From Australia, An E-Participatory Budgeting Experiment

Tiago Peixoto | September 23, 2009 - 11:22am | 1 comment | Email This!

The government of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW), in an attempt to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn and stimulate local economies, has allocated the equivalent of US$30 million to the Community Building Partnership program. Aiming to support local jobs, stimulate growth and improve community facilities, the program allocates between US$260,000 and US$ 350,000 to each of the 93 NSW electoral districts. Under the program, community groups are eligible to electronically submit applications for funding to support local infrastructure and jobs in the district. Once applicants meet the requirements, MPs prioritize which projects are to receive funding.

However, the real novelty comes from the electoral district of Heathcote, where MP Paul McLeay is inviting the district’s citizens to decide through the Internet on the allocation of the funds that the government has made available. On the rather 2.0 MP’s website, the legislator uses video to explain the context of the initiative and invite citizens to prioritize the eligible proposals formulated by local community organizations.

From October 6th, citizens will be able to cast five votes each – with a maximum of 3 votes per project – in order to decide which causes are the most deserving of existing funds. According to a local article on the initiative, a system has been deployed to ensure that only residents of the district vote and to keep the initiative from being defrauded (e.g. multiple voting). In this respect, voting is auditable and, apparently in the same way as Belo Horizonte’s e-participatory budgeting system, votes are only considered valid by the system if the information provided is accurate and compatible with that contained in the electoral roll.

In order to alleviate the effects of the digital divide, the initiative counts on the support of local libraries that have made some of their computers available for citizens to access the initiative’s website. Last, but not least, the website will provide tools for organizations and supporters to lead their online canvassing, such as newsletters and website widgets.

E-participatory budgeting, as it spreads around the world, takes various forms. But, ultimately, it is always about leveraging the dispersed knowledge of citizens to shape decisions that invariably affect their lives. It will be interesting to see how the wisdom of the Heathcote crowd will operate in the allocation of their stimulus funds. Probably better than most earmarks we see around. Any bets?

With this post, we welcome Tiago Peixoto to our growing constellation of international contributors. He is a PhD researcher at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy.

Our readers also like:

Govt 2.0: The Power of Mass Collaboration is Here
81 recommended posts
Categories: 

Comments

The direct democratic process is as noteworthy as its technology

by Bob Jacobson on September 23, 2009 - 5:58pm

"The wise king leads by following the people." -- Lao Tzu, 6th Century BCE

Thanks to Tiago for an important story. The NSW experiment in direct democracy would be notable even if it wasn't Internet-based. The delegation of policymaking authority to its citizens by the state government, even limited as it is, sets a new standard for citizen-centric democracy.

The Aussies trod this path before. In the 1970s, Telecom 2000, a national, citizen-centric policymaking process that lasted several years resulted in a precise blueprint for Australia's future telecommunications network. After decades of failed private efforts to provide the network, it's now finally coming into being, publicly financed thanks to Australian PM Mark Rudd.

Tony Newstead of the then-Australian Post Office National Planning Branch, who conceived of Telecom 2000 and conducted its operations around all of Australia -- a heroic feat -- spoke of his effort as an "open approach" to policymaking (anticipating "open" everything as we have it today).

First, citizens were told about the process, then educated in a policy-neutral fashion about telecommunications technology's expected capabilities, and lastly consulted at an extensive, year-long series of public meetings all around Australia -- "town halls" properly deployed -- as to their preferences: cost v. service, extent of geographical availability of digital networks (the public almost always went for universal service), competitive v. "single-payer" public provision (a publicly owned system was another going-away policy recommendation, ignored by conservatives and neo-cons for the next three decades, with negative consequences), and many more issues.

It's remarkable how prescient Australia's citizens were regarding telecom developments 30 years hence. The wonderful set of reports that resulted are today collectors items. None are in circulation. That's how keen it was.

It's not unimportant that the Internet is supporting citizen-driven policymaking in NSW: figuring out how to meld governance and technology is a pioneering achievement in its own right. Still, this political breakthrough is bigger than e-government or even e-participation. Direct democracy is big news anywhere, anytime, whatever its technological base.

So when do we in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" get a chance at direct democracy, even with our antiquated telecom network and PCs? Where are our politicians with the courage and wisdom to trust in the people's ability to lead?

—

• Charter Member, The WELL
• Former Principal Telecom & Information Policy Analyst,
California Legislature
• Founder, The Dean Issues Forum
• Former Volunteer, Obama for America