Participatory Budgeting in Italy: An Analysis of (Almost Democratic) Participatory Governance Arrangements MATTEO BASSOLI Abstract This article addresses definitory problems concerning participatory budgeting (PB), the purpose being to underline the governance nature of this instrument. More specifically, considering PB as a particular type of participatory governance arrangement, it focuses on the democratic outcomes of concrete experiences. Adopting the Dahlian process-oriented concept of democracy, three Italian cases are depicted and analysed, according to four critical variables: inclusion, participation, the role of the opposition, and transparency. This enables full description of how PB affects local democracy, both positively and negatively. The article concludes by highlighting two variables that give account of the democratic implications of these practices: the role of the political leadership, and the inclusive strategy adopted. Further, it underlines three additional factors that embody what is commonly referred to as political investment in public–private partnerships: an active role for the opposition, outward communication, and effective participation. While assessing the democratic outcomes, the study highlights how the presence and maintenance of these practices are linked to the role played by civil society and the presence of administrative ties. Introduction In recent years, the study of participatory budgeting (PB) has grown considerably in the academic world. Scholars have been fascinated by the experience of Porto Alegre in Brazil, and by similar practices that have quickly spread throughout the world. Today, PB seems to be very fashionable: scholars have counted over a thousand instances in South America alone (Goldfrank, 2007) and hundreds in Europe (Sintomer et al., 2005). Despite being quite different from one another, these schemes share some common features. Generally speaking, participatory budgeting ‘directly involves local people in making decisions on the priorities and spending for a . . . public budget. This means engaging residents and community groups representative of all parts of the community to discuss and vote on spending priorities, make spending proposals, and vote on them, as well as giving local people a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the process’ (PB-Unit, 2008: 5). Practitioners and scholars have been studying these experiences for the past 15 years using the single-case approach. More recent years have seen a new wave of comparative I wish to thank all of the participants at the CINEFOGO Workshop, ‘Citizen Participation and Democratic Engagement’, held in Bristol (27–28 October 2008), along with the three IJURR reviewers, for valuable comments on a previous version of this article. I should also like to thank all the people I have met in the course of this ongoing endeavour to discover more democratic governance forms, especially Paolo Graziano, Jürgen Grote and Laura Cataldi. Special thanks go to Stefania Ravazzi, who kindly shared her transcribed interviews and gave me very helpful insights on the subject. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2011.01023.x © 2011 The Author. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research © 2011 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA