),
Democratas (DEM), Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB), e Partido Popular Socialista (PPS)
4
Since 2002 Brazil has been administered by PT in coalition with other parties such as PL and PMDB.
Since 2011 Rio Grande do Sul has been administered by PT in a coalition with PSB.
9
In order to try to deepen the participatory budget experience, the research
proposes to analyze different models of participatory budget in the cities to
check similarities and differences within each experience.
4- THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGET DESIGNS IN THE CITIES
The participatory budget designs range in each municipal administration. To
reach the goals proposed in this research we mention participatory budgets
designs when we can identify the following aspects: a) annual development; b)
decision concerning the budget or part of it; c) cycle models.
Because of this we will develop a parallel of some participatory budget
experiences. As it is not possible to portray all the experiences of the cities that
mentioned having a participatory budget, we will be working with three cities
which will serve as pilot ones for the development of the research: Porto Alegre,
Canoas and São Leopoldo.
4.1 - Porto Alegre
Porto Alegre is the capital city of Rio Grande do Sul state. It has 1,360,000
inhabitants and it is located in the center part of a metropolitan region reaching
close to 3,000,000 inhabitants. The city economic activity is mainly services and
commerce.
Since 1989 Porto Alegre has been using the Participatory Budget in its
administration and it has been led by different political parties. In 1989 when the
Participatory Budget started to be used, the city was administered by the
Partido dos Trabalhadores – Labor Party (PT), which remained at office until the
year of 2004. From 2005 on, Porto Alegre was administered by the Partido
Popular Socialista – Socialist Popular Party (PPS), in the 2008 election by the
Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro – Brazilian Democratic Movement
Party (PMDB) and it is currently administered by the Partido Democrático
Trabalhista – Democratic Labor Party (PDT).
In 1989, when the Participatory Budget was created there were basic
infrastructure problems which should be solved although with few resources for
10
investment. In 1990 when a big tax reform took place with an inversion of the
municipal property tax (IPTU), which helped recuperating part of the city
investment capacity. The inversion consisted in having the suburbs with better
conditions and more expensive properties to pay more taxes than the poorer
suburbs which lacked infrastructure. Therefore, since 1991 the Participatory
Budget becomes and a massive and interesting process which started
motivating the participation of communities and regions into the participatory
budget.
We can see that after several years (1989-2012) the Participatory Budget in
Porto Alegre reached a certain consolidation, placing the public administration
willing to have the decision concerning the city budget to be shared and, at the
same time, there is a national and international acknowledgement of the
experience.
The Participatory Budget cycle in Porto Alegre is annual and runs from March to
January each year. The Participatory Budget is divided in 17 regions
(Humaitá/Navegantes, Noroeste, Leste, Lomba do Pinheiro, Norte, Nordeste,
Partenon, Restinga, Glória, Cruzeiro, Cristal, Centro-Sul, Extremo Sul, Eixo
Baltazar, Sul, Centro, Ilhas) and in 6 themes (Education, Sport and Leisure;
Circulation, Transport and Urban Mobility; Housing, City Organization, Urban
and Environmental Development; Economic Development, Taxing, Tourism and
Work; Culture; Health and Social Assistance).
In March and April preparatory meetings are held in the regions, micro regions
and themes: accountability, presentation of the investments plan, presentation
of the standing order, general and technical criteria, discussion concerning the
theme priorities, criteria for the counselors list, suggestion of priorities and
demands through internet.
In April and May the big regional and theme plenary sittings are held with the
choice of the theme priorities, election of counselors and the definition of the
number of delegates.
From May to July the election of the delegates is held, prioritization of works
and services, deliberation of the demands through the internet by the forum of
delegates, visit to the Works by the delegates.
11
In the first half of July, there is the first city assembly with the installation of the
new counselors, announcement of the list of works and services and the
discussion of general character themes.
From August to September there is the discussion and the voting of the budget
guidelines and the distribution of resources for the regions and theme in the
Participatory Budget Council.
From October to December there is the final stage of the Participatory Budget
with the presentation of details of the investment and services plan and with the
end of the distribution of resources for the Regions and Themes in the
Participatory Budget Council. Presentation and voting of the proposal of the
Investments and Services Plan (technical-financial analysis of the population
demands) in the Regional and Thematic Delegates Forums, the coordinators of
the Secretary of Local Governance present the works and services which have
no legal or technical impediment for their execution, along the secretaries and
the directors of the institutions involved in the demand, explain to the delegates
why such demand cannot be implemented, the proposal of the Investment and
Services Plan is forwarded to the knowledge of the Forums before their
presentation.
From November to December there is the discussion in the Regional and
Thematic Forums of the changes to the Rules of Procedure, General and
Technical Criteria of the Participatory Budget.
Finally in January the Rules of Procedure and the General and Technical
Criteria in the Participatory Budget Council are voted.
4.2 São Leopoldo
São Leopoldo is a city in the Porto Alegre metropolitan region. It has 209,611
inhabitants and an urbanization rate of 99,7% and of 0,30% in the countryside.
It is a city with a big flow of people who come either to work or study in the city,
as it is an important university center in the state. The city is administered by
the Partido dos Trabalhadores – Labor Party (PT).
The São Leopoldo Participatory Budget is ruled under the following principles:
universality (participation of all citizens above 16), self-regulamentation (rules of
12
procedure discussed and defined by the delegates and counselors), entire
budget (discussion of the entire budget in the instances of the participatory
budget) and transparency (publication of the budget definitions).
The Participatory Budget is divided in eight regions: North 1, North 2, Northeast,
West, East, Southeast, South and Downtown).
The participatory Budget Cycle lasts for a year and is composed of the following
stages: regional preparatory meetings (presentation of the participatory budget
methodology as well as of the investments plan), micro regional preparatory
meetings (presentation of the participatory budget methodology and discussion
of the regional matters), regional assemblies (presentation of the meeting
dynamics, debate of regional priorities, choice of the priority themes and
demands and election of the delegates), delegates’ regional forums (election of
the forums coordination, election of the regional counselors, discussion of the
regional demands), municipal assembly (installation of the counselors,
presentation of the priorities, presentation of estimation of revenues and
expenses for the following year, discussion of the general character themes),
discussion and deliberation of the Budget proposal by the Participatory Budget
Council, submission of the budget proposal to the City Council, details of the
Investments Plan in the Participatory Budget Council and in the delegates’
regional forums, evaluation and review of the Participatory Budget Rules of
Procedure and recess of the Participatory Budget Council.
4.3. Canoas
Canoas is the most populated city in the Porto Alegre metropolitan area, with
329,174 inhabitants, according to estimation from the Instituto Brasileiro de
Geografia e Estatística – Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE),
for 2005. The city is administered by the Partido dos Trabalhadores – Labor
Party (PT).
The city is organized in four city organizational quadrants (Southwest,
Southeast, Northeast and Northwest) in 15 micro regions (Southwest – Rio
Branco, Fátima, Mato Grande; Southeast – Niterói, João de Barro, Nossa
Senhora das Graças; Northeast – Guajuviras, São Vicente, Estância Velha e
13
Igara; Northwest – Mathias Velho/São Luís, Mathias Velho/União dos
Operários, Getúlio Vargas, Santo Operário and Harmonia) of the Participatory
Budget.
The Canoas Participatory Budget is organized in an annual cycle, with two
rounds, three forms and elects micro regional works for the city. In the first
round, fifteen public assemblies are held (Participatory Budget in public
assemblies) and in the second round the voting takes place in all polls in the
city (Participatory Budget in the ballot-boxes) and the work to be done in the city
is chosen through the system Ágora Virtual (Digital PB). All coordinated by the
Secretary of Institutional Relations through the Office of Community Relations.
In the first round, the public assemblies elect a work for each micro region and
rank up to five demands for the second micro regional work which should be
elected in the second round. The demands to be presented in the assemblies
need to go through a diagnosis process, the application, technical, juridical and
financial analysis. In the first round, assemblies’ demands for the city are voted
as long as they are linked to strategic projects of the government. The five most
voted proposals are taken to the digital PB in the second round and then one
demand to be fulfilled is chosen for the city.
The city was organized in four districts with four subcouncils. The districts have
micro regions. The size of the micro regions is the variable for the distribution of
investment resources. The value is the same for all micro regions. What
changes is the size and the population in each micro region. The smaller the
infrastructure, the smaller the micro region. Each citizen may discuss its needs,
participating in the elaboration of part of the public budget. The Canoas PB
process
foresees
the
election
of
delegates,
counselors,
construction
commissions and theme forums.
In each annual cycle, the delegates connected to the micro regions and
demands are elected, who organized in forums choose the construct
commissions, follow up and do the monitoring of the construction executions,
articulations and theme discussions.
14
5. CONCLUSION
As years go by we see that the theme is still important for researches in several
areas: Political Science, Sociology, Urbanism, Public Policies, besides being an
innovation for the contemporary political theory.
PB peaked in the 90s as an innovative policy of public management, but it did
not have an end. Increasingly there are more researches and regional, national
and international networks discussing the topic and trying to increase the
number of governments which agree to use in their management, citizen
participation policies, such as the Participatory Budget. On the other hand, we
have reached another level in order to deepen the researches on PB. This
deeper study consists in detailing the dynamics, their design and the
Participatory Budget micro scale.
This article is the beginning of a research which intends to describe the
experiences of the Participatory Budget and its characteristics in the cities of
Rio Grande do Sul in the latest municipal administration years (2008-2012).
The research has four fundamental moments: a) quantifying the number of
cities developing the Participatory Budget; b) detailing the general data of these
cities (GDP per capita, population- rural/urban, IDESE, political party of the
government), c) verifying the Participatory Budget design the cities have and d)
applying a questionnaire in these cities in order to qualify the data.
In this first paper we aim to contextualize the theme of the Participatory Budget
in theory, describe how the municipal experiences of Participatory Budget in Rio
Grande do Sul have played an important role in the country and for national
researches on the theme, and outlining the design of three cities in which the
Participatory Budget has a consolidated dynamic. In these three cities we
described the population data, city dimension, political party of the government,
division by regions and Participatory Budget cycle.
At last, we believe that these three parts of the article may contribute to qualify
the Participatory Budget experiences in Rio Grande do Sul, as well as
collaborate with the researches on the theme in Brazil.
15
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AVRITZER, Leonardo. "O Orçamento Participativo e a teoria democrática: um
balanço crítico". In: AVRITZER, Leonardo; NAVARRO, Zander. Orgs. A
inovação democrática no Brasil:o orçamento participativo. São Paulo:
Cortez, 2003.
CARVALHO, Maria do Carmo Albuquerque; TEIXEIRA, Ana Claudia C.;
ANTONINNI, Luciana; MAGALHÃES, Inés. Orçamentos participativos nos
municípios paulistas: gestão 1997-2000. São Paulo: PÓLIS, 2002.
CASTORIADIS, Cornelius. As encruzilhadas do labirinto (IV). Rio de Janeiro:
Paz e Terra, 2002.
COTTA, Maurizio. Representação Política. In: BOBBIO, Norberto; MATEUCCI,
Nicola; PASQUINO, Gianfranco. Org. Dicionário de Ciência Política. Brasília,
UnB, 1995.
FUNDAÇÃO DE ECONOMIA E ESTATÍSTICA (FEE): Disponível em:
http://www.fee.tche.br/sitefee/pt/content/estatisticas/pg_idese.php?ano=2009
Acessado em 03/06/2012
GOVERNO DO ESTADO DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL. SECRETARIA DO
PLANEJAMENTO E GESTÃO. Atlas Socioeconômico Rio Grande do Sul.
Disponível
em:
http://www.scp.rs.gov.br/atlas/default.asp,
acessado
em:
29/07/2010
GUGLIANO, Alfredo Alejandro. Mirando hacia el sur. Sistema, n. 203-204, p.
149-169, 2008.
LÜCHMANN, Lígia Helena H. A representação no interior das experiências de
participação. Lua Nova, n. 70, p. 139-170, 2007.
MANIN, Bernard. Los principios del gobierno representativo. Madrid:
Alanza, 2006.
PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE CANOAS. Ágora Virual. Disponível em:
http://www.canoas.rs.gov.br/site/home/pagina/idDep/27/id/51, acessado em
03/06/2012.
PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE PORTO ALEGRE. Orçamento Participativo.
Disponível em: http://www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/op/default.php?p_secao=15,
acessado em 03/06/2012.
16
PREFEITURA MUNICIPAL DE SÃO LEOPOLDO. Orçamento Participativo.
Disponível
em:
https://www.saoleopoldo.rs.gov.br/home/show_page.asp?user=&id_CONTEUD
O=1471&codID_CAT=1&imgCAT=tema_prefeitura.jpg&id_SERVICO=&ID_LIN
K_PAI=1248&categoria=<b>Secretarias</b>, acessado em 03/06/2012.
RIBEIRO, Ana Clara T.; GRAZIA, Grazia de. As experiências de orçamento
participativo no Brasil (1997-2001). São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2002.
URBINATI, Nadia. “Representation as advocacy: a study of democratic
deliberation”. Political Theory, v.. 28, n. 6, p. 758-86, 2000.
WAMPLER, Brian. “Can Participatory Institutions Promote Pluralism? Mobilizing
Low-Income Citizens in Brazil.”. Studies in Comparative International
Development, n. 4, v. 41, 57-79, 2007
17