IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2620-d337152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How a Participatory Budget Can Support Sustainable Rural Development—Lessons From Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak

    (Department of Marketing Management, Faculty of Business and Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Jarosław Olejniczak

    (Department of Finance, Faculty of Economics and Finance, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Libuše Svobodová

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Kralove, 500 03 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Since the announcement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the need for localization of SDGs has been emphasized. In this context, sustainable rural development is still a relatively undescribed area in the context of using the participatory budget as a tool to implement SDGs. Few countries have introduced legal regulations in practice, enabling the creation of participatory budgets (especially in rural areas), so a multifaceted analysis of a decade of Poland's experience may provide important guidelines for countries considering introducing such solutions, which we consider to be the main purpose of this study. This is the first study covering all communes where participatory budgets (Solecki Fund—FS) were created in Poland during the 2010–2018 period (up to 60% of all), covering both the analysis of the process of creating FSs, the directions of spending and the scale of spending (including regional differentiation), as well as legal regulations and the consequences of including central government support in this mechanism. On the basis of the research, it can be observed that, despite the small scale of FS spending, the number of municipalities using this form of citizen participation is increasing. At the same time, there is significant variation between regions, which indicates the flexibility of the FSs in adapting to the needs reported by residents. The analysed directions of expenditure indicate that the FSs are in line with the SDG objectives related to the improvement of residents' quality of life. It can be concluded that, despite the existing legal regulations, the introduction of the Solecki Fund undoubtedly depends on the political will of the local government's legislative authorities and the willingness of residents to participate in decisions on spending directions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak & Jarosław Olejniczak & Libuše Svobodová, 2020. "How a Participatory Budget Can Support Sustainable Rural Development—Lessons From Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-29, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2620-:d:337152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2620/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2620/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bednarska-Olejniczak, Dorota & Olejniczak, Jaroslaw, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting in Poland – Finance and Marketing Selected Issues," MPRA Paper 87659, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2017.
    2. Stephanie L. McNulty, 2015. "Barriers to Participation: Exploring Gender in Peru's Participatory Budget Process," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(11), pages 1429-1443, November.
    3. David Griggs & Mark Stafford-Smith & Owen Gaffney & Johan Rockström & Marcus C. Öhman & Priya Shyamsundar & Will Steffen & Gisbert Glaser & Norichika Kanie & Ian Noble, 2013. "Sustainable development goals for people and planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7441), pages 305-307, March.
    4. Aliye Ahu Akgün & Tüzin Baycan & Peter Nijkamp, 2015. "Rethinking on Sustainable Rural Development," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 678-692, April.
    5. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    6. Saguin, Kidjie, 2018. "Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven development: Lessons from participatory budgeting," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 220-232.
    7. Jaramillo, Miguel & Wright, Glenn Daniel, 2015. "Participatory Democracy and Effective Policy: Is There a Link? Evidence from Rural Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 280-292.
    8. T. R. Franks, 1996. "Managing Sustainable Development: Definitions, Paradigms, And Dimensions," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(2), pages 53-60.
    9. Diether W. Beuermann & Maria Amelina, 2018. "Does participatory budgeting improve decentralized public service delivery? Experimental evidence from rural Russia," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 339-379, November.
    10. Frank Ellis & Stephen Biggs, 2001. "Evolving Themes in Rural Development 1950s‐2000s," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 19(4), pages 437-448, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mayka, Lindsay & Abbott, Jared, 2023. "Varieties of participatory institutions and interest intermediation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Marcin K. Widomski & Anna Musz-Pomorska, 2023. "Sustainable Development of Rural Areas in Poland since 2004 in the Light of Sustainability Indicators," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Zeug, Walther & Bezama, Alberto & Thrän, Daniela, 2020. "Towards a holistic and integrated Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of the bioeconomy: Background on concepts, visions and measurements," UFZ Discussion Papers 7/2020, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    5. Lee, Misuk & Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2017. "Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 58-65.
    6. Dorota Bednarska-Olejniczak & Jarosław Olejniczak & Libuše Svobodová, 2019. "Towards a Smart and Sustainable City with the Involvement of Public Participation—The Case of Wroclaw," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-33, January.
    7. Wenmei Fei & Alex Opoku & Kofi Agyekum & James Anthony Oppon & Vian Ahmed & Charles Chen & Ka Leung Lok, 2021. "The Critical Role of the Construction Industry in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Delivering Projects for the Common Good," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Mario Pansera & Soumodip Sarkar, 2016. "Crafting Sustainable Development Solutions: Frugal Innovations of Grassroots Entrepreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, January.
    9. Junying Lin & Zhonggen Zhang & Lingli Lv, 2019. "The Impact of Program Participation on Rural Household Income: Evidence from China’s Whole Village Poverty Alleviation Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Svatava Janoušková & Tomáš Hák & Vlastimil Nečas & Bedřich Moldan, 2019. "Sustainable Development—A Poorly Communicated Concept by Mass Media. Another Challenge for SDGs?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, June.
    11. Endl, Andreas & Tost, Michael & Hitch, Michael & Moser, Peter & Feiel, Susanne, 2021. "Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    13. Espinoza-Tenorio, Alejandro & Espejel, Ileana & Wolff, Matthias, 2015. "From adoption to implementation? An academic perspective on Sustainable Fisheries Management in a developing country," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 252-260.
    14. Erwin Van Tuijl & Leo Van den Berg, 2016. "Annual City Festivals as Tools for Sustainable Competitiveness: The World Port Days Rotterdam," Economies, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2012. "Understanding the rural third sector: insights from Veblen and Bogdanov," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 41(1/2), pages 177-188.
    16. Gyula Dörgő & Viktor Sebestyén & János Abonyi, 2018. "Evaluating the Interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals Based on the Causality Analysis of Sustainability Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
    17. Ingrid Boas & Frank Biermann & Norichika Kanie, 2016. "Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 449-464, June.
    18. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    19. Indra de Soysa, 2022. "Economic freedom vs. egalitarianism: An empirical test of weak & strong sustainability, 1970–2017," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 236-268, May.
    20. Martinico-Perez, Marianne Faith G. & Schandl, Heinz & Fishman, Tomer & Tanikawa, Hiroki, 2018. "The Socio-Economic Metabolism of an Emerging Economy: Monitoring Progress of Decoupling of Economic Growth and Environmental Pressures in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 155-166.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2620-:d:337152. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.