Citizen participation today needs to be understood as both an empowerment practice to create urban futures as well as the perpetuation of entrepreneurial and neoliberal modes of planning. The exponential progress of technologies and the digitalisation of everyday life have led to a surge of innovation. Since hybridity has become a key factor, citizen participation now involves citizens and governments meeting online and offline in a multi-stakeholder setting to plan the city in parallel layers, often according to controversial or even (...) contradictory logic (Horelli et al., 2015). As digital citizen participation opens up new tools and means to mobilise people and shape urban futures, this chapter analyses these new aspects through the categories of top-down/bottom-up participation as well as formal/informal practices. Using four case studies comparatively, our aim with this chapter is to find a new theoretical basis and contextualisation for digital citizen participation. The case studies are situated across Europe and North America: we study participatory budgeting in Helsinki, digitalising citizen participation in Lubbock, Texas, the National Map of Security Threats in Poland, and digital placemaking by a grassroots movement in an urban planning participation process in Zürich, Switzerland. The findings of the article show that (1) digital citizen participation fosters novel multi-actor networks negotiating governance of the urban space, (2) studies of citizen participation need to acknowledge the multi-layered hybridity and (3) new modes of governance enable novel senses of informality in participation. (shrink)

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a paradigm that empowers residents to directly decide how a portion of the public budget is spent. Specifically, residents deliberate over spending priorities and vote over how the budget should be allocated to different public projects. As such it is a mechanism of top-down transfer of decisions on the part of budgetary expenditure to citizens. In recent years, PB has become a central topic of discussion and an important field of innovation for those involved in local (...) development, considered one of the most successful democratic innovations of the last 25 years. Participatory budgeting contributes significantly to participatory democracy, inclusiveness processes and placemaking, but some factors limit the scale of these aspects. However, a relatively simple idea – that “ordinary citizens” should have a direct say in public budgets that impact them – has travelled the world by the most unexpected routes and landed in unlikely sites. There is no precise model for PB programmes. While there are similar tenets and institutional mechanisms, PB programmes are structured in response to each city or state’s particular political, social and economic environment. Therefore, it is necessary to consider to what extent PB strengthens the discussed processes, whether it allows reaching new, inactive groups of citizens and includes them in the decision-making process regarding shaping public spaces. The popularity of this tool carries the risk that it will be used to build the image of local government instead of significantly increasing the participation of citizens in deciding on local public spaces. The chapter aims to present and analyse participatory budgeting practices in four European and North American countries (Switzerland, Poland, North Macedonia and the United States of America) to show the role of PB in placemaking processes by the levels and forms of participation, the analysis of representativeness of PB participants (inclusiveness), placemaking impact and its level of digitisation. The proposed comparative analysis allows for assessing the importance of the tool for increasing social participation, which is participatory budgeting, for understanding its limitations and suggesting directions for its improvement to shape more inclusive, friendly and open public spaces. (shrink)