Deciding Porto Alegre's spending via participatory budgeting (1989–Present)

Porto Alegre pioneered participatory budgeting (PB) in 1989, an innovative approach to combat inequality and exclusion. This model empowered local communities to collectively identify priorities and allocate resources toward their most pressing needs. It led to tangible improvements such as improved roads, clean water, more schools, and greater trust in government. Low-income and left-behind neighborhoods were included in shaping the development of the city. PB not only improved daily life but also became a global model for citizen-led democratic practices.

In the late 1980s, after 20 years of military rule, Brazil was undergoing a process of democratization. A new constitution was adopted in 1988 which included the return of power to cities. Porto Alegre, a city located in southeastern Brazil, had rapidly expanded from almost 400,000 people in 1950 to around 1.3 million by the 1990s.¹ This rapid growth led to an expansion of villas across the city (the term for low-income and informal housing settlements). There were significant inequalities within the city with one in three residents living in villas, often without access to clean water, sewage systems, or trash collection.²

1989 saw a new city administration led by the Workers’ Party, who introduced participatory budgeting (PB).³ PB created a mechanism for members of the community to be directly involved in deciding how public money should be spent—providing space to discuss the different policy priorities, vote on how the money should be used and utilize local and community-based knowledge to address local problems, as well as increase capacity as people participate directly in policymaking and community leadership.⁴ By the early 2000s, approximately 15 percent of the city’s investment budget—around USD 160 million in 2002—was distributed through this participatory process.⁵ 

Each year, the process for PB starts in February with neighborhood-level assembly⁶ meetings in the 17 regions of Porto Alegre. These meetings are open to all citizens. The purpose of these assemblies is to agree on the local priorities to send to the larger regional meeting and to elect citizen delegates to the next stage of the process. The process then moves forward in two parallel processes: regional and thematic assemblies:

1. The regional assemblies, of which there are 17 in Porto Alegre, is where all the neighborhoods in a region come together, to address localized infrastructure needs such as water access, sewage systems, and pavement and road improvement.⁷ Delegates and residents vote to choose the top priorities for their region. Citizens at each regional assembly then elect councillors who will go on to higher-level PB bodies. The number of delegates selected depends on how many people vote—neighborhoods with more turnout get more representatives.
2. Simultaneously, six thematic assemblies are held. Thematic assemblies focus on big-picture city issues, such as urban development, transportation, health and social welfare, education, culture, and leisure, and economic development and taxation.⁸ Here, people from across the city discuss and vote on citywide projects.

After the assemblies, elected delegates from regional and thematic assemblies form the budget forums for each of the regions. Here the delegates deliberate on the proposals and priorities put forward by the thematic and regional assemblies. Forum meetings are open to all citizens to attend, but only the delegates have voting rights. Then representatives from the budget forum are selected to join the Council of Participatory Budget, which works with the mayor’s team to accommodate the priorities and policies into a final budget plan, which is then sent to the city assembly for final approval. The City Assembly is the city’s legislative body, which comprises 35 elected councilors elected through an open proportional representation for four years. 

Implementation

The 1988 Constitution gave people more rights and gave cities more control over the municipal budget. The Workers’ Party (PT), founded in 1980 with strong ties to labor unions and urban social movements, promoted forms of grassroots democracy. In the 1988 local elections, the PT won key cities like São Paulo and Porto Alegre, setting the stage for PB’s creation. In 1989, Porto Alegre’s new mayor from the Workers’ Party (PT), Olívio Dutra, introduced a PB process. This allowed regular residents to help decide how the city’s money was spent.

In Porto Alegre, participatory budgeting was managed and funded by the local government and overseen by the mayor’s office. The Planning Office (GAPLAN) oversaw the city’s budget, and the Community Relations Department (CRC) organized the PB meetings. At first, citizens met in 16 regional assemblies (later 17) to set local spending priorities. Later in 1994, thematic assemblies were added to address citywide issues. Participation grew each year by 2002 about 17,000 residents took part.

In 2004, the Workers’ Party lost the mayor’s office to José Fogaça of Brazilian Democratic Movement (BDM) party, who introduced an additional new approach called Solidarity Local Governance (GSL) alongside PB. Instead of replacing PB, GSL aimed to improve public services by building partnerships between the government, civil society, and local businesses.⁹ The idea was that the city could not meet community needs alone—it needed help from other key stakeholders. However, this approach reduced how much citizens could directly take part in decisions. By 2017 the new city leadership suspended the PB process.

Cost

In Porto Alegre, PB was funded directly through the city’s allocated resources. We are unable to identify the direct costs associated with running PB.

Assessment

The Participatory Budgeting (PB) model proved highly successful and became influential beyond Porto Alegre. Following its positive outcomes in increasing civic participation and improving public services, more than 100 Brazilian cities adopted PB between 1997 and 2000, and by 2004, over 200 municipalities across Brazil had implemented similar programs. Eventually, PB spread around the world, and today over 11,000 communities globally use PB to involve citizens directly in local decisions.¹⁰ 

Participation in the city’s budget led to major improvements in the daily life of the residents. In 1988, only 75 percent of homes had clean water and sewage systems, by 1997, this number had risen to 98 percent. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI) report, over 200 kilometers of roads were paved in low-income neighborhoods, public trash collection improved, and health and education spending reached 40 percent of the city’s total budget since the implementation of PB in Porto Alegre. The number of schools quadrupled, giving many more children access to nearby education.¹¹ 

At first, 1,000 people took part in the regional assemblies. But by 2004, around 40,000 people joined the meetings per year, many from low-income neighborhoods. According to Baiocchi, PB became a kind of “school for democracy” as it served to build local capacity to participate. PB was associated with a reduction in the perception of corruption as now all budget discussions and decisions occurred in open public assemblies, rather than behind closed doors. According to research hosted by the World Bank,¹² Brazilian cities that use PB experience fewer and less severe corruption cases than cities without PB. This evidence supports the assessment that Porto Alegre’s PB process has successfully reduced corruption by making budget decisions transparent and open to public oversight,¹³ and it reduced clientelist politics. For example, In 1993, when a politician tried to redirect road repair funds away from a PB-approved project in the Lomba do Pinheiro region, community delegates pushed back and stopped the change—because the budget had already been voted on publicly.¹⁴ 

While PB in Porto Alegre led to significant improvements, it also faced several challenges. First, representation was an issue; despite efforts to involve all citizens, low-income groups were often underrepresented due to transport costs and the cost of missing days of work associated with participation.¹⁵ For example, in 2002 the poorest quintile (bottom 20 percent of the population by income) made up about 30 percent of participants at the large neighborhood assemblies, but their presence dropped to roughly 15 percent in the citywide PB council.¹⁶ In addition, many low-income residents attended local meetings, yet far fewer of them were selected for the top decision-making body, indicating underrepresentation.¹⁷

Additionally, PB was limited to allocating a small portion of the municipal budget—often around 15 percent—restricting its influence over broader financial decisions and large-scale projects.¹⁸ For example, constructing major infrastructure like the Terceira Perimetral road required external funding beyond PB’s scope.¹⁹ 

Furthermore, the success of PB heavily depended on political will.²⁰ During the Workers’ Party administration from 1989 to 2004, PB flourished with numerous completed projects. However, subsequent administrations showed reduced commitment, leading to a decline in project completion rates. By 2017, the new city leadership stopped the PB process entirely, showing PB is vulnerable to changing political priorities.

Finally, the legacy of PB in Porto Alegre demonstrates the possibilities and difficulties of participatory governance. It showed how organized community participation may result in more fair urban development, but it also exposed how susceptible these kinds of projects are to financial and political unpredictability.

Town hall meeting scene with microphone in foreground, blurred audience, and panel of speakers in background, awaiting candidate answers to pressing community questions © Four 888/Adobe Stock.

Tags

• Brazil
• Income & Wealth
• Low-Income Groups
• Middle-Income Country
• Political & Civic Participation
• South America