First example of participatory budgeting on the national level

[Written by Luis Roberto Vera, trainee in the Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS]

After a decade of regional level participatory budgeting event that started in 2008, Portugal is currently developing its first participatory budgeting (hereafter PB) project on a national scale. The initiative is called Participatory Budgeting Portugal (PBP).

PBP differs from other forms of PB not just on the level of applicability. Its budget was formally approved by Portugal’s National Senate, followed by creation of the Charter of Quality of Participatory Budgeting Portugal. This charter focuses on principles such as public regulation, continuity, transparency, deliberative and binding character, education for citizenship, equal access, among others[1]. Similarly, PBP aims at integration that motivates “participation, engagement, trust and loyalty through law.” (Meira, 2018: 280).

 

Procedure and resources

The deadline for submission of PBP projects was 24 April 2018, and voting will take place from 11 June to 30 September 2018.

The budget for 2018 will be € 5’000,000. It will be divided between 8 allocations: 7 allocations for regions, and one for the national level. 16 projects will be selected – around two projects per allocation. Winning projects could be started during 2018, but must not exceed 24 months for completion.

Citizens over the age of 18 have two votes available: one for their region, and another for the national project. Foreigners legally residing in Portugal can also participate in the procedure. Votes can be cast in person in registered polls, online, or via SMS. A national identification card and number are required to participate in the voting process.

After the submission period ended, the proposed ideas were analysed, and rejected if  “technically unenforceable”, deemed overly vague, or exceeded the amount of € 300,000[2]. For PBP 2018, a total of 692 projects are up for a vote; 419 on a regional level, and 273 on the national level. The main areas of the participatory budgeting: culture, science, education and adult training (in mainland Portugal), while the autonomous regions of Madeira and Azores focuses more on justice and internal affairs (ibid: 284). Other areas include health, sports education, environment, agriculture, national defence, social welfare, and tourism [3].

The following are four project examples taken from the pool of 273 PBP ideas, applicable on the national scale and published at opp.gov.pt:

 

TOPIC IDEA DESCRIPTION AREA BUDGET TERM
School of Trades — A Study to Relaunch Trades To tackle the shortage of technical professions and crafts in Portugal with courses, support of craftsmen and promotion of their professions Science, Technology and Higher Education

 

€ 28,428.00 18 months
National Reforestation Plan Rehabilitation of areas damaged (Pinhal de Leiria, Pedrogão, Urso, Dunas de Quiaios, Margaraça, and Covilhã National Forests) by the forest fires of 2017 Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development € 300,000.00 24 months
EBOOK Where You Want — National Digital Reading Platform Creation of a national, online-accessible e-book lending platform. Lending services of e-readers and tablets Culture € 300,000.00 24 months
Ocean Donut – Marine Waste Collection Station Construction of marine waste collection stations. They will be made with 100 % recycled plastic. Start a communication platform on the causes and consequences of ocean pollution Oceans € 300,000.00 24 months

An Excel spreadsheet with 20 examples selected randomly is available here (PBP 2018 National Projects).

 

Communicating PBP

PBP has a main web page (opp.gov.pt). General information about PB in Portugal is available on that website, along with the 692 projects. They are listed randomly, but can be filtered by scope (regional or national) or by area. There is an informative video that explains the step-by-step process of the voting.

Information about PBP has been circulating in various media since 2017;  while some attention has also been given by internationally, priority has been given to national promotion. Apart from traditional media coverage and publicity, PBP also has relatively active Facebook and Instagram accounts, with a small following (Facebook: 8858; Instagram: 319). Similarly, the main platform of opp.gov.pt provides all the necessary information that could make an average citizen familiar with the process.

Sources:

Meira Costa, Jorge (2018). “Participatory Budgeting (Portugal) as a marshalling legal process to formally and democratically defining European Monetary System and Policy” in Economic Alternatives, issue 2, 279-295[7].

 

[1]Retrieved from: https://pbscotland.scot/blog/2017/9/26/charter-of-quality-for-participatory-budgeting-in-portugal

[2] The exact criteria can be found in opp.gov.pt’s FAQ section (in Portuguese only).

[3]Retrieved from: http://www.wri.org/wri-citiesforall/publication/porto-alegre-participatory-budgeting-and-challenge-sustaining

Advertisements

Information on recent participatory budgeting events in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries

[Information collected  by Luis Roberto Vera, trainee in the Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS]

The text is available in the PDF format here (PBSpanishPortuguese)

 

Which Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries are running participatory budgeting events?

  2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Spain
Portugal
Brazil
Mexico no data no data no data no data
Guatemala[6]
El Salvador no data no data no data no data no data no data no data no data no data
Honduras no data no data no data no data no data no data no data
Nicaragua no data no data no data no data no data no data
Costa Rica no data no data no data no data
Panamá no data no data no data no data no data no data
Cuba no data no data no data no data no data no data
Dominican Republic no data no data no data no data no data
Colombia no data no data
Venezuela no data no data no data
Ecuador
Peru
Bolivia no data no data no data no data no data no data no data no data no data
Chile no data
Argentina no data no data no data
Paraguay no data no data no data no data no data no data no data
Uruguay no data no data no data no data no data

 

Of all the listed countries, El Salvador applied PB in the early 90s as a series of “post-conflict initiatives seeking to repair societal divisions and build linkages to the state,” utilizing donations from USAID, not local funding[7].

 

Data on what resources (the amount) allocated by citizens in such events

 

  2018
Spain

Madrid

Other regions

 

Around 100 million euros

no data

Portugal 5 million euros
Brazil

Porto Allegre

Santos

Caruaru

Lagoa

 

No data

No data

No data

300,000 euros

Mexico

Guadalajara

 

Mexico City

 

220 million MXN [about 11.6 million USD]

To be determined

Guatemala 7 million GTQ[8] [about 935, 165 USD]
Costa Rica no data
Argentina no data
Dominican Republic no data
Colombia 209,000 million COP [about 7’185,211 USD]
Venezuela* 32’600,000 VEF [around 271 USD]
Ecuador no data
Peru 151’288,245 PEN [around 46’162,582 USD]
Chile 50 million CLP [around 77800 USD]
Uruguay No data

 

How many participatory budgeting events have been held in Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries during recent years? 

  2018 2017 2016
Spain

Madrid[1]

 

Other regions (mainly Andalucía, Murcia and Catalunya

 

1, municipal level

 

At least 2 (Zaragoza, Valladolid) insufficient data

 

1, municipal level

 

19, (approximately)[2]

 

1, municipal level

 

No data

Portugal

(all regions)

80, municipal level

1, national level

50, regional level[3] At least 1 (Braga), insufficient data[4]
Brazil

Porto Allegre

Santos

Caruaru

Lagoa

Other regions

 

 

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

At least 5

 

Suspension of PB[5]

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

At least 5

 

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

At least 5

Mexico

Guadalajara

 

Mexico City

 

1, municipal level

 

1, city-level (approved). To be implemented in 2019

 

1, municipal level

 

No data

 

1, municipal level

 

[Test period 2015-16]

 

Guatemala At least 3, municipal level At least 1, municipal level At least 3, municipal level
Costa Rica At least 1, municipal level At least 1, regional level (7 towns) At least 1, regional level (7 towns)
Panama No data At least 1, municipal level At least 1, municipal level
Venezuela 4, regional level At least 2, regional level At least 2, regional level
Ecuador At least 2, municipal level At least 1, regional level At least 2, regional level
Peru At least 1, regional level At least 1, regional level At least 3, regional level
Chile 17, municipal level At least 5, municipal level At least 5, municipal level
Argentina

Buenos Aires

Rosario

Casilda

 

No data

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

 

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

No data

 

1, municipal level

1, municipal level

No data

Uruguay

Montevideo

At least 1, municipal level No data At least 1, municipal level
Paraguay No data No data No data

 

It is worth mentioning that while data is scarce, countries like Costa Rica, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru have implemented PB policies aimed at indigenous peoples, with the intention of including them in decision-making practices, and to revitalize their trust in political institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Retrieved from: https://www.eldiario.es/madrid/madrilenos-pueden-proyectos-presupuestos-participativos_0_644285695.html

[2] Retrieved from: https://presupuestosparticipativos.com/2017/01/02/los-presupuestos-participativos-en-el-estado-espanol/

[3] Retrieved from: https://opp.gov.pt/winners2017

[4] The site http://www.encuentroiberico.com/ argues that in 2016, Portugal was the European country with most PB events. However, there is no hard data to back the claim.

[5] Retrieved from: https://gauchazh.clicrbs.com.br/porto-alegre/noticia/2017/04/suspensao-das-assembleias-coloca-em-xeque-orcamento-participativo-de-porto-alegre-9762659.html

[6] Retrieved from: https://cerigua.org/article/complace-formulacion-de-presupuesto-participativo/

[7] Blair, Harry (2013). “Participatory budgeting and local governance” in The Imperative of Good Local Governance: Challenges for the Next Decade of Decentralization (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2013), 145-178.

[8] Retrieved from https://www.pressreader.com/guatemala/prensa-libre/20180413/281865824054508

* Developed by donations from the Banesco bank, not public funds.

Toguna – idea crowdsourcing app

A short review of an app that was used to brainstorm ideas during OGP Summit in Paris

Links: Toguna for Android;  Toguna for Iphone

Benefits:

  1. If your audience has smartphones and access to quality wifi, then installing + learning to use Toguna would take around 1 minute. Toguna is easy to install and its usability is quite intuitive.
  2. Toguna it useful if you need to receive some general feedback from your audience over  certain idea/issue/problem – it is very easy for everyone to share their feedback and vote (like/dislike) on the ideas of others. You would also get a general sense on what might be potential solutions to some problem.
  3. It’s a good way to engage your audience if your event does not allow for much time for audience to ask questions/participate in discussion

Limits:

  1. As an idea crowdsourcing too it is simplistic – the design of the app provileges shorter ideas over those that require more text;
  2. Even though theoretically people can comment on each idea, in reality this option is not being used (again: because of design of the app which privileges sharing ever-new ideas and voting of ideas on others);
  3. In none of the three Toguna discussions( that took place during OGP Summit) the idea that was voted to be the most popular had been particularly innovative or enlightening.

Overall, Toguna a decent app but it encounters the same issues as other crowd brainstorming platforms that I’m aware of: 1) form dominates over considerations of quality content (simplicity for the sake of simplicity); 2) assumption that crowd-voting (rather than epertise) is a good way of discerning between good and bad ideas.

Social media are changing the world

Social networks are changing democracy! In 2016 we have witnessed how the “unthinkable” became reality – how UK decided to part ways with European Union and how against almost all predictions Donald Trump, a property tycoon and reality television star, was elected US commander-in-chief. In 2016 the “war for votes” was raging on not only in the conventional battle ground, but also in the digital environment – especially in social networks and social media. Although many digital tools have significantly contributed to strengthening democratic values by empowering individuals and likeminded groups, some aspects of these technologies may be bringing more harm than good. We are only starting to understand the effect that social networks and other new forms of media can have on democracy and politics, but even now it is clear that we don’t have time to waste.

It has been a common knowledge already for a while that social networks can have a significant impact – they can give voice and power for people who have neither. For example, according to Deen Freelon of the American University in Washington, DC, social networks played a crucial role in getting the Black Lives Matter – a movement fighting police violence against African-Americans, off the ground.[1] Maybe even more important was the role social media and networks played in shaping political debates in Arab Spring.[2] It wouldn’t be that difficult to find countless other positive examples of how social media and social networks have empowered change and social progress, for example, social media facilitated political mobilization in civil unrest in Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park, the Maidan protests in Ukraine and the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, all in 2013 or 2014.[3] But looking only at the positive examples can leave an overly positive and quite possibly misleading impression about the impact of social networks. Unfortunately, there are some reasons to be if not skeptical, then at least to realistically assess the impact social media has on democracy.

Echo chambers and fake news

One of the problematic aspects of social media and social networks in relation to healthy democracy might be the echo chambers they are creating. And it is not a problem affecting only social media and social networks, but a problem affecting internet in general. As elegantly formulated by Mostafa M. El-Bermawy from WIRED: “the internet that was used during Arab spring in 2011 is different from the internet that led to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump”.[4]  An echo chamber describes a situation when ideas, information and/or beliefs are amplified by repetition inside an enclosed system. For some of us that perfectly sums up our digital existence in social networks – the algorithm shows us only the content we are likely to like, in other words, the content similar to the one we have consumed before. This in turn leads to another connected problem – the confirmation bias – the psychological tendency for people to embrace new information as affirming their pre-existing beliefs and to ignore evidence that doesn’t.[5]

These problems are exacerbated by the ease of which fake media content can be created and distributed in digital environment. According to the BuzzFeed News, in the final three months of US presidential campaign, the top performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement then the top news stories from major news outlets.[6] The 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook, while the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites lagged behind with only 7,367,000 shares, reactions, and comments.[7] The most popular of the false news stories were a story claiming Clinton sold weapons to ISIS and a hoax claiming the pope endorsed Trump.[8] But the fake news were not popular only among the Trump supporters, e.g., the viral Trump quote calling Republicans ‘the dumbest group of voters’ was definitely fake as well[9] and Ireland was not and still isn’t planning to accept ‘Trump immigrants’.[10]

Tech or media company

Democrats did not hesitate with blaming Facebook and their fake news problem for their defeat in presidential election.[11] Initially Zuckerberg was quick in dismissing any effect fake news could have on election results, stating that overwhelming majority (~99 %) of content is authentic and the fake content was not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics.[12] After couple of days Facebook did finally recognize the importance of fighting misinformation in their social network and informed about ongoing measures employed to mitigate the problem.[13] Despite these efforts several sources have accused Facebook of doing far too little when it comes to combatting the spread of fake news stories, considering that a majority of US adults – 62 %  – get news on social media.[14] But what Facebook should be doing is partially conditional upon their status. A pressing question is whether Facebook and other social networks should be regarded only as tech companies or as something much more than just that.

In the last few months Facebook has been called in many different names — “a website,” “an internet company,” “a major player in the media universe,” “a strange new class of media outlet,” a “tech behemoth,” and even a “cesspool of nonsense”. Facebook itself has not been too eager in accepting their role as a media outlet and thus taking at least some responsibility that comes with it and persistently continues labelling themselves as only a tech company escaping any additional burden.[15] This reluctance is quite understandable as the status of a media company and a place in the Fourth Estate comes with certain responsibilities when it comes to the content it disseminates. In a democratic society media as a cornerstone of the Fourth Estate is expected to act like watchdog, civic forum, and agenda-setter, holding elected officials to account and bound by longstanding liability laws.[16] Fear of legal hurdles apparently is not the only reason for the reluctance to recognize oneself as a media company, it is also a matter of brand management, talent and revenue.[17]

Moving forward

If everything is so bad with social media and social networks – they are riddled with fake news articles, we are all living in artificial echo chambers and no one has any power or willingness to do something about it – what is the way forward? Firstly, neither the echo chamber problem, fake news, nor the lack of regulatory oversight is a reason enough to dismiss social networks and social media as unfit for healthy democracy. It probably is not a very good idea to label all social networks as media companies and apply the same rules as for traditional journalism, but at the same time Facebook should accept the fact that it is already making billions of editorial decisions every day and should work on how to improve them.[18] Facebook and other social media as a new source of journalism[19], should consider improving the algorithms they use to choose the content users see by reducing the importance of the “engagement” criteria.  Secondly, users of social media and social networks should be more aware of the echo chambers they are living in and approach the available content with slightly more skepticism at the same time urging the networks to embrace their role in the Fourth Estate. Finally, social networks, social media and other influential tech companies should recognize these problems as something serious and deal with them accordingly before many of us have lost any faith in their ability to do so.

[Dainis Pudelis]

[1] Deen Freelon, Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice, Available at: http://cmsimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/beyond_the_hashtags_2016.pdf, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[2] Howard, Philip N. and Duffy, Aiden and Freelon, Deen and Hussain, Muzammil M. and Mari, Will and Maziad, Marwa, Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring? (2011). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595096, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[3] The Economist, The signal and the noise, Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21695198-ever-easier-communications-and-ever-growing-data-mountains-are-transforming-politics, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[4] Mostafa M. El-Bermawy , Your Filter Bubble is Destroying Democracy, Available at: https://www.wired.com/2016/11/filter-bubble-destroying-democracy/, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[5] Scott Bixby, theguardian, ‘The end of Trump’: how Facebook deepens millennials’ confirmation bias, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/01/millennials-facebook-politics-bias-social-media, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[6] Craig Silverman, The BuzzFeed News, This Analysis Shows How Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook, Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.luWPbgqrYQ#.pcGYOqeEBx, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Tatianna Amatruda, CNN, That Trump quote calling Republicans ‘the dumbest group of voters’? Fake!, Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/trump-quote-facebook-trnd/, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[10] Dan MacGuill, thejournal.ie, FactCheck: No, Ireland is NOT “officially accepting Trump refugees”, Available at: http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-officially-accepting-trump-refugees-inishturk-facts-3074777-Nov2016/, Accessed:  23.11.2016; Craig Silverman, The BuzzFeed News, This Analysis Shows How Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News On Facebook, Available at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.luWPbgqrYQ#.pcGYOqeEBx, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[11] Nancy Scola, Politico, Clinton digital chief: Democrats to target Facebook’s fake news, Available:  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-facebook-fake-news-231365, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[12] Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Available at: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[13] Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Available at: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[14] Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer, Pew Research Centre, News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016, Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[15] Catherine Buni, The Verge, Facebook won’t call itself a media company. Is it time to reimagine journalism for the digital age?, Available at: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/16/13655102/facebook-journalism-ethics-media-company-algorithm-tax, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Timothy B. Lee, VOX, Mark Zuckerberg is in denial about how Facebook is harming our politics, Available at: http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/6/13509854/facebook-politics-news-bad, Accessed:  23.11.2016

[19] Danny Crichton, Journalism in the Digital Age, Available at: http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index8192.html?page_id=30, Accessed:  23.11.2016

Unorthodox ideas on openness, trust, governmental accountability and citizen engagement

Transparency Word Magnifying Glass Sincerity Openness Clarity

Some of the most unorthodox, soul searching ideas heard during the second day of the OGP summit in Paris:

1) Some approaches to public sector accountability might be incompatible with trust in government. For this reason, Sweden is currently trying to move away from its previous governmental philosophy that was based on the principles of the New Public Management (treating State as a result-oriented company that needs to please its clients) in order to experiment with approaches that are less based on the need to control (or to hold someone accountable) and to encourage more trust both within public service and between citizens and the public service.

2) We are used to treating openness as if it were a value in itself, but … is it? Is there anything of value that would be lost if openness were to be perceived only as a means to some more tangible social goal (such as quality education, quality healthcare, quality government, etc?)

3) Concept of open-washing or openness as a double-edged sword. Openness and transparency might be and sometimes are used as tools on behalf of some state entity for dubious purposes – for example, in order to justify some bad policy decisions (say, at least they were taken in an open process!) or to denigrate political competition. Should one encourage openness in such cases as well (in order to strengthen the later plea for consistency – to ‘practice what one preaches’)? This refers back to the previous point: should openness be promoted for the sake of openness or only as a means to some social good?

4) Is there a way to prevent transparency being used as a political tool in hands of populists who gladly use public information for anti-establishment rhetoric but do not apply the same transparency standards to their own actions (remember Trump’s tax returns and dismal performance on Fact Check)?

5) Is there any good evidence that openness does more good than harm? Trust in EU has not visibly improved since the Union became more open a few years ago. Improved openness was not an argument in recent US election as well. It’s also unclear how much of an impact various openness promoting instruments (for example, lobbying regulations) have and how trustworthy are claims of various open-government champions in specific communities on having achieved a huge impact: has there been some neutral evaluations on whether specific claims have/have not been exaggerated in order to ‘sell’ their achievements?

6) Is the term ‘open government’ too abstract, distant and vague to mobilise people (especially in some cultures, such as in Francophone world)? Is there a need for a language change? What about ‘responsive government’?

Those are all open questions without clear answers. And yet I’d probably be less inclined (than before comming to this event) to believe that openness without quality public engagement and citizen education is necessarily a good in intself.

[Iveta]

Three cleavages at the heart of OGP

[Part of a series of blogposts from Open Government Partnership Summit in Paris]

Liberal Versus Conservative Two Way Signs 2 Party System

A green two-way street sign pointing to Liberal and Conservative, representing the two dominant political parties and ideologies in national and global politics

Yesterday I’ve noticed that there are three important issues where OGP activists/organizers tend to have differing ‘ideologies’:

Cleavage No 1. Is it benefitial to have as many as possible countries joining OGP even if it might be clear that some of them would not meet the basic standards of openness, citizen engagement, governmental accountability? On one hand, access to OGP process and best practice sharing could motivate transformations; on other hand – this might result in loss of credibility for OGP as a process.  Defining question: is Hungary withdrawing from OGP (link) a good or a bad sign for OGP? What about Morocco making an attempt to join?

Cleavage No 2 (probably inspired by post-Brexit referendum, post-US election worries). Should OGP strive to include as many civil society groups as possible or should it, instead, focus on strengthening and deepening engagement on part of those civil society groups that are directly interested in governance and citizen engagement issues so that they are able to sustain their engagement with the government beyond development of the national action plan? Even if one might wish to do both simultaneously, it is rarely feasible. Defining question:  if given a choice, should OGP activists attempt to extend their network to organisations that have not been interested in OGP agenda or should they try to deepen their existing engagement? In other words, should one go broader or should one go deeper?

Cleavage No 3 (related to No 2). How far OGP should stretch its original mission in order to accomodate the demands of those civic activists and governmental representatives who advocate for having a clear and tangible impact on people’s lives (which is not always easily visible in cases of  increased transparency)? Defining question – would you feel some discomfort if a governmental representative would name an improved digital service (for example, a new heathcare or education electronic system) as a national OGP achievement? On one hand, digital services have little to do with opennness, but, on the other hand, that’s where majority of people are likely to see clear impact on their lives.

[Iveta]

OGP and subnational level

This morning I participated in a really good chat on extending OGP to sub-national level. Regional/municipal level governments do some interesting stuff on open government and citizen engagement, yet their work is not so well known due to traditional focus on national level institutions.  I’ve received some excellent tips on where to search for some international benchmarks standarts of urban good governance that will benefit my research (the key tip was helping me to locate research conducted by LSE Urban governance program). 

One problem that would be quite challenging to solve in order to come up with some universal standarts: unlike national level parliaments or governments in democracies, subnational level is extremelly diverse – ranging from huge regions that each has tens of millions of inhabitants and ending with local communes of less than 1000 people. Even more importantly, sub-national units’  competencies and institutional set-ups vary just as much. 

Yes, there might be a way around this by benchmarking open data, citizen engagement, new technology achievements (that would be assumed beneficial irrespective of differences in institutional set-ups), but would that not prohibit all meaningful attempts of best-practice sharing which, after all, rely very much on nuances and in-depth understanding of local specificities? Could there be a better alternative in not separating national/subnational level at all, but instead trying to especially promote those OGP commitmments whose implementation require collaboration between different levels of governance?

[iveta]