Articulo_1_EN_Doxa_28

the mobilization includes only 3.3% of Madrid’s citizens among those who are allowed to participate according to the established rules. As we suggested in our first hypothesis, interest in participation is growing, but with very low numbers. If one uses only the level of participation as a measure, the situation cannot be seen as positive.

Analysis of the data we have collected also validates our second hypothesis, as we have seen that organized groups participate in municipal budgets in the form of proposals. About half of the projects that have received funding in the three years analysed had their origin in social collectives. In some cases, the district forums or their participation roundtables are the ones that debated the proposals and presented them to the city council; in others, organizations of a different nature were those that proposed improvements for the city or their district. This large group includes neighbourhood associations, sports entities, groups promoting bicycle transportation, political groups, parents of students, or schools. Organised collectives achieve better results with fewer proposals.

Throughout this work, we have detected various specific instruments of participation and deliberation on which participatory budgets are based. In the first place, we have found the possibility open to citizens to present proposals. The only condition for participation is age, and as such it would be a process which, a priori, would enable equal opportunities for involvement. The possibility of submitting proposals by Internet and at Citizen Services Offices promotes this idea by eliminating the technological barrier that could result from opting for an exclusively telematic delivery. On the other hand, the process is very simple and does not require specific knowledge of any subject in order to propose a project; it is sufficient for the projects to conform to clearly defined rules.

We have also seen how the methodology included voting on proposals in different phases, either online, or in person at Citizen Services Offices. It is a simple, quantitative process for determining the opinions of citizens. It is an open procedure, although one of dubious representation, because despite the publicity given to the initiative, the decision to participate rests with the citizen, and as we have seen, not many people decide to become involved. This weakness in the system reinforces the votes of organised groups (see Hypothesis 2), and calls into question the very idea of individual participation. A comparison of individuals and collectives in presenting proposals shows a regular distribution (Table 5), but not the capacity of social mobilization (practical exercise of voting), which is stronger among the collectives than among individuals.

On the page dedicated to each of the projects, which includes a brief description of the project and its cost, registered users can make comments and respond to those left by other citizens, which is also a tool for asynchronous participation supported by new technologies that are commonly found on blogs and media pages. In this case, the participatory instrument is limited to those who have the tools and skills needed to access Internet. During the study, we did not find any basic information on how access occurs, and whether processes are facilitated through media literacy programmes as well as other actions that lead to a narrowing of the digital divide. Special mention should be made of the population between the ages of 50 and 69 (Table 4), who seem to be less interested in this option of digital participation.

However, the instrument of greatest interest from the point of view of the qualitative study of public opinion has been the implementation of face-to-face debates in the various districts, thanks to which we can speak of the existence of a collective deliberative process. The procedure is structured (the ‘what’ or ‘how’ is discussed), and institutionalized (through municipal processes). This is where organized groups can best transfer their proposals, as we pointed out in H2. This issue