This is a CTP of initiative: Participatory Budgeting Amsterdam (PB Amsterdam) (Netherlands)
On September 18, 2013 the neighbourhood budget instrument website was launched. The neighbourhood budget instrument is an online web application allowing citizens of the city of Amsterdam to track the spending of public money in their neighbourhoods. The neighbourhood budget instrument was initially designed for the Indische Buurt only. The Amsterdam municipality was interested to roll it out for the whole city within a few years. However, this policy objective was undefinitevely delayed because of logistical problems resulting from the centralization of the financial databases in 2014.
According to the trainer budget monitoring, the launch of this application was turning as it marks: “the moment in which financial data was made public, in a way that is understandable for the average citizen”. He considers this moment critical because it is the launch of a tangible product of a co-creation process involving local government, community and civil society organisations. These have been working together towards publishing the financial data. It was a co-creation process rather than a collaboration because the latter “can mean that you start working on an idea which has been decided elsewhere, whereas in this case, there have been meetings in 2011/12 where an idea emerged, a concept and approach for the idea to publish financial data”.
At the same time, this CTP was also a starting point: “And it is also a starting point, a starting point for the possibility for the neighbourhood to understand how the local budget is composed based on substantiated data; And to build an opinion on the basis of which to plan and to take action, in interaction with the district board. On the intersection of finance, neighbourhood and district board this has never happened before. And this is made possible, suddenly, by turning a switch”.
According to the trainer budget monitoring, the neighbourhood budget instrument had been produced in a co-creation process between the community, civil society, civil servants and the districts’ board (see CONTENTS). As such, there were a number of important actors.
Initially, a core team of six people were involved in the creation of the neighbourhood budget instrument: three representatives from the communities and/or civil society in the Indische Buurt and three from the municipality. In order to decide for which policy areas it was relevant to provide data, they collaborated in three working groups focusing on different policy areas.
Already before the Centre for Budget monitoring and Citizen participation (CBB) was founded in December 2011, the former District Alderman of Finance, Jeroen Spijk, and CBB’s former director Marjan Delzenne had agreed to make financial data publicly accessible. The trainer budget monitoring emphasized the important role of Marjan Delzenne, who is knowledgeable about municipal finances due to former professional experiences. “Based on her experience and the inhabitants’, we really could influence which policy area, which department and topic would be opened up”. She initiated this process with a local citizen and business partner, Firoez Ramin Azarhoosh, experienced in social business and who used to live in the Indische Buurt for 20 years. Delzenne and Azarhoosh “constitute the link with social entrepreneurs and civil society”.
From the district municipality Amsterdam-East, next to District Alderman Jeroen van Spijk, two civil servants were involved in the creation of the neighbourhood budget instrument: Ilan Stoelinga from the finance department and Sander Meijer from the participation department. For the development of the website a company was hired: Conquaestor. When the website was built it was handed over to Stoelinga, who played a further role in maintaining and developing the website interface.
However, according to the trainer budget monitoring “the link to the system world […], this is us, highly educated capable inhabitants”. As a leader of one of the Indische Buurt communities, the trainer budget monitoring “played a central role in involving everybody in the co-creation”.
The trainer budget monitoring emphasizes the importance of the strong presence of “social capital” and ”civil society” in the neighbourhood: “See, this would not have happened if Firoez and I and many others would not have been busy in the neighbourhood for the last 20 years”. What binds the group together are socio-cultural motives and moral incentives: “Because what we did and what we do is not motivated by commercial interests, but as active citizens and social entrepreneurs also motivated by an intrinsic motivation to be with one another in good company and as human beings to share with one another”. Also, “you become friends with one another and this is really important for the phenomenon of a community. […] You also come together because you love each other”.
Several events were important for this CTP to happen.
Firstly, on the micro-level, the meeting between the social entrepreneur Marjan Delzenne and the local Alderman Jeroen van Spijk where they decided to make this a project: “This decision moment was also a turning point for the realisation of this product”.
Secondly, a process leading to the breaking down of classical welfare structures on neighbourhood level. This process started with the bankruptcy and cease of activities in the Indische Buurt of welfare organization Alcides in 2003. When its successor also went bankrupt, almost all welfare activities ceased. According to the trainer budget monitoring, this meant “the shrinking of the social infrastructure of welfare and social workers, closure of facilities, youth centres, community centres as well as the big question how this could have happened considering the huge amounts put into welfare organisations”. At that time, some of those who got later involved in developing the parallel budget monitoring activities felt that they had to offer the neighbourhood an alternative. As put by the trainer budget monitoring: “And what do we do if the municipality is not responsive anymore, then we develop as of that moment the concept of communities with support by the district which would like to realize more with less budget, and if citizens would like to think along to develop concepts.” They also realised that “enormous amounts of money are in the social infrastructure, and then you ask questions about the budget, public money and just a bit later a concept from Brazil, budget monitoring, arrives via E-motive – then you have a match.”
Another reason for initiating the neighbourhood budget instrument is the trend towards more government transparency. In Amsterdam East, this trend was enforced by the approval of the resolution ‘Participation 2.0’ in February 2012. With the belief that digital tools can be valuable in stimulating and enabling participation this resolution commanded the city district to start a pilot making open data online available within the coming six months. Digital platforms, such as the neighbourhood budget instrument, enable exchange of information between citizens, civil servants and politicians. For realizing budget monitoring in the Indische Buurt, transparency of financial data by the municipality was a requirement. This is one of the reasons why the development of the neighbourhood budget instrument website within the district administration helped the development of budget monitoring adding up to an overall participatory budgeting approach in the neighbourhood.
A final related event is the introduction of a ‘participation broker’ in the period of 2002-2006. This new function to stimulate and support participation of citizens. For the group working on budget monitoring, the broker built links with policy departments, specifically the financial department. The broker does work closely with the area team.
This CTP involves contestation in different ways. The neighbourhood budget instrument was contested both from the political and administrative side. Also within the neighbourhood, it was not received with the same amount of enthusiasm by everyone.
The city district’s Alderman of Finance and the district board were highly involved with the setting up of the neighbourhood budget instrument, while the local board was not. According to the trainer budget monitoring, this was due to the rivalry between participatory and representative democracy: “this has to do with a market of competition between what we were doing, participatory budgeting and democracy, and excuse me, the ideas came from the neighbourhood”. Similarly, there was no interest from local political parties in (participating in) setting up the neighbourhood budget instrument. Even the members of the district board East who adopted the motion Participation 2.0 (see RELATED EVENTS) in January 2012 were not interested, although it was on their motion demanding the district’s board to provide financial data online.
A concrete contestation manifested when a liberal local board member approached a free daily newspaper just before the CBB went on exchange to Brazil to learn more about budget monitoring. Featured on the front page, he claimed that citizens were making an excursion to Brazil on public expenses. According to the trainer budget monitoring, this did not represent the truth. Approached by those citizens, the board member’s response was that he was in his right as board member to tell this to the press and to not wanting to debate the issue in person. The trainer budget monitoring adds: “I let this rest, but in my opinion, this is the most extreme form of excluding a collaboration between representative and participatory democracy because it is an attack and at the same time the most quite passive form of just not doing anything, no interest, not even making contact.”
The trainer budget monitoring also mentions a tension between the ‘system world’ and ‘life world’ as well as the recent centralisation from district to city government. This tension was overcome by organizing a training for a group of civil servants and citizens together. As put by the trainer budget monitoring: “There are of course tensions, but because you co-create together, you can discuss this within a specific period. And this makes that you have power together. Of course, with the centralisation of 2014 of the Amsterdam Municipal political opportunity structure (elected districts became powerless) this power disappears”.
While some civil servants of the district municipality were enthusiastic about supporting the budget monitoring initiative by making financial data online accessible others were not. The idea was reluctantly picked up via the official ways (e.g. assigned by the manager of the responsible policy department). For this reason two civil servants, Ilan Stoelinga and Sander Meijer, decided to try it out by themselves. An approach referred to as “anarchistic” by the trainer budget monitoring. According to the latter: “Innovative disrupters are very much inside the system. At that time, civil servants had some room within the system to work a bit anarchistic, to give an assignments for the development and to make an agreement, even though there was no clear-cut green light from there policy department to open the data the way they did”.
On a Dutch popular website about contemporary social issues for scientists and social professionals, Stephan Steinmetz, old local social-democrate politician, a renowned publicist on local social issues and a social entrepreneur living in the heart of the Indische Buurt, criticized the naïve praise of active citizenship arguing that it is something of all times and not something new. He sees no reason to show off like is done now in public debates and conferences. Instead, he prefers a more evaluative approach to participation, describing the real costs of supporting citizens initiatives compared to formalized institutions. Also, active members of the tenants committees would like to see inhabitants activities “as officially recognized by the district municipality, with a formal statute, fixed budget and possibly an employee one can manage”. According to the trainer budget monitoring, they consider; “the whole hustle with communities and coming up with nice things a ‘petit bourgeois’; entrepreneurs who try to earn a living with public money. So that is absolutely a contestation within the neighborhood”.
The introduction of a form of participatory budgeting has not been a completely unexpected development considering that a number of people has worked towards it. The civil servants working on the instrument were being backed by Jeroen van Spijk, the local Alderman of Finance but had to go through the administrative hurdles impinged upon them by their department heads and were thus running a risk.
In addition, the Indische Buurt knows a long tradition of strong social cohesion (e.g. active community work) and strong civil society. As put by the trainer budget monitoring: “See, this would not have happened if Firoez and I and many others would not have been busy in the neighbourhood for the last 20 years”.
From his long involvement in the neighbourhood, from different perspectives – as a citizen, former district board member and community spokesperson – the trainer budget monitoring has learned a lot about area based working and community processes and is thus very reflective on the process of putting the open financial data online. He learned about the value of co-creation and ingredients for success.
For the development of budget monitoring and the neighbourhood budget instrument, co-creation has proven to be valuable. As put by the trainer budget monitoring: “Co-creation is worth it, co-creation between district board, neighbourhood and civil society is worth it. It makes the difference in the area that you are active in”. In addition, a lesson learned and a fact often underestimated is the importance of a methodology to facilitate co-creation: “things can change for the better if people are using a methodology in collective action, whether it is in the interest of participation in this case budget monitoring or supporting social processes”.
Other lessons he shares are: “It works if you have a delimited area with a clear own profile. Well, we had the Indische Buurt. It works if the neighbourhood has an identity. It works if the district board, i.e. local government, has a plan. It works if you have leaders among inhabitants and the district board, let’s say change agents in the 'life world' and in the 'system world'. A man/woman, a plan and a neighbourhood, that is the idea”. In hindsight, the trainer budget monitoring would have chosen a better methodology for building the website disclosing the open financial data together.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
