Presupuesto participativo rural: virtual vs presencial

Yezelia Caceres Cabana

doi:10.31637/epsir-2025-1421

Authors

Yezelia Caceres Cabana National University of Saint Augustine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5027-8081

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2025-1421

Keywords:

participatory budgeting, Tuti, Coporaque, participation, democracy, virtual, presential, budget

Abstract

Introduction: The article analyzes two participatory budgeting processes, one virtual and one in-person, in two similar rural Peruvian areas. It reflects on the characteristics that have prevailed after 20 years of mandatory participatory budgeting law under crisis conditions and the impact of virtual versus in-person workshops. Methodology: 25 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants and authorities, processed using Nvivo software. Results: They indicate that, regardless of the format, participation is limited by a lack of credibility, trust, and legitimacy, as the agreements are not legally binding. Discussion: It suggests that in-person workshops are preferable even in contexts of territorial remoteness due to internet access and usage limitations. Conclusions: They highlight that the lack of credibility in fulfilling agreements and the legitimacy of authorities affects both in-person and virtual processes. Furthermore, implementing a generalized model without considering territorial disparities and virtuality has hindered adaptation in rural areas, concentrating decisions and limiting effective participation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Yezelia Caceres Cabana, National University of Saint Augustine

Professor of the Faculty of Economics of the Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Doctor in Administration (DBA), Master in Agribusiness, Economist by profession with 20 years of work in sustainable development for Peruvian high Andean areas, she is currently principal investigator of the project: Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Capital in the Arequipa region. Through her research she contributes to the knowledge of the social economic sector of the Peruvian high Andean zones.

References

Aruleba, K. y Jere, N. (2022). Exploring digital transformation challenges in rural areas of South Africa through a systematic review of empirical studies. Scientific African, 26, e01190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01190

Buele, I., Vidueira, P., Yagüe, J. L., y Cuesta, F. (2020). The participatory budgeting and its contribution to local management and governance: Review of experience of rural communities from the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Sustainability, 12(4659), 4659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114659 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114659

Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780401600104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780401600104

Cáceres, Y., Malone, A., Zeballos, E., Huamani, N., Ttito, M., Gonzales, A., Andia, A., y Pinedo, D. (2021). Pandemic response in rural Peru: Multi-scale institutional analysis of the COVID-19 crisis. Applied Geography, 134, 102519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102519 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102519

Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F. y Nyssens, M. (2017). How to deal with an "essentially contested concept" on the field? Sampling social innovations through the Delphi method. European Public y Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 45-58. https://epsir.net/index.php/epsir/article/view/56 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir.17-1.4

Checkel, J. Y. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553-588. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3078657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180152507551

Cho, C., Jérôme, T. y Maurice, J. (2021). “Whatever it takes”: First budgetary responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting y Financial Management, 33(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-07-2020-0126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-07-2020-0126

Goel, A., Krishnaswamy, A. K., Sakshuwong, S. y Aitamurto, T. (2019). Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3340230

Goldfrank, B. (2006). Los procesos de “presupuesto participativo” en América Latina: éxito, fracaso y cambio. Revista de Ciencia Política, 26(2), 3-28. https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/revcipol/v26n2/art01.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-090X2006000200001

Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2017). Sistema de Consulta de Base de Datos REDATAM. Censos Nacionales 2017: XII de Población, VII de Vivienda y III de Comunidades Indígenas (Base de Datos). https://censos2017.inei.gob.pe/redatam/

Jaramillo, M. y Wright, G. D. (2015). Participatory democracy and effective policy: Is there a link? Evidence from rural Peru. World Development, 66, 280-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.011

Koechlin, J. (2017). Democracia y participación: análisis de los presupuestos participativos en el Perú. Los casos del distrito de San Miguel - Lima y la región Cusco: 2010-2015 [Tesis de grado, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos]. Cybertesis de la UNMSM. https://cybertesis.unmsm.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12672/6479

Leśniewska-Napierała, K. y Napierała, T. (2020). Participatory budgeting: Creator or creation of a better place? Evidence from rural Poland. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, 48, 65-81. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2020-0014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2020-0014

McNulty, S. L. (2015). Barriers to participation: Exploring gender in Peru’s participatory budget process. The Journal of Development Studies, 51(11), 1429-1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1010155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1010155

Mkude, C. G., Pérez-Espés, C. y Wimmer, M. A. (2014). Participatory budgeting: A framework to analyze the value-add of citizen participation. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2054-2062. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.260

Novy, A. y Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023-2036. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279828 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279828

Remy, M. I., Urrutia, J. y Veas, A. (2020). El presupuesto participativo en el Perú: Un estudio de casos. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. https://bit.ly/3Q8A5hC

Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C. y Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x

Sistema georeferenciado de mapas del Perú. (s.f.). Visor nacional IDEP. https://www.geoidep.gob.pe/servicios-idep/visor-nacional-idep

Touchton, M., Wampler, B. y Spada, P. (2019). The digital revolution and governance in Brazil: Evidence from participatory budgeting. Journal of Information Technology y Politics, 16(2), 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1613281 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1613281

Wampler, B., McNulty, S. L. y Touchton, M. (2018). Participatory budgeting: Spreading across the globe. University of Miami, Boise State University y Franklin y Marshall College. https://bit.ly/3Q5H5Xk