IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v288y2021i2p598-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Voting to select projects in participatory budgeting

Author

Listed:
  • Laruelle, Annick

Abstract

In participatory budgeting, citizens are invited to vote on different projects. This paper sets out to study the voting stage of participatory budgeting from theoretical and practical perspectives. At theoretical level, the potential objectives of voting procedures are examined. From the practical point of view it should be easy to select projects, even when the number of projects is large. This paper proposes three algorithms which are theoretically justified and can be easily applied. Participatory budgeting in the town of Portugalete (Spain) provides a test for them. The results obtained with 2018 voting data suggest that the algorithm that includes the costs of the projects at the selection stage performs better than the others. KEYWORDS: decision processes; participatory budgeting; collective decision-making; cost-benefit analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Laruelle, Annick, 2021. "Voting to select projects in participatory budgeting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 598-604.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:288:y:2021:i:2:p:598-604
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.05.063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221720305245
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.05.063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walczak, Dariusz & Rutkowska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 706-714.
    2. Peter Emerson, 2013. "The original Borda count and partial voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(2), pages 353-358, February.
    3. Talvitie, Antti, 2018. "Jules Dupuit and benefit-cost analysis: Making past to be the present," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 14-21.
    4. Matteo Bassoli, 2012. "Participatory Budgeting in Italy: An Analysis of (Almost Democratic) Participatory Governance Arrangements," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(6), pages 1183-1203, November.
    5. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron & Arkadii Slinko, 2017. "Properties of multiwinner voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 599-632, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Puppe, Clemens & Rollmann, Jana, 2021. "Mean versus median voting in multi-dimensional budget allocation problems. A laboratory experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 309-330.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David McCune & Erin Martin & Grant Latina & Kaitlyn Simms, 2023. "A Comparison of Sequential Ranked-Choice Voting and Single Transferable Vote," Papers 2306.17341, arXiv.org.
    2. Haris Aziz & Sujit Gujar & Manisha Padala & Mashbat Suzuki & Jeremy Vollen, 2022. "Coordinating Monetary Contributions in Participatory Budgeting," Papers 2206.05966, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    3. Xiaodong Yuan & Weiling Song, 2022. "Evaluating technology innovation capabilities of companies based on entropy- TOPSIS: the case of solar cell companies," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 65-76, June.
    4. Markus Brill & Jean-François Laslier & Piotr Skowron, 2018. "Multiwinner approval rules as apportionment methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 358-382, July.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    6. Haris Aziz & Markus Brill & Vincent Conitzer & Edith Elkind & Rupert Freeman & Toby Walsh, 2017. "Justified representation in approval-based committee voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 461-485, February.
    7. Diss, Mostapha & Mahajne, Muhammad, 2020. "Social acceptability of Condorcet committees," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 14-27.
    8. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2018. "The Chamberlin-Courant Rule and the k-Scoring Rules: Agreement and Condorcet Committee Consistency," Working Papers halshs-01817943, HAL.
    9. Ali RezaHoseini & Zahra Rahmani & Morteza BagherPour, 2022. "Performance evaluation of sustainable projects: a possibilistic integrated novel analytic hierarchy process-data envelopment analysis approach using Z-Number information," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 3198-3257, March.
    10. Katarzyna Kołat & Marek Furmankiewicz & Magdalena Kalisiak-Mędelska, 2022. "What Are the Needs of City Dwellers in Terms of the Development of Public Spaces? A Case Study of Participatory Budgeting in Częstochowa, Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-21, April.
    11. David McCune & Adam Graham-Squire, 2023. "Monotonicity Anomalies in Scottish Local Government Elections," Papers 2305.17741, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    12. Daniela Bubboloni & Mostapha Diss & Michele Gori, 2020. "Extensions of the Simpson voting rule to the committee selection setting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 151-185, April.
    13. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Refined Characterizations of Approval-based Committee Scoring Rules," Papers 2312.08799, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    14. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    15. Chris Dong & Patrick Lederer, 2023. "Characterizations of Sequential Valuation Rules," Papers 2302.11890, arXiv.org.
    16. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    17. Andrew C. Eggers, 2021. "A diagram for analyzing ordinal voting systems," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(1), pages 143-171, January.
    18. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour & Richard F. Potthoff, 2019. "Multiwinner approval voting: an apportionment approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 67-93, January.
    19. Wei-Chao Lin & Ching Chen, 2021. "Novel World University Rankings Combining Academic, Environmental and Resource Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.
    20. Hans Peters & Panos Protopapas, 2021. "Set and revealed preference axioms for multi-valued choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 11-29, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:288:y:2021:i:2:p:598-604. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.