Advancing the democratic participatory experiences of young people: the participatory budgets

Abstract

This study examines the implementation of participatory budgets for children and adolescents (Childhood) in municipalities within the Valencian Community, Spain. These initiatives engage young people in public resource allocation decisions, promoting civic education, and democratic socialization. This study employs qualitative methods, including surveys and content analysis, to explore these participatory dynamics. This surveys include open questions. This research reveals a prevailing adult-centric bias and a tendency to prioritize the technical aspects of democratic education. These preliminary findings highlight significant obstacles, such as adult centrism and tokenism, which undermine the genuine influence of youth on decision-making processes. The study concludes that a more inclusive and educational approach is necessary to fully realize the potential of these participatory experiences.

Keywords
political participation; childhood; citizen education; local administration; socialization

Resumen

Este estudio examina la implementación de presupuestos participativos para niños y adolescentes en municipios de la Comunidad Valenciana, España. Estas iniciativas tratan de sumar a los jóvenes en decisiones sobre la asignación de recursos públicos, promoviendo la educación cívica y la socialización democrática. El artículo utiliza una metodología cualitativa basada encuestas y el análisis de contenido para explorar estas dinámicas participativas. El método de recogida de datos ha utilizado preguntas abiertas y cerradas. Estos hallazgos preliminares destacan obstáculos significativos, como el adultocentrismo y el tokenismo, que socavan la influencia de los jóvenes en los procesos de toma de decisiones. El estudio concluye la necesidad de un enfoque inclusivo y educativo para aprovechar al máximo el potencial de estas experiencias participativas

Palabras clave
participación política; infancia; educación ciudadana; administración local; socialización

Introduction

This paper presents the preliminary results of a study of participatory budgets for children and adolescents¹ in Spanish municipalities in the Valencian Community. This is a democratic participatory experience aimed at children, which is important in the global context of a declining democracy (Meny, 2020).

The year 1989 marked a milestone for child and youth participation, after it was recognized as a right in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (hereafter, CRC). Although it has legal backing and social support, it faces numerous obstacles that hinder its implementation. The CRC urges countries to design national strategies for children and adolescents, recommending incentives for participation. The European Commission (2021) also incorporated a reference to children's participation in the political and democratic life of the EU in its Strategy on the Rights of the Child. In this context, participation is defined as a democratic task that takes place on an individual and collective level, both in private and public spaces, where playful and educational relational dynamics are articulated and the visibility of children's actions is essential. Thus, this participatory relational locus includes not only the home or school but also the local and proximity environment.

Research on the role of children in the political-administrative sphere is not new in social sciences, such as sociology and political science. Indeed, studies on political socialization and adult participation (e.g., Hyman, 1959), competence development (e.g., Campbell et al., 1960; Hess & Torney, 1968; Easton & Dennis, 1969), and the inclusion of the individual in the group (Percheron, 1985) are well documented. The literature offers diverse experiences to support the notion that children are political subjects with agency (Lundy, 2007; Hart, 1997; Lansdown, 2005).

Most studies reveal the importance of participation from an early age because it improves competencies in the public sphere and, consequently, improves access to information, the defense of their rights, and the results of public policies, among others (Hart, 1992, 1997).

In the context of global democratic erosion, where declines in democratic performance indicators are identified in all regions of the world (IDEA Report 2023), a pattern of stagnation and democratic regression seems to be discernible. The IDEA Report 2023 highlights the role of countervailing institutions in halting the decline of democracies and advancement of authoritarianism. Countervailing institutions refer to institutions, organizations, platforms, investigative journalism, and social movements that balance the distribution of power, demand accountability mechanisms, scrutinize the activity of public authorities, and scrutinize government decision-making and public spending. One of the key trends in stem democratic erosion is public participation, which is seen as the best hope for the future of democracy (OECD, 2024; Rosanvallon, 2006).

For this reason, participatory experiences for children and young people are crucial, as education and learning for democracy takes place in a wide variety of contexts and traditionally socializes children to become responsible citizens. Civic learning is essential because, in our globalized world, we are constantly exposed to anti-democratic tendencies or various fundamentalisms that extend to children and adolescents. It is therefore essential to explore the limits of representative democracy to enrich it with practices of direct democracy, which undoubtedly favors the generation of opportunities for democratic learning in children and adolescents. This is a way to deepen the concept of learning for democracy and apply it to both formal education and non-formal contexts in order to favor experiential learning and social and participatory learning.

It should also be noted that children and adolescents are increasingly demanding greater political participation in defining measures for issues that are in their own interests. Their contribution can go beyond this, if we consider that new forms of participation have emerged that extend to other phases of the public policy cycle (Falanga, 2024; Falanga & Silva, 2024).

With these initial ideas in mind, the layout of this article is as follows: After this introduction, the methodology used is formulated, followed by the theoretical framework and data analysis. Finally, a discussion and conclusions are presented.

Youth participation and democratic education

Political disaffection has led to individuals not engaging in public affairs (Botella, 2020) and the emergence of political choices that challenge the foundations of liberal democracy (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2019; Inglehart & Norris, 2019).

The implementation of children's participatory experiences, especially in municipalities, represents not only an opportunity to broaden democracy, but also a way to innovate in the political arena. Studies such as those by Thomas (2009) affirm that children are notable in political theory mainly because of their absence, so that beyond being political objects, they are not relevant to the discourse. It is precisely this absence of public expression that becomes a form of disenfranchise. For this reason, in the last two decades, childhood as a social sector has begun to occupy a prominent place in public agendas and attract the interest of professionals and researchers around the world (Qvortrup, 2008; Alderson, 2008; Moran-Ellis & Sünker, 2018; Tisdall et al., 2014). While progress has been made in creating spaces for the participation of children and young people, they continue to occupy a contested position as citizens (Abellán-López et al., 2022).

Research has shown that civic knowledge and participation increases the likelihood that children and young people will vote as adults. High levels of abstention suggest the need to increase political engagement and participation because, as a social practice, it is learned and must be practiced throughout life. While participation is essential to democracy, when it comes to children's participation, there is a perceived polemic relationship between autonomy and dependency, highlighting power asymmetries between adults and children (Moran Ellis & Sünker, 2018; Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2010).

Active participation also contributes to a better understanding of the inner workings of institutions and the forms of power distribution. From a macro perspective, it would facilitate a better understanding of the institutional context, including dominant norms, beliefs, and practices, as well as the multilevel functioning of institutions. On the other hand, power can also be interpreted at the micro level, focusing on practices of cooperation, deliberation and/or conflict management ( Blanchet-Cohen & Torres 2015). In short, it would facilitate their participation in institutional change in contexts such as schools, local governments, and associations.

Among the most fruitful lines of research are studies on the conditions that can help to configure effective frameworks for child participation in the formulation of public policies, as well as the analysis and systematization of children's participatory experiences. One of the most widely recognized forms of participation is participatory budgeting projects with children (Tomás, 2008; Gadotti, 2005) centered on the child-budgeting approach. Participatory experiences give prominence to children, as demographic changes in the Western world are characterized by an aging population, which may pose a threat to the visibility of children.

Certainly, it is a suggestive challenge to be able to value the potential of child and adolescent participation in the formulation of public policies and its impact in mobilizing change and generating debates in the political arena. In this way, collaboration between children and adult experts can bring innovative ideas into effective practice. For this to happen, the exercise of citizenship must be experienced as something real beyond well-intentioned discourses, which is why it requires the provision of adequate spaces and resources to develop the participation project, and the school appears to be an ideal place (Schugurensky & Wolhuter, 2020).

However, the road to full child participation runs up against two major obstacles: adult-centrism and tokenism. Adultcentrism refers to the fact that adults do not take children's views seriously (Freeman, 2007) and are reluctant to share power with children, as they are often facilitator-guides in participatory processes. Some authors argue that adults must be able to identify when they need to take a back seat to allow children to take control (Mitra 2005; Bessell, 2009). Adults, whether parents, professionals, or public decision-makers, retain considerable control over what counts as children's participation, compounded by other variables such as cultural norms in different contexts and the underestimation of children's and adolescents' capacities, often masked under the guise of semantic commentary (Blanchet-Cohen et al., 2015; Shier, 2010).

Linked to adultcentrism and participatory autonomy is a second concept called tokenism. Its evolution can be traced to the literature on child participation (Hart, 1997; Shier, 2001; Lundy, 2007) over the last few decades. Both Arnstein (1969) and Hart (1992) identified tokenism as one of the rungs on the ladder of participation, representing an instrument for assessing different stages of participatory intensity from the most basic to the highest levels of child autonomy. Tokenism identifies symbolic participation without the correct deployment of children's political rights, thus generating empty situations in which real participation has no impact. This phenomenon usually occurs in initial or early participatory experiences and can be overcome as skills for correct implementation are acquired. The problem arises when it becomes chronic over time, accompanied by situations of adult-centrism that can lead to disengagement from the participatory experience (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

Participatory budgeting for young people

One of the most popular and innovative instruments of participatory governance of local democracy is participatory budgeting, and an indicator of its success is the high number of registered experiences (more than 11, 000) in 71 countries, according to the Participatory Budgeting World Atlas (2019). While this publication was produced on a voluntary basis by participating practitioners and is not exhaustive, it provides an overview of the impact of participatory budgeting worldwide.

Participatory budgeting is a form of decision-making that actively involves citizens prioritizing the spending of public resources. However, behind this general definition, a breadth of practices with varying levels of participatory intensity has been alluded to (Douglass & Friedmann, 1998; Abers, 2000; Souza, 2001; Avritzer & Navarro, 2003; Cabannes, 2004; Sintomer, 2005).

Given its heterogeneity and diversity in terms of purposes, methodologies, and logic, participatory budgeting presents enormous adaptive plasticity to different contexts and social situations, favoring its dissemination. It originated in Brazil with the 1989 election of the mayor of Porto Alegre, Olívio Dutra, leader of the Workers' Party, who introduced a series of reforms to define the budgetary management of municipal spending in a quest for social justice and regeneration of the political arena. The impact of his success had a spectacular international expansion and was recognized by the UN in 1994 as one of the best practices in urban management. For this reason, the Porto Alegre model is pioneer and best known (Genro & Souza, 1997; Allegretti, 2003; Baiocchi, 2005; Marquetti et al., 2008) and has always played an important role in spreading the idea that citizen participation is a sign of political innovation.

Thus, attempts to define the concept of participatory budgeting have been numerous and heterogeneous. According to Genro and Souza (1997), participatory budgeting is a process of direct, voluntary, and universal democracy, in which the population discusses and decides on budget and public policies. From a technical perspective, participatory budgeting is an innovative public budget management methodology that transforms democracy and the efficiency of public spending (Abers, 2000). Other definitions emphasize the creation of spaces for dialogue and informal education to promote democratic learning experiences (Lerner & Schugurensky, 2007).

Given the difficulties in achieving a unanimous definition, efforts have focused on the development of classificatory taxonomies that, based on numerous empirical cases, order and characterize different experiences. Thus, the abundant literature offers a typological diversity according to different variables: according to the methodology employed (Gret & Sintomer, 2003), the geographical territorial scope (Cabannes, 2004; Avritzer & Navarro, 2003; Sintomer & Allegretti, 2009), or their different purposes: strengthening democratic values (Fung, 2006; Sintomer et al., 2008), promoting governance and public policies (Fung & Wright, 2003), reinforcing government transparency and accountability (Ackerman, 2004), subverting economic and political clientelism and corruption (Baiocchi, 2001), and redistributing economic resources to support the neediest sectors of the population (Avritzer & Navarro, 2003).

Spain implemented participatory budgeting in the early 2000s, and among the first municipalities that led these experiences are Cabezas de Juan, Rubí, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Córdoba and Seville (Sintomer, 2005; Ganuza, 2007; Pineda & Pires, 2012; Ganuza & Francés, 2012). At present, taking the Participatory Budgeting World Atlas (2019) as a reference, there are around 400 experiences per year, and they continue to increase throughout Spain.

In general terms, it can be stated that the search for spaces, methodologies and opportunities for the participation of children and young people in advanced democratic societies represents a challenge.

For this reason, the versatility of participatory budgets has favored their adaptation to the characteristics of young citizens, thus giving visibility to children and adolescents.

Similar to the version for adults, participatory budgeting for children and adolescents refers to a methodology for prioritizing and defining public spending, which incorporates experiences of direct democratic participation of varying intensity and involves democratic educational elements. The format of the procedure may or may not include various phases such as idea generation, deliberation, and prioritization of proposals. It also varies depending on whether children and young people are included from the beginning of the procedure, which is a key observation, given that most of the time, children and young people are not considered in planning and design. The real impact of this democratic experience is young people’s involvement in the construction of a participatory process adapted to their context and characteristics (Tomás, 2008; Ruiz-Morales, 2009; Abellán-López et al., 2022; Pardo-Beneyto & Abellán-López, 2023). What is certain is that the participatory nature of these experiences in Spain has left the educational and political socialization aspects of the background (Abellán-López & Pardo- Beneyto, 2023).

The propositions that guide this research are as follows:

Proposition 1: Most participatory budgets primarily aim to improve public action through better diagnostics. Consequently, they can improve public action over and above other objectives such as education. This generates situations in which adultecentrism and tokenism are common, as there is no evident continuity between the design and implementation of measures for child participation.

Proposition 2: There is a tendency towards tokenism and adult-centrism because of the active participation of different groups of adults in participatory budgeting. The participation of adult and politically interested groups such as politicians and technicians may indicate a trend towards adult-led participatory budgeting.

Methodology

This work is framed within the interpretative paradigm, as the use of discourse is part of the qualitative methodology by defining situations that are meaningful to the actors, their intentions, and objectives. Content analysis facilitates the drawing of inferences from the responses obtained and understanding of the symbolic and semantic communications of informants in the survey (Krippendorf, 1990).

The fieldwork was carried out through a survey that was distributed in two waves using an electronic form requesting responses from June 1 to December 31, 2022. The recipients were municipalities of the Valencia Region, which had held children's participatory budgets. Specifically, the survey was designed with 20 open questions and a final section in which the participants could express their opinions.

The informants who participated in this data collection were as follows, according to municipality, as shown in Chart 1.

Chart 1
– Participating municipalities

Name	Province
Bellreguard Beniarjó Almoradí Alcoy Torrebaja Picassent Villena Aldaia Silla Morella Fanzara Alfara de la Baronia Palmera Algar del Palancia El Real de Gandia La Torre d’En Besora Castellnovo Peníscola Castelló de la Plana Dénia Elche Quart de Poblet Silla Gata de Gorgos La Pobla Llarga	Valencia Valencia Alicante Alicante Valencia Valencia Alicante Valencia Valencia Castellón Castellón Valencia Valencia Valencia Valencia Castellón Castellón Castellón Castellón Alicante Alicante Valencia Valencia Alicante Valencia

Of the 28 responses obtained, three were merged because they were answered by different actors in the municipalities surveyed. The remaining eight were discarded because they stated that they did not have children's participation budgets. Finally, 17 valid responses were obtained after checking the answers and comparing them with scientific literature used to generate the theoretical framework.

The data presented in the survey of Valencian municipalities shows that the size of the municipality does not constitute an obstacle to articulating these participatory initiatives.

The software used to process the data was CAQDAS, MAXQDA 2022, which made it possible to generate quantifiable evidence. Specifically, the following coding process was developed: First, a theoretical framework was constructed through documents consulted in databases such as the Web of Science, Scopus, and Dialnet. Second, a preliminary analysis of the responses was conducted to determine the elements that would allow the generation of a coding system. Next, a viable coding system was designed based on the article by Pardo-Beneyto and Abellán-López (2023) using a two-phase coding process to obtain all possible evidence. The research note is based on three key variables: development objectives, and actors involved.

Both the objectives and the definition of participants take into account the public policy approach developed by Subirats et al. (2008), given its explanatory capacity for the governance of the various actors who, with concurrent and opposing objectives, are immersed in negotiation dynamics and participate in some of the phases of the public policy cycle. On the other hand, the phases and type of development have been based on the literature on participatory budgeting, such as that developed in Spain by authors like Francés, Ganuza or Pineda, discussed in the introduction. Finally, the codes developed took into account the specificities of child participation set out in the theoretical framework.

As part of the ethical considerations, confidentiality and anonymity were preserved, although all participants authorized the use of the data for research purposes with informed consent.

Data analysis

Development of participatory budgeting and degree of institutionalisation

The development and degree of institutionalization were measured through the articulation of the legal instrument used and its degree of development, as shown in Figure 1. The most developed category includes the structures and processes within an overall or sectoral plan. Institutionalized experience has dedicated organizational structures and a regulated process, while regulated participatory experience has only a process. In addition, two transition categories were included: regulation in progress and the implementation of an experimental model. The latter is implemented so that institutions can learn from the process before institutionalization

Figure 1
– Development of participatory budgeting and degree of institutionalisation

An appreciative look reveals that half of the participants have included child participation in long-term planning (50%) or have institutionalized it in their respective municipalities (32%). From the evidence collected, one informant highlights a planning articulated through ‘missions’ or, in other words, through a structured plan based on projects that help to solve a complex problem. Such a way of proceeding is typical of the European programme ‘Horizon Europe’ and makes an effort to connect research and a transdisciplinary approach to the resolution of complex problems through public policies (Cerezo, 2021). Its inclusion is relevant insofar as child participation is one more piece in tackling major problems. This is the case for EG5, which includes this situation in its responses:

[EG5] An strategic plan based on missions.

Furthermore, most of them tend to include participatory experiences within a steering document for children and adolescents or a similar instrument. Some of the study municipalities shaped this political-administrative agenda through already consolidated programs such as UNICEF's Child Friendly Cities and Ciudad de los Niños. EP 11 responded:

[EP11] Children's city project, sectoral council for child meetings.

Another way in which the decision-making process was articulated was through sectoral councils. As discussed in previous evidence.

In addition, some participants reported that participatory experiences for children were regulated or were in the process of being regulated.

Most participatory budgets are embedded within a contextualizing strategy that provides them with depth. For the improvement of the inputs produced or for the improvement of education or empowerment of children and adolescents, these budgets are focused on being transformative. By not being an isolated action and being articulated in a political- -administrative programme, a deepening of the proposed objectives is achieved, which helps to overcome adult-centrism (Pardo-Beneyto & Abellán-López, 2023).

Objectives of participatory budgeting

The objectives of participatory budgets represent the goals to be achieved, and allow us to understand their procedural and empirical logic. Figure 2 systematizes the objectives of the sample’s participatory budgets.

Figure 2
– Types of objectives of participatory budgets

We have detected that the objectives of participatory budgets consider elements related to the efficiency of public policies, such as improving the diagnosis of the public problem and improving the allocation of resources. Others have sought to improve citizen competencies through the generation of spaces for participation, education in public governance, the generation of community ties or the improvement of the empowerment of children and adolescents.

Most informants specify that the main reason for holding participatory budgets is to improve the diagnosis held in the group studied. In this way, a better diagnosis of needs is achieved to improve the quality of public services.

Some of these testimonies are expressed in the following terms:

[EP8] Knowing the concerns and needs of adolescents. We will obtain a list of proposals for improving the population that the local government is going to commit to carrying out as far as possible.

[EP14] Addressing the main demands of young people and adolescents.

The improvement of public output has an impact on a better allocation of resources, which translates into greater institutional efficiency and greater awareness of costs.

[EG8] Knowing citizens’ concerns and improving activities and infrastructures.

Returning to Figure 2, it can be seen that 21% of the municipalities adopt a finalist approach in participatory budgets and conceive them as a participatory public policy with participation being the main objective. At this point, it is essential to note that the elements of political socialization take a backseat, since what is important is participation per se.

[EP11] Integrating children and young people in the city project

[EG5] Promoting child and adolescent participation.

Some testimonies highlight the role of education in public governance, as well as the leading role of children, although the objectives related to improving diagnoses are emphasized.

[EP12] Understanding the needs of children and helping build more democratic people.

[EG7] Promoting the culture of citizen participation to develop critical thinking and learning based on active listening […] learning to incorporate other opinions different from our own.

In the preceding lines, variables related to the development of participatory budgets have been presented, such as the degree of institutionalization (Figure 1) and objectives (Figure 2).

In line with the previous assessment, it can be seen that most of the discourses have an efficiency-oriented vision of participatory budgets. In this sense, they believe that the actions carried out serve to conceptualize the problem and understand the needs of the beneficiaries of public policies. This has an impact on improving the efficiency of public policies insofar as it improves their design. Although it is a totally legitimate strategy, the lack of in-depth analysis of most of the experiences identified in later phases of public policies shows a tendency towards adult- -centrism. This is so insofar as they only seek to characterize the problem and do not allow children and adolescents to be the protagonists of the solutions. Participation is understood to be technical in terms of improving public output. Approaches that seek to educate and empower children are minority or complementary (Freeman, 2007; Mitra, 2005).

Actors

The actors that have been identified have a public or private nature and can be viewed collectively or individually. In this sense, the presence of municipal technicians, politicians, citizens (both minors and adults), educators, who are the dynamizers of the participatory process, and educational centers (schools) have been detected. To a lesser extent, there have also been external groups of experts, sectoral or youth associations, individual representators of children, consultants, and companies. Special mention should be made of dedicated bodies, such as the Children's Councils and other bodies of a similar but differentiated nature like Educational Council.

The study of the actors involved is important because it indicates the importance of participation of other groups with an active role in the generation of decision-making. In the first place, it can be observed that both technicians and politicians participate in a prominent way. Technicians are in charge of articulating the processes of citizen participation and organizing the decision-making processes of children’s participation councils. They come from different areas, such as open government or childhood. They are also responsible for defining whether the proposals are viable.

[EG7] Municipal technical staff play an important role near the end of the participation process, as they provide technical advice and draw up feasibility reports on the proposals before the final vote.

As for politicians, mayors or councillors from different areas such as education, childhood, and adolescence participate to varying degrees. Their role is variable and depends on the degree of empowerment of participatory experience.

[EP13] At the end of the process, proposals that emerged were presented to elected officials in the plenary session.

[EP1a] The Childhood and Adolescence Council, from which the proposals come to us, consists of the Mayor, the Councillor for Childhood and Adolescence, the Council for Education, the Head of the Primary School, the Head of the Municipal Nursery School, and representatives of children from 6 to 14 years of age. From this Council, proposals in the field of Childhood and Adolescence are extracted and agreed upon by all actors.

Children actively participate in childhood, adolescence, and youth development. It is curious how many of these municipalities include youth participation, which occurs between the ages of 16 and 35.

Local councils for children and adolescents are also important, and are a significant part of the Valencian panorama. These are collegiate bodies in which children (and other actors) can make decisions that affect them on a regular basis. The level of autonomy is variable; however, decisions, as seen above, are usually supervised by adults or groups of adults.

[EG6a] It is like a Children's Council, but every year all Primary 6 pupils take part. They are all part of the educational process, and they all go through plenary sessions to choose their proposals.

Educators usually play the role of dynamizers and facilitators in the participatory process and may even play an active role in decision-making.

[EP6] Dynamization of deliberative workshops.

The latter may be linked to schools or a part of the town council’s education department. Collaboration with schools is important, although not the majority. However, the relationship between the school and local institutions can be interwoven:

[EP13] We worked together with the Education Department and schools in the municipality.

[EG2a] Collaboration with educational centers.

The participation of actors such as non-institutionalized representatives, youth associations, sectoral associations, think tanks, consultants, and other bodies is rare. Except for the first two categories, the rest denote the active participation of adults in decision-making.

Non-institutionalized representatives: [EP12] There was a children's plenary chaired by the Mayoress [...], but the election of the proposals to the process was made by the plenary composed of pupils from the two local schools.

Youth associations: [EP12] Associations can submit proposals they consider appropriate.

Group of experts: [EG7] There is a team of experts who run the workshops, and it is the group of children who participate in the whole process.

Sectoral associations: [EG5] [...] Federation of neighborhood associations.

Consultants/companies: [EP13] The company driving the process produces a workbook.

Other bodies: [EP2] Participation Council and School Council.

The importance given by informants to actors such as technicians and politicians denotes a tendency towards adult-centrism and tokenism, which, in a certain sense, undermines a deeper role for children and adolescents in participation processes. All participation must be realistic, and this requires the action of technicians, but the frequency with which these actors appear in the informants' discourses suggests that they have a more prominent role than children and adolescents. The appearance of Local Councils for Childhood and Adolescence in the decision-making process is an important element, as it denotes an interest in continued participation over time. However, their appearance does not necessarily indicate effective participation (Abellán et al.,2022).

Conclusions

This work has provided the results of open-ended surveys distributed among city councils in the Valencian Community using a qualitative methodology that has allowed us to identify variables of interest for the study of participatory budgets for children and adolescents.

In this sense, it has been examined whether participatory budgets for children and adolescents incorporated a political and finalistic approach or, on the contrary, were focused on as part of a broader educational and democratic socialization process.

The majority of the informants, responsible for answering the survey for their respective local entities, reported a politically significant vision to improve public actions, although leaving more pedagogical and democratic training issues in the background. The inclusion of multiple adult actors in participatory budgets, as well as the design dedicated exclusively to being developed by adults and not by children, suggests the clear presence of an adult-centric bias (Proposition 1).

Participatory experiences offer learning opportunities not only for children and adolescents, but also for all parties involved in the process. If participatory budgeting experiences do not start from an educational project, technocratic tendencies end up silencing democratic socialization tendencies. What is observed in this study indicates that educational and democratic socialization elements are relegated to the background, since decision-making itself can be influenced by the participation of a politician or a technician in youth councils or in the definition of the problem. The inclusion of the majority in a larger scheme or the use of their own institutions is an indication of the need to further improve public instruments.

Adults can act as facilitators of these processes; however, given that they are convened by local entities with the mandatory intervention of their public employees, the result of the decision-making of children can be affected by various technical corrections. In other words, both the will and meaning of children and adolescents' opinions can be modified in the implementation phase (Proposition 2).

Thus, the extensive meddling of actors beyond children is an indicator of the tendency towards adult-centrism. Profiles such as technicians, politicians, or expert groups do not seek to energize and help children decide. Rather, they have a classic political-administrative approach, in that they seek to generate diagnoses to improve their policies. Only a small portion of the arguments emphasize democratic education and empowerment.

It might be thought that developing instruments included in a political-administrative programme could improve child and adolescent participation. Their effective development does not guarantee that children will be genuine protagonists in public decision making.

A limitation of this study is that the responses corresponded exclusively to town councils, so it would be advisable to interview educators, on the one hand, and children and adolescents, on the other, to obtain a more holistic view of the phenomenon under study. In future research, the sample will be expanded with the aim of generating more evidence and observations, which will allow a greater interpretive and discursive scope of the resulting data to identify adult-centric and tokenistic situations.

This study adds value to the knowledge of the political subsystem of the Valencian Community and the literature on child and adolescent participation. From a methodological perspective, this reinforces the use of CAQDAS programs to understand the objectives of the study. It also delves into the literature on political participation and its effects on socialization. Despite its interest, this work is still exploratory in nature and should bereinforced by increasing the number of observations and conducting in-depth interviews that would help the researcher delve deeper into child participation and its understanding.

Chart 2
– Codes used by code group

Code System
Development of Participatory Budgeting	Undetermined Planned Participatory Experience Institutionalized Participatory Experience Regulated Participatory Experience Participatory Experience in the Process of Regulation Experimental Experience	See Development of participatory budgeting and degree of institutionalization subsection
Objectives of Participatory Budgets	Undetermined Generate Community Bonds Open Participation Spaces for Citizens Improvement of Resource Allocation through Participation Education on Public Governance Child/Youth Empowerment Improvement of Problem Diagnosis	See Objectives of participatory budgeting subsection
Actors	Other Bodies Expert Group Educational Centers Children participatory council Consultants/Companies Uninstitutionalized Representatives Politicians Citizenship Participation of Various Age Groups •Children (0-12) •Adolescents (13-18) •Youth (16-30) Sectoral Associations Youth Associations Educators Technicians	See Actors subsection

Figure 3
– Actors

References

• ABELLÁN-LÓPEZ, M. Á.; PARDO-BENEYTO, G. (2023). Los niños ¿ciudadanos de hoy o del futuro? Análisis de la legislación española sobre la participación infantil. Sortuz. Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 204-225.
• ABELLÁN-LÓPEZ, M. Á.; PARDO-BENEYTO, G.; BELTRÁN, J. (2022). Cuaderno de capacidades para presupuestos participativos con niños, niñas y adolescentes. Madrid, Unicef. Available at: https://ciudadesamigas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0/UNICEF_Espana_presupuestos_participativos.pdf Acceso en: 15 agosto 2024.
  » https://ciudadesamigas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/0/UNICEF_Espana_presupuestos_participativos.pdf
• ABERS, R. (2000). Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• ACKERMAN, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond 'exit' and 'voice'. World Development, v. 32, n. 3, pp. 447-463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015
• ALDERSON, P. (2008). Young Children's Rights: Exploring Beliefs. Principles and Practice. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• ALLEGRETTI, G. (2003). L'insegnamento di Porto Alegre: Autoprogettualità come paradigmo urbano. Boston, MA, Alinea.
• ARNSTEIN, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, v. 35, n. 4, pp. 216-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
• AVRITZER, L.; NAVARRO, Z. (ed.). (2003). A inovação democrática no Brasil: o orçamento participativo São Paulo, Cortez.
• BAIOCCHI, G. (2001). Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment and deliberative democratic theory. Politics and Society, v. 29, n. 1, pp. 43-72.
• BAIOCCHI, G. (2005). Militants and citizens: the politics of participatory democracy in Porto Alegre Redwood City, CA, Stanford University Press.
• BESSELL, S. (2009). Children's participation in decision-making in the Philippines: understanding the attitudes of policy-makers and service providers. Childhood, v. 16, n. 3, pp. 299-316. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0907568209335305
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0907568209335305
• BLANCHET-COHEN, N.; TORRES, J. (2015). Accreditation of child-friendly municipalities in Quebec: Opportunities for child participation. Children, Youth and Environments, v. 25, n. 2, pp. 16-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.2.0016
  » https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.25.2.0016
• BOTELLA, J. (2020). "Desafección política". In: BENIGNO PENDÁS, G. (ed.). Enciclopedia de las Ciencias Morales y Políticas para el Siglo XXI Madrid, Boletín Oficial del Estado.
• CABANNES, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment y Urbanization, v. 16, n. 1, pp. 26-46.
• CAMPBELL, A.; CONVERSE, P. E.; MILLER, W. E.; STOKES, D. E. (1960). The american voter Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
• DOUGLASS, M.; FRIEDMANN, J. R. (1998). Cities for citizens: planning and the rise of civil society in a global age London, J. Wiley.
• EASTON, D.; DENNIS, J. (1969). Children in the political system: origins of political legitimacy New York, McGraw-Hill.
• EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2021). The European Union's Plan for Children's Rights Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ed8a5fc7-b85a-457b-ae71-fbe332af662d_es?filename=long_version.pdf Acceso en: 26 ago 2024.
  » https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ed8a5fc7-b85a-457b-ae71-fbe332af662d_es?filename=long_version.pdf
• FALANGA, R. (2024). Youth participation in environmental sustainability: Insights from the Lisbon participatory budget. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, v. 36, n. 1, pp. 20-39.
• FALANGA, R.; SILVA, D. (2024). "Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A pioneering experience with the national strategy to combat poverty in Portugal". In: ABELLÁN-LÓPEZ, M. Á.; PARDO-BENEYTO, G.; QUINTO-ABELLÁN, A. (ed.). G obernanza democrática y ciudadanía global. Retos y nuevas competencias en las sociedades contemporáneas. Madrid, La Catarata.
• FREEMAN, M. (2007). Why it remains important to take children's rights seriously. International Journal of Children's Rights, v. 15, n. 1, pp. 5-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/092755607X181711
  » https://doi.org/10.1163/092755607X181711
• FUNG, A. (2006). Empowered participation: reinventing urban democracy Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
• FUNG, A.; WRIGHT, E. O. (ed.). (2003). Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance Brooklyn, NY, Verso.
• GADOTTI, M. (2005). Orçamento participativo criança. Exercitando a cidadania a partir da infância. In: É Vietato Uccidere la Mente dei Bambini. III CONVEGNO INTERNAZIONALE Pádova, Centro Studi Giovanni Calendoli.
• GANUZA, E. (2007). Tipología y Modelos de los Presupuestos Participativos en España. Documentos de Trabajo 1307. Córdoba, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados.
• GANUZA, E.; FRANCÉS, F. J. (2012). The deliberative turn in participation: the problem of inclusion and deliberative opportunities in participatory budgeting. European Political Science Review, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 283-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000270
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000270
• GENRO, T.; SOUZA, U. (1997). Orçamento Participativo. A Experiencia de Porto Alegre. São Paulo, Fundaçao Perseu Abramo.
• GRET, M.; SINTOMER, Y. (2003). Porto Alegre: la esperanza de otra democracia. Madrid, Debate.
• HART, R. (1992). Children's Participation from Tokenism to Citizenship. Innocents Essays, 4 Florence, Unicef. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf Acceso en: 15 ago 2024.
  » https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf
• HART, R. (1997). Children's participation: the theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London, Routledge.
• HESS, R.; TORNEY, J. (1968). The development of political attitudes in children Garden City, NY, Doubleday and Company.
• HYMAN, H. (1959). Political socialization Glencoe, Free Press.
• INGLEHART, R.; PIPPA, N. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit and authoritarian populism Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• INTERNATIONAL IDEA (2023). The global state of democracy 2023: the new checks and balances. Stockholm, Report IDEA.
• KRIPPENDORF, K. (1990). Metodología de análisis de contenido Barcelona, Paidós.
• LANSDOWN, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Giuntina, Unicef Innocenti Research Centre
• LERNER, J.; SCHUGURENSKY, D. (2007). La dimensión educativa de la democracia local: El caso del presupuesto participativo. Temas y Debates, 18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35305/tyd.v0i13.140
  » https://doi.org/10.35305/tyd.v0i13.140
• LEVITSKY, S.; ZIBLATT, D. (2019). How democracies die New York, Penguin Books.
• LUNDY, L. (2007). 'Voice' is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, n. 33, pp. 927-942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033
• MARQUETTI, A.; DE CAMPOS, G. A.; PIRES, R. (2008). Democracia Participativa e Redistribuição: análise de experiências de Orçamento Participativo São Paulo, Xamá.
• MENY, Y. (2020). Democracias imperfeitas. Frustrações populares e vagas populistas Lisboa, ICS-Universidade de Lisboa.
• MEYER, J. W.; ROWAN, B. (1977). Instituzionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, v. 83, n. 2, pp. 340-363.
• MITRA, D. L. (2005). Adults advising youth: Leading while getting out of the way. Educational Administration Quarterly, v. 41, n. 3, pp. 520-553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269620
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269620
• MORAN-ELLIS, J.; SÜNKER, H. (2018). Childhood studies, children's politics, and participation: Perspectives for processes of democratisation. International Review of Sociology, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 277-297. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2018.1477106
  » http://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2018.1477106
• OECD (2024). Exploring new frontiers of citizen participation in the policy cycle: global forum on building trust and reinforcing trust / Discussion Paper. OECD Publishing.
• PARDO-BENEYTO, G.; ABELLÁN-LÓPEZ, M. Á. (2023). Participatory budgeting for young people as democratic socialisation: an approach to the case of Spain. Children and Society, v. 37, n. 5, pp. 1555-1575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12690
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12690
• PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING WORLD ATLAS. (2019). Portugal, Epopeia and Oficina.
• PERCHERON, A. (1985). "La socialización politique, défense et illustration". In: GRAWITZ, M.; LECA, J. (ed.), Traite de Science Politique, L'action Politique Paris, PUF.
• PERCY-SMITH, B.; THOMAS, N. (ed.). (2010). A handbook of children and young people's participation: perspectives from theory and practice London, Routledge.
• PINEDA, C.; PIRES, V. (2012). Características de las experiencias españolas de presupuesto participativo: Intento de encuadramiento en una tipología. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas, n. 7, pp. 51-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.v0i7.9880
  » https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.v0i7.9880
• QVORTRUP, J. (2008). "Childhood and politics". In: EDUCARE - 3 CLaD - CiCe: Childhood, Learning and Didactics (CLaD) and Children's Identity and Citizenship Education (CiCe), 7-19. Malmö, Malmö University.
• ROSANVALLON, P. (2006). Le Contre-démocratie. La politique à l'âge de la défiance Paris, Seuil.
• RUIZ-MORALES, J. (2009). Espacios de participación ciudadana: Los presupuestos participativos de Sevilla y derivas educativas. Investigación en la Escuela, n. 68, pp. 85-100.
• SCHUGURENSKY, D.; WOLHUTER, C. (2020). Global Citizenship Education and Teacher Education: Theoretical and Practical Issues. London, Routledge.
• SHIER, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Children y Society, n. 15, pp. 107-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617
• SHIER, H. (2010). Children as public actors: navigating the tensions. Children y Society, n. 24, pp. 24-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00208.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00208.x
• SINTOMER, Y. (2005). Los presupuestos participativos en Europa: retos y desafíos. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, n. 31, pp. 1-17.
• SINTOMER, Y.; ALLEGRETTI, G. (2009). I Bilanci partecipativi in Europa: nuove esperienze democratiche nel Vecchio Continente Roma, Ediesse.
• SOUZA, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: Limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 159-184.
• SUBIRATS, J.; KNOEPFEL, P.; LARRUE, C.; FREDERIC, V. (2008). Análisis y gestión de políticas públicas Barcelona, Ariel.
• THOMAS, N. (ed.). (2009). Children, politics and communication: participation at the margins Bristol, Policy Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgw89
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgw89
• TISDALL, E. K.; GADDA, A.; BUTLER, U. (ed.). (2014). Children and young people's participation and its transformative potential: learning from across countries Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
• TOMÁS, C. (2008). Contra os silencios, a invisibilidade e a afonia: A participação das crianças nos orçamentos participativos. In: Mundos Sociais: Saberes e Práticas, VI CONGRESSO PORTUGUÉS DE SOCIOLOGIA Lisboa, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 Mar 2025
• Date of issue
  May-Aug 2025

History

• Received
  27 Aug 2024
• Accepted
  07 Jan 2025