| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中山大學 === 社會學系碩士班 === 104 === Participatory Budget as an innovative political system originated in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1980s. Citizens have started involving in the annual municipal budget allocation process. They directly participate in a specific topic facilities, effective care, and public funding of innovative and configuration. Through this “bottom- up” decision-making system, united people and empowered them to persuade common goods of the public interest. In the meantime, the bureaucracy is expected to effectively enhance resistance, transparency and effectiveness of governance. It’s believed helpful to reshape the relationship between state and society.
China started around the millennium has introduced participatory budgeting, as the reform of the financial empowerment and transparent decision-making model innovation. Some of province governments processed different sizes experiments. However, participatory budgeting is not open directly to all the public, but by way of innovative association people''s Congress and the transparent nature of the decision-making performance. In 2011, Shunde, Guangdong Province, China comply with giant department reform and also the implementation of the participatory budget as a new budget decision-making model. The author processes 20 people form the important influential actors of (public bureaucracies, professional elite, the civil community) in- deep interviews. This thesis analyzes form 2013 to 2014, Shunde participatory budgeting procedures and the overall implementation of the decision-making process. The main exploration Shunde mode participatory budget, including understanding features, institutional background, key actors in the decision-making process, participation, power dynamics and the state-society relationship.
The thesis concludes results as follows: First, the tax department used the participatory budget expenditure to enhance fiscal transparency and integrate department disciplinary. Second, some of the expenditure sectors cooperated with media that may unexpectedly empowered public associations. Third, Shunde government powerfully carried out Participatory Budget from top to bottom. Forth, fragile public association failed to bargain and communicate with other sectors though the decision making process, the results of reform cannot be shared. Fifth, participatory budget as a policy instrument, failed to effectively enhance Shunde People’s Congress to supervise and deliberate budget.
|
|---|
