C i ical ends o
ci izen pa icipa ion
in policymaking.
Insigh s om
Po ugal
Robe o Falanga
12.
296 ci izenship in c isis
in oduc ion
Wo ldwide, ci izen y mis us in go e nmen s, go e no s, and in e na ional
inancial ma ke s is posing g ea challenges o democ acy. Disa ec ion g ows
agains he sp ead o e hnic, poli ical, and eligious in ole ance, pai ed by he
ise o populis ins ances ha h ea en human and ci il igh s wo ldwide.
Wi hin his u bulen scena io a emp s o eco e he ela ionship be ween
ci izen y and poli ical ins i u ions ha e been u ged by a wide ange o agen s
ha ing di e en inancial and poli ical in luences o e he s a e.
Mechanisms o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking ha e eme ged
as one o he ins umen s aimed a s eng hening democ acies. In he las
h ee decades pa icipa o y p ocesses ha e sp ead a ound he wo ld, mainly
in he o m o pa icipa o y budge s. In his span o ime, discou ses and
p ac ices o ci izen pa icipa ion ha e changed while models o go e nance
ha e been demanded o e ec i ely adap o he global scena io. Su p isingly,
changes in ci izens’ pa icipa ion and hei ela ions wi h he global poli ical
and inancial amewo k ha e been weakly add essed by schola s. The
in ica e ela ionship be ween global agencies in luencing na ional and
local go e nmen s in he enac men o ci izen pa icipa ion is he objec o
analysis in his chap e .
To explo e his issue, ligh will be shed on he con e gence o in e na ional
and ansna ional agencies on he p omo ion o a global ci izen pa icipa ion
agenda ha ma ches and ep oduces some o he neolibe al alues. The
dissemina ion o pa icipa o y p ocesses is app oached om a c i ical
pe spec i e by poin ing ou h ee main ends eme ging om his global
con e gence: he de achmen o local pa icipa o y p ac ices om global issues;
he shi owa d echnoc a ic app oaches in de imen o poli ical-o ien ed
p ac ices; and he sca ci y o e alua ion in con as o he mush ooming o
pilo s. In he second pa o he chap e he expansion o ci izen pa icipa ion
in Po ugal will be analysed in ligh o his amewo k. Conside ing he high
numbe o pa icipa o y p ocesses cu en ly implemen ed in he coun y
and celeb a ed in e na ionally, he discussion will con as na ional e idence
wi h he h ee global c i ical ends in ci izen pa icipa ion.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 297
ci izen pa icipa ion: a c i ical app oach
Spaces o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking aim o c ea e ins i u ional
channels o ci il socie y o enhance he e ec i eness o democ a ic
go e nance (Co nwall 2004). While e idence shows ha ins i u ional designs
(Smi h 2009) and policy a eas co e ed by pa icipa o y p ocesses can a y
conside ably (Ba nes e al. 2007; Ga en a and Ba e 2010), he imp o emen o
public policies and se ices is o en pu sued as a no ma i e goal o democ a ic
alues’ enhancemen . As such, pa icipa ion is p omo ed as bo h ins umen
o sol e p oblems in need o wide consensus, and empowe ing p ac ice o
ci il socie y (Fio ino 1990). This ambi ion cha ac e izes cu en discou ses
on pa icipa ion, and ecalls ea ly p ac ices in he Uni ed S a es be ween he
1960s and 1970s (Pa eman 1970; A ns ein 1971; Rosenbaum 1976), as well as
goals o policy e ec i eness and social empowe men p omo ed in he 1980s,
wi hin in e na ional p ojec s o po e y educ ion, mos ly unded by he
Wo ld Bank (wb) in de eloping coun ies (Whi e 1996; Mohan and S okke
2000; B own 2004).
The ini ia ion o pa icipa o y budge ing in La in Ame ica a he end
o he 1980s should be conside ed as a hi d his o ical phase o ci izen
pa icipa ion and a miles one o ongoing dissemina ion. In emphasizing goals
o economic edis ibu ion and adminis a i e e o ms, pa icipa o y budge
in Po o Aleg e shined a ligh on he need o social jus ice and s a e e o m in
B azilian ci ies (A i ze 2006). The success o he Po o Aleg e model elied
on a complex ins i u ional design o ep esen a i e ( ia ci izen delega es) and
di ec ci izen pa icipa ion a mul iple le els, and was ac i ely pushed o wa d
by he Wo ke s’ Pa y (Pa ido dos T abalhado es) in local au ho i ies as well
as, om 2002 o 2016, in he ede al go e nmen .1
Meanwhile, a e he “Washing on Consensus” was ag eed by he wb and
In e na ional Mone a y Fund (im ) in he la e 1980s, he un and oecd we e
also con e ging, oge he wi h he wb, on he impo ance o pa icipa o y
p og ammes as a de ice o imp o e new models o go e nance wo ldwide.
Phenomena o g owing elec o al abs en ion and mis us owa d poli ical
ins i u ions became e iden h oughou he 1990s, and he all o adi ional
1 In Po o Aleg e, he decen aliza ion o decision-making powe was accompanied by, in e alia, he
c ea ion o “communi y acili a o s” in e e y local adminis a i e depa men , and he ins i u ion o a
new municipal council o he budge (Smi h 2009; Baiocchi and Ganuza 2016).
298 ci izenship in c isis
pa icipa ion in associa i e g oups and unions challenged he legi imacy o
poli ical ins i u ions in he eu (eu, 2001). Agains his backd op, be ween he
end o he 1990s and he ea ly 2000s, no only did pa icipa o y budge ing
aise he en husiasm o pos -communis pa ies and al e -globalis ac i is s
in he Wo ld Social Fo ums, bu also in e na ional and ansna ional agencies
sensed he appeal ha ci izen pa icipa ion had o he p omo ion o he new
go e nance model (eu 2001; undesa 2008; oecd 2001; 2009).
The p omo ion o new go e nance models in he la e 1990s was consis en
wi h an eme ging concep ion o ci il socie y as he new “s akeholde ” o he
public good (DeLeon 1992; D yzek 2010). This concep ion elied on he need
o shi om a ision o ci izens as cus ome s, a he han me e bene icia ies
o he S a e, suppo ed by new public manage ial o ien ed e o ms be ween
he 1980s and he 1990s (B yson e al. 2014). New go e nance compelled
he adop ion o new alues and mechanisms seeking o dec ease hie a chical
and bu eauc a ic bluep in s and enhance he inclusion o p i a e and social
ac o s in decision-making. The ans e ence o public compe encies in
decision-making o ci il socie y mean including ma ke -d i en and no -
o -p o i agencies on he supply-side o policies on behal o he s a e o in
pa ne ship wi h i . The eposi ioning o ci il socie y be ween he “global
ma ke ” and he “minimal s a e” (Bailey and Pill 2011; Ede 2014) challenged
democ a ic go e nance, as p i a e and public ac o s we e now called upon o
e hink o ms o co po a is ba gaining wi h he s a e (Balbona and Bebega
2015).
The ecogni ion o ci izens as owne s o ci ic knowledge and igh s made a
case in poin on he oppo uni y o include hem in decision-making (Robe s
2002). The p omo ion o consul a i e mechanisms wi h ci il socie y, as a way
o ensu e b oade consensus on policy solu ions, lowe ed c i icisms agains
consume is ic d i s o new public managemen e o ms and p epa ed he
g ound o a new pa icipa ion-cen ed discou se (Ba nes e al. 2007; B yson
e al. 2014). The change in discou ses and p ac ices o ci izen pa icipa ion
wi hin he cu en poli ical and inancial amewo k sugges s ha he
in ica e ela ion be ween global agencies and s a es should be unde s ood
in ligh o he con e gence o opposi e na a i es – ha o he adical le in
he Wo ld Social Fo ums and ha o wb, Eu opean Union (eu), O ganiza ion
o Economic Co-ope a ion and De elopmen (oecd), and Uni ed Na ions
(un) – s a ed a he end o he 1990s and 2000s (Dagnino 2004; Leal 2010;
Lee 2015).
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 299
Some schola s iewed he inco po a ion o ci izen pa icipa ion in he new
go e nance model as he s a egy o dec ease he coun e ailing discou se
on social injus ice and s a e ine icacy, in a ou o poli ical ins i u ions’
( e)legi imiza ion (Sin ome 2005). This shi led o he concep ualiza ion o
pa icipa ion as a de ice o good go e nance, which opened he doo s o he
ein o cemen o alues o e ec i eness and e iciency. Howe e , acco ding
o some hinke s, i essen ially mean b anding he neu aliza ion o poli ical
spaces in he name o neolibe alism ( Co nwall 2004; Linke 2009; Hoppe 2011;
Moini 2011). Acco ding o Jessop (2002), he e idence ha ci izen pa icipa ion
was used o compensa e o he inadequacies o he global ma ke is ha i
escaped om ques ioning he ules o neolibe alism in he global ma ke . This
con e gence was also seen as a s a egy o u he ma ke de egula ion (Mohan
and S okke 2000), and u he depoli iciza ion o communi ies’ s uggles
(Mi a ab 2009). Inclusion o social ac o s in policymaking was seen as he way
o legi imize eli es’ in e es s, while concealing (hence making less accoun able)
decision-make s’ agendas (Swyngedouw e al. 2002; Haje 2003).
The inco po a ion o pa icipa ion in o he neolibe al sc ip ecalls
he con e gence o mul iple agen s o ans o ma ion. Na ional and local
adminis a o s ha e shown di e en deg ees o owne ship and au onomy
in designing pa icipa ion, as also ansna ional and in e na ional agencies
should no be conside ed as monoli hic in hei a i ude (Bough on 2003;
Nielson e al. 2006; Gold ank 2012). Acknowledging he complex and mul i-
scale ame o pa icipa o y p ac ices enac ed wo ldwide, as well as he good
esul s ha many o hem ha e achie ed in e ms o policy enhancemen and/
o democ a ic empowe men , he nex sec ions ocus on c i ical ends om
he con e gence o neolibe alism and ci izen pa icipa ion.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion:
an in e na ional ou look
The in luence o in e na ional and ansna ional agencies on he implemen a ion
o a neolibe alism- iendly e sion o ci izen pa icipa ion has led o he
eme gence o c i ical ends. Scien i ic li e a u e highligh s a b oad ange o
issues, and he ollowing sec ions explo e h ee main ends: he way he local
scale a ou s he de achmen o ci izenship om global issues; he g ow h o
echnoc a ic app oaches in con as o ambi ions o poli ical change; and he
sca ci y o e alua ion agains he bu geoning o accoun able pilo s.

300 ci izenship in c isis
local pa icipa ion
Recen da a show ha global popula ion is inc easingly concen a ed in
u ban con ex s and ha ci ies cu en ly con ain mo e han hal o he wo ld
popula ion (un 2014). Global ci ies a e eposi ioned on a highly compe i i e
landscape as hey a e he ou pos o inancial, poli ical, and social s a egies
d i en by in e na ional inance (Bailey and Pill 2011), while demanded o
s eng hen democ a ic alues and mechanisms. Local au ho i ies a e called
upon o e ec i ely ac on issues ha , in se e al cases, e lec and ep oduce
global o ces. Whene e demanded o engage, local communi ies a e also
eques ed o be lexible, sel -empowe ing, and p oac i e in sol ing issues,
al hough hese o en exceed hei ac ual capaci y o ackle hem (Jessop 2002;
Swyngedouw e al. 2002; De V ies 2016).
The p omo ion o new u ban agendas o ien ed owa d he engagemen o
local communi ies wi hin a amewo k in which in e na ional inance has a key
ole in in luencing democ acy posi s g ea challenges. C i icism in his ield o
s udy says ha local pa icipa ion is o en de ached om wide discussion and
unde s anding o he global o de , o e en minimizes he e ec s o neolibe alism
on local democ acy. Pa icipa o y p ac ices end o na ow delibe a ion
a ound echnical, and mo e o en han no , sho - e m issues (Moini 2011).
The “insula ion” om he global amewo k is unc ional o educe and
neu alize he po en ial o con lic in decision-making (Mohan and S okke
2000). This neu aliza ion is o en suppo ed by discu si e de ices aimed a
indi idualizing esponsibili ies (i. e. local agen s a e pu a he cen e o he a ena
wi h li le p o ision o in o ma ion on en enching in e es s om o he sphe es
o decision) and “ oman icize” communi y li e (i. e. social, demog aphic, and
economic di e si y o local communi ies is disguised as homogenous).
echnoc a ic pa icipa ion
The opening o wide ma gins o in e es and o ganized g oups has p o ided
ci izen pa icipa ion wi h powe ul symbols o public legi imacy. A e he
Po o Aleg e pa icipa o y budge was lauded as bes p ac ice by un Habi a
in 1996, he in e na ional deba e shi ed he ocus om goals o s a e e o m
and social jus ice o p ocedu es and echnical a angemen s o ci izen
pa icipa ion (Ganuza and Baiocchi 2012). This shi was b oadly suppo ed
by local ac o s (Linke 2009) and, likewise, he globaliza ion o pa icipa ion
echnology and packaging ampli ied his end.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 301
T ansna ional and in e na ional agencies ha e led he dissemina ion o
echniques and ools, while suppo ing knowledge ans e among p ac ices.
F om a c i ical pe spec i e, he sp eading o ecommenda ions and oolki s
o good pa icipa ion has been one o he mos impac ul neolibe al
s a egies in his domain (Cha ez 2008). Thei ole has helped o dilu e he
poli ical o ien a ion o ci izen pa icipa ion owa d goals o social jus ice and
s a e e o m, owa d a neolibe alism- iendly e sion. This shi is c i ically
add essed by Leal (2010) in hese e ms: “[o]nce pu ged o all he h ea ening
elemen s, pa icipa ion could be e-enginee ed as an ins umen ha could
play a ole wi hin he s a us quo, a he han one ha defied i ” (Leal 2010, 95).
Pa icipa ion echnology and packaging has o en o e emphasized he
adop ion o he igh ools and echniques in de imen o c i ical e lec ion
on socie al change. The he o ic o “easy” consensus building be ween local
backe s wi h he poo and ma ginal sec o s o socie y has o en shadowed
social con lic . On his, Co nwall (2008) says ha “al hough he e m i sel
e okes a wa m ing o inclusion, ‘pa icipa o y’ p ocesses can se e o deepen
he exclusion o pa icula g oups unless explici e o s a e made o include
hem” (Co nwall 2008, 277). This poin is co obo a ed by B own (2004), who
wa ns abou he i ializa ion o pa icipa o y me hods in o he sequence o
neu al b ains o ming, in which majo s akeholde s a e in i ed o “easily”
ag ee on hei in e es s (B own 2004).
non-e alua ed pa icipa ion
E idence on he e ec i eness o pa icipa o y p ocesses con inues o be sca e ed
and he deba e on c i e ia and measu es emains almos nonexis en . Sca ci y
o scien i ic deba e and p ac ice o e alua ion in his domain is o en linked
o he hu dle o igo ous and compa able e alua ion be o e he complexi y
o he concep and he mul iplica ion o o ms h ough which pa icipa ion
can be implemen ed in di e en con ex s. As Ca pen ie (2016) summa izes
“[ ]he abundance o concep s in ol ed (and in oked) in pa icipa o y p ocesses
p oduce a le el o analy ical complexi y ha is ha d o cope wi h, also om
a esea che ’s pe spec i e” (Ca pen ie 2016, 77). Ano he eason behind he
sca ci y o e alua ion calls upon ends o hide poli ical agendas behind he
he o ic o democ a ic inno a ions (Rosene 1978). Mo e poin edly, ci izen
pa icipa ion has o en become he ins umen o poli ical, economic, and
social eli es o ein o ce p ede ined agendas wi h enewed legi imacy.
302 ci izenship in c isis
I e alua ion is sca ce, he dissemina ion o pa icipa o y p ocesses
con inues o g ow, oge he wi h he “ma ke ” o p o essionals and expe s,
o en suppo ed (o hi ed) by in e na ional ins i u ions (Lee 2015). The
mul iplica ion o one-o local p ac ices ha ba ely p o ide compa able
e idence o e ec i eness dese e suspicion (Mosse 2001; Lee 2015; Boucha d
2016). The “pi o al” age o pa icipa ion has been accompanied by a gene al
lack o e alua ion and, mo e in gene al, ins i u ional amewo ks in a ou o
empo a y ag eemen s and co enan s. The lack o ins i u ionalized ela ions
be ween delibe a i e p ocedu es, ep esen a i e bodies, and hei s anda d
p ocesses o decision-making and e alua ion should no be unde es ima ed
(Hoppe 2011). Dependence on poli ical willingness and, hence, on u no e
and imings imposed by elec o al cycles is likely o be exace ba ed wi hou
ins i u ional embeddedness.
po ugal: he socio-poli ical amewo k
o ci izen pa icipa ion
Public decision-making and he economic sys em in Po ugal a e essen ially
o ganized h ough na ional and local au ho i ies. This bina y sys em o e sees
egional in e media ion, con i ming his o ical s a e cen aliza ion and con ol
o e na ional economics (Teles 2016). Whe eas mechanisms o di ec democ acy
a e issued by law, pa icipa o y democ acy p inciples a e p esen ed in he na ional
Cons i u ion in suppo o ep esen a i e and di ec democ acy (a . 2,9/c, 263-
265, 266, 270). A he local le el, ep esen a i e democ acy mechanisms a e
coupled by oppo uni ies o ci izens o di ec ly oice in o decision-making ia
e e endums, o ms o di ec consul a ion wi h he municipal assemblies, local
associa ion, and ci ic lis s (De Sousa and Maia 2017).
The engagemen o ci il socie y in he design and implemen a ion o public
policies ecas s some pa amoun ini ia i es expe ienced in he a e ma h o
he Ca na ion Re olu ion, such as he “Se iço de Apoio Ambula ó io Local –
saal” led by a chi ec s and ci izens be ween 1974 and 1976 o he collec i e
design o social housing. Whe eas he las 30 yea s wi nessed he slow dec ease
o g ass oo s sel -o ganiza ion, he ecen success o pa icipa o y budge s
and he like has been coun e ending. Implemen ed om he mid-2000s on
(Dias 2013), and despi e deg ees o discon inui y in space and ime (Al es and
Alleg e i 2012), he expansion o pa icipa o y p ocesses in Po ugal is oday
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 303
dis inguished a he in e na ional le el. The coun y cu en ly hos s mo e han
180 ini ia i es dis ibu ed be ween municipali ies and pa ishes, which is he
highes a e in he wo ld when conside ing he a io be ween p ocesses wi h
he 308 municipali ies and 3092 pa ishes. Along wi h his, he implemen a ion
o he na ional pa icipa o y budge in 2017, alloca ing 3 million eu os o
he pa icipa ion o ci izens, and i s second edi ion in 2018 wi h an inc eased
amoun o 5 million eu os, u he ma ks a wo ld eco d o Po ugal.2
Since he mid-2000s he g ow h o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking
has become a case in poin in Po ugal, Spain, and I aly (Fon e al. 2014). These
coun ies we e especially a ec ed by he ecen inancial c isis and, agains isks
o con agion, he Po uguese go e nmen ag eed on he p o ision o a bailou
package o 78 million eu os unde he supe ision o im , ec, and Eu opean
Cen al Bank (ecb). The in e en ion o he “T oika” was a gued o e lec he
high ulne abili y o he coun y o he e ec s o he global c isis. The h ee
mains eam pa ies – Socialis Pa y (ps), Social Democ a ic Pa y (psd), and
Popula Pa y (cds-pp) – ag eed o consolida e domes ic inances and imp o e
in e na ional compe i i eness.3 The Memo andum o Unde s anding (mou)
in Po ugal was p eceded in 2010 by he a emp o he socialis go e nmen
led by José Sóc a es o pass aus e i y measu es, which led o a u- u n om
expansiona y and coun e cyclical iscal measu es (Acco ne o and Pin o 2018;
De Gio gi e al. 2015). Be ween 2011 and 2014 he implemen a ion o he
economic adjus men p og amme unde he mou imposed signi ican p o-
cyclical iscal consolida ion measu es, in line wi h he bailou s p o ided o
o he coun ies in he same pe iod (I eland, G eece, Cyp us, Spain).
Compa ed o coun ies like Spain and G eece, social mobiliza ion agains he
aus e i y in Po ugal was weake and, acco ding o Caldas (2012), cha ac e ized by
inc easing aliena ion om he poli ical class, pe cei ed as co up and dishones .
2 In 2017 an addi ional na ional measu e was launched o he young sec o o socie y: he Na ional
You h Pa icipa o y Budge , implemen ed be ween Oc obe and Decembe wi h a sha e o 300,000
eu os, and simila guiding ules o he npb (www.opjo em.go .p ).
3 The package, wi h an eu-sha e o 52 billion eu os, ep esen ed he hi d im in e en ion in Po ugal
( he i s in 1979 and he second in 1983), and was aimed a eco e ing low economic g ow h, high
le els o public deb , and in e na ional compe i i eness. The assis ance was made condi ional on he
implemen a ion o policy e o ms, in e nally moni o ed by he special go e nmen al uni esame. The
p og amme included o e uns on goods and se ices, wi h ax hikes and sala y cu s o public se an s,
including a wo-yea suspension o 13 h and 14 h mon hly wages and pensions e en ually e oked by
he Cons i u ional Cou .
310 ci izenship in c isis
On he one hand, p ac ices ha e been awa ded o complying wi h global
s anda ds ha de ine wha is cu en ly conside ed as a good p ac ice in ci izen
pa icipa ion. On he o he , he celeb a ion o hei success has mos likely
ein o ced he legi imacy o global discou se (and agen s), helping gene a e
expec a ions and new scena ios, bo h inside and ou side Po ugal.
The ac ion o local p ac i ione s, esea che s, and social ac o s is also key
o cha ac e ize he ela ion be ween global and local agen s. The oppo uni ies
looked o by local agen s and opened by in e na ional ins i u ions in e ms
o unding has led o he dissemina ion o esea ch and/o social inno a ion-
o ien ed p ojec s on ci izen pa icipa ion since he mid-2000s.14 Acknowledging
he au onomy o esea ch agendas and wo k-plans o hese p ojec s, i is wo h
highligh ing hei ole in eeding public in e es and, on occasion, aining
public se an s and decision-make s in ci izen pa icipa ion. I is emblema ic
ha he na ional ne wo k o municipali ies adop ing ci izen pa icipa ion
(Rede de Au a quias Pa icipa i as) was c ea ed unde one o hese p ojec s
(Po ugal Pa icipa: Caminhos pa a a Ino ação Socie al), con i ming ha
nei he in e na ional unding no poli ical ep esen a i es, hi d sec o , o
academia can be aken as an isola ed ac o in his analysis.
The in e na ional endo semen o ci izen pa icipa ion in Po ugal s a ed
be o e he peak o he c isis, passed h ough i , and con inues un il oday.
Apa om cu s in some pa icipa o y budge s, ci izen pa icipa ion su i ed
almos undis u bed by he u bulen c isis scena io. One o he easons why
he numbe o p ocesses g ew could be ela ed o cu s and eo ganiza ion
o local au ho i ies unde he mou (G een Pape on Local Adminis a ion
Re o m and he Law 22/2012).15 The equi emen o e iew public spending
in e icien ways p obably d o e some local au ho i ies o see pa icipa ion
as an a ailable de ice o con ene on public p io i ies and minimize isks o
14 The “Pa icipa o y Budge ing Po ugal” p ojec (“O çamen o Pa icipa i o Po ugal”), unded by
he equal Communi y Ini ia i e in 2008, was one o he i s p ojec s in his ield unde he leade ship
o na ional academia and hi d sec o (www.op-po ugal.o g). These pa ne ships ha e become key in
o he p ojec s, as in he ecen Eu opean Union- unded “Empa ia” (www.empa ia-p ojec .eu) and he
eea g an s- unded p ojec “Po ugal Pa icipa es: oads o socie al inno a ion” (“Po ugal Pa icipa:
caminhos pa a a ino ação socie al”) (www.po ugalpa icipa.p ).
15 The key measu es o local au ho i ies unde he mou en ailed educ ion o adminis a i e uni s;
educ ion o s a e g an s (abou 60% o local e enue); educ ion o municipali y s a by 2% in 2012 and
2013; dec ease o he local deb ; educ ion o municipal-owned en e p ises; new mechanisms o isk
managemen con ol, epo ing, and moni o ing (Teles 2016).

c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 311
dec easing public legi imacy. Ne e heless, a om ep esen ing a “me ely”
an i-aus e i y phenomenon, pa icipa ion con inued o g ow a e he end o
he adjus men p og amme, as p o ed by ecen da a and he implemen a ion
o he npb.
This said, why should he ela ion be ween in e na ional and ansna ional
agencies wi h na ional and local decision-make s be conside ed as in ica e?
Focussing on he yea s o aus e i y, ci izen pa icipa ion, and he agenda
imposed by he T oika seemed o wo k in pa allel wi h li le isible in e ac ion
o ic ion. P e ious and concu ing legi imiza ion p o ided by p ojec -
unding, p ac ice awa ds, and o he o ms o in e na ional ecogni ion
may ha e p e en ed hese p ocesses om being d ama ically suspended by
aus e i y-led e enchmen measu es. Howe e , nei he did he T oika seem
o conside he expansion o pa icipa ion in he coun y as a h ea o an
oppo uni y, no did pa icipa o y p ocesses di ec ly add ess he aus e i y o,
o ins ance, e o mula e hei p inciples and mechanisms. Al hough Balbona
and Begega (2015) a gue ha a emp s we e made o ein o ce poli ical dialogue
wi h social pa ne s on he aus e i y guidelines, Teles (2016) men ions ha
signi ican consul a ion wi h he associa ions o local au ho i ies would ha e
p e en ed opposing aus e i y measu es as me ely op-down imposed e o ms.
This e idence mi o s wha Whi e (1996) a gued: “[i] pa icipa ion means
ha he oiceless gain a oice, we should expec his o b ing some con lic .
[…] The absence o con lic in many supposedly ‘pa icipa o y’ p og ammes
is some hing ha should aise ou suspicions” (Whi e 1996, 15).
The i ual exclusion o aus e i y om pa icipa o y p ocesses, and he
absence o e e ence o oppo uni ies and isks o ci izen pa icipa ion in
he mou should be unde s ood in ligh o he con e gence o global agendas
discussed abo e. Mo e poin edly, compa ing c i ical ends o ci izen
pa icipa ion wi h p ac ices in Po ugal, he nex sec ions aim o explo e he
opic om a c i ical pe spec i e. Focus on pa icipa o y budge s is mo i a ed
by hei g ea dissemina ion and openness in e ms o policy a eas and publics,
which con as s wi h ei he public o issue-based ypologies o pa icipa ion
(e. g. he abo emen ioned pa icipa o y pla o ms, o he BipZip p og amme).
local pa icipa ion
Rega ding he i s end, he implemen a ion o he npb challenges is a gued
o be he educ ion o pa icipa ion on he local scale. While so, i is also wo h
312 ci izenship in c isis
highligh ing ha nei he o mal no in o mal connec ions exis be ween npb
and local p ocesses, which means ha ci izen pa icipa ion is bo h p omo ed
and implemen ed sepa a ely on he wo scales. In hese e ms, npb ecalls
wha A i ze and Ramos (2016) de ine as a “weak” o m o scaling up ci izen
pa icipa ion, one ha p o ides li le a icula ion wi h local p ac ices, and,
hence, con ibu es li le o he c ea ion o a (new) na ional public sphe e. The
au ho s compa e his ypology o he mul i-scale sys em o delega ed and di ec
pa icipa ion in B azil. Acknowledging he challenges ha such ins i u ional
design posi s in e ms o s a e e o m, he implemen a ion o he npb aises
some conce n abou i s impac be o e he p oli e a ion o local p ocesses and,
mo e b oadly, on he possibili y o e ame ci izen pa icipa ion h ough a
mul i-scale app oach o policymaking. Wi hou his e o , small in e en ions
isk ba ely app oaching – o e en in e e ing wi h – cu en socio-poli ical
challenges.
echnoc a ic pa icipa ion
Rega ding he echnoc a ic ends, hu dles c ea ed by he use o echnical
ja gon in public communica ion, he g ow h o ic as a p i ileged channel o
in o ma ion and pa icipa ion, and/o he exis ence o a chi ec u al ba ie s
in public mee ings inc easingly ep esen a conce n o he design o hese
p ocesses in Po ugal. E o s o iden i y accessible places o public mee ings,
as well as he di e si ica ion o communica ion s a egies should be no ed a
bo h local and na ional le els. Howe e , he sys ema ic iden i ica ion o goals
o social inclusion and clea de ini ion o hei ope a ionaliza ion gene ally
a e lacking in pa icipa ion co enan s. Al hough pa icipa o y budge s o en
conceal enabling measu es o he pa icipa ion o he mos ulne able sec o s
o he socie y, isks o disc e iona y inclusi eness and/o sel -o ganized
lobbies a e g ea . When pa icipa ion is non-binding, he isk is o u he
exclude ci izens wi h no access o public con en ion. This end con i ms wha
Baiocchi and Ganuza (2016) a gue abou he inc easing ambigui y ega ding
social jus ice in pa icipa o y budge ing wo ldwide. Gi en he c i ical ou looks
on coun y-speci ic socioeconomic and educa ional indica o s (oecd, 2015;
ec, 2016; im , 2016), a en ion o he e ec i e ope a ionaliza ion o highe
inclusion o he g oups a he ma gins o socie y should no be dismissed om
a c i ical analysis o pa icipa ion in Po ugal.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 313
non-e alua ed pa icipa ion
A c i ical obse a ion o he expansion o ci izen pa icipa ion in Po ugal
also aises conce ns ela ed o he pauci y o accessible da a abou p ocedu es
and ou pu s. Beyond he esponsibili y o go e nmen s in p o iding li le
accoun on his, he ends discussed abo e u he impai he es ablishmen
o a clea demand o accoun abili y o sponso s. The “s epping back” o sel -
o ganized socie y om pa icipa o y a enas may ha e helped downg ade he
o ma ion o he demand o public accoun abili y. Fon e al. (2014) ad oca e
ha “ he de elopmen o a pa icipa o y agenda in local go e nmen as he
esul o mo emen s s ongly di ec ed om abo e wi hou much connec ion
o social p essu es is p obably co ec o Sou he n Eu ope” (Fon e al. 2014,
62). Howe e , o he agen s may ha e played a ole in his ield. Apa om
poli ical ep esen a i es and ci il se an s, academics and p ac i ione s
(who had g ea in luence in sp eading alues and mechanisms o ci izen
pa icipa ion in he coun y) ha e helped li le o enla ge he deba e on he
e alua ion.
conclusions
While in Po ugal ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking has o e ed a g ea
chance o imp o e discussion on and p ac ice o democ acy a bo h local and
na ional le els, c i ical e lec ion is needed in he ligh o he in e na ional
socio-poli ical amewo k. Blessed by in e na ional o ganiza ions, he g ow h
o pa icipa o y p ocesses con inued despi e he ecen implemen a ion o
aus e i y measu es imposed ia he in e na ional ag eemen wi h he T oika.
This sugges s he exis ence o an in ica e ela ionship be ween in e na ional
and ansna ional agencies p omo ing he ci izen pa icipa ion agenda a he
global le el, and decision-make s in Po ugal.
E en hough he p ocesses a e being implemen ed on bo h local and
na ional scales in Po ugal, li le da a and li le scien i ic deba e exis s on
he phenomenon. The discussion p o ided in his chap e has sough o
con as e idence e ie ed om he ins i u ional designs o pa icipa o y
p ocesses, wi h ocus on pa icipa o y budge s, wi h h ee c i ical ends:
he de achmen o local pa icipa o y p ac ices om global issues; he shi
owa d echnoc a ic app oaches in de imen o poli ical-o ien ed p ac ices;
and he sca ci y o e alua ion in con as o he mush ooming o pilo s.
314 ci izenship in c isis
In Po ugal, ega ding he i s end, al hough he implemen a ion o he
na ional pa icipa o y budge challenges in e na ional p e e ence o local scale,
he weak ins i u ional a icula ion wi h he massi e p esence o local p ocesses
may impai goals o e ec i e socio-poli ical changes. Abou he second end,
models o delibe a ion ocused on he capaci y o he indi iduals o ne wo k
and campaign wi hou ei he in e media ion o inclusion o o ganized g oups
may ha e a ou ed he eme gence o sel -o ganized lobbies. This dynamic may
ha e had impac s on he pa icipa ion o he mos disad an aged sec o s o
ci il socie y, as p inciples and mechanisms did no di ec ly add ess aus e i y
as a majo issue, and aus e i y did no seem o in e e e wi h hem ei he .
Finally, he absence o e alua ion om bo h local and na ional ins i u ional
designs u he limi s his e lec ion, gi en he lack o da a abou who is
ac ually pa icipa ing in hese p ocesses. I is expec able ha c i ical asse s o
esea ch on and accoun abili y o hese p ocesses will be posi ed soon i ends
o non-e alua ion a e no mo e consis en ly con es ed and e e sed.
____________________________________
obe o alanga
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
obe o[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-1059-5509
____________________________________
e e ences
acco ne o, G., P. R. Pin o. 2018. “Poli ics in aus e i y: s a egic in e ac ions be ween social
mo emen s and ins i u ional ac o s in Po ugal, 2010-2015”. In Po ugal and he eu a e he
C ises, eds. A. C. Pin o, L. N. Rod igues, and S. Lloyd-Jones. Abingdon: Rou ledge, o hcoming.
a onso, A., S. Za aloudis, and Y. Papadopoulos. 2015. “How pa y linkages shape aus e i y
poli ics: clien elism and iscal adjus men in G eece and Po ugal du ing he eu ozone
c isis”. Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy, 22 (3): 315-334.
al es, M., G. Alleg e i. 2012. “(In) s abili y, a key elemen o unde s and pa icipa o y
budge ing: discussing Po uguese cases”. Jou nal o Public Delibe a ion, 8 (2), A icle 3:
h p://www.publicdelibe a ion.ne /jpd/ ol8/iss2/a 3.
a ns ein, S. 1971. “A ladde o ci izen pa icipa ion”. Jou nal o he Royal Town Planning
Ins i u e, 57 (1): 176-182.
a i ze , L. 2006. “New public sphe es in B azil: local democ acy and delibe a i e poli ics”.
In e na ional Jou nal o U ban and Regional Resea ch, 30 (3): 623-637.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 315
a i ze , L., A. Ramos. 2016. “Democ acia, escala y pa icipación. Re lexiones desde las
ins i uciones pa icipa i as b asileñas”. Re is a In e nacional de Sociología, 74 (3): 1-15.
bailey, N., M. Pill. 2011. “The con inuing popula i y o he neighbou hood and
neighbou hood go e nance in he ansi ion om he ‘big s a e’ o he ‘big socie y’
pa adigm”. En i onmen and Planning C: Go e nmen and Policy, 29 (5): 927-942.
baiocchi, G., E. Ganuza. 2016. Popula Democ acy. The Pa adox o Pa icipa ion. S an o d:
S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
balbona, D. L., S. G. Begega. 2015. “Aus e i y and wel a e e o m in sou h-wes e n Eu ope:
a a ewell o co po a ism in I aly, Spain and Po ugal?”. Eu opean Jou nal o Social Secu i y,
17 (2): 271-291.
ba nes, M., J. Newman, and H. Sulli an. 2007. Powe , Pa icipa ion and Poli ical Renewal.
Case S udies in Public Pa icipa ion. B is ol: The Policy P ess.
baumga en, B. 2013. “Ge ação à asca and beyond: mobiliza ions in Po ugal a e 12 ma ch
2011”. Cu en Sociology, 61 (4): 457-473.
boucha d, N. 2016. “The da k side o public pa icipa ion: Pa icipa i e p ocesses ha
legi imize elec ed o icials’ alues”. Canadian Public Adminis a ion, 59 (4): 16-537.
bough on, J. M. 2003. “The im and he o ce o his o y: en e en s and en ideas ha ha e
shaped he ins i u ion”. im Wo king Pape wp/04/75.
b own, D. 2004. “Pa icipa ion in po e y educ ion s a egies: democ acy s eng hened o
democ acy unde mined?”. In Pa icipa ion: F om Ty anny o T ans o ma ion? Explo ing
New App oaches o Pa icipa ion in De elopmen , eds. S. Hickey, G. Mohan. London/New
Yo k: Zed Books, 237-251.
b yson, J. M., B. C. C osby, and L. Bloombe g. 2014. “Public alue go e nance: mo ing beyond
adi ional public adminis a ion and he new public managemen ”. Public Adminis a ion
Re iew, 74 (4): 445-456.
cabannes, Y. 2009. 72 Pe gun as F equen es sob e O çamen o Pa icipa i o. Sé ie Caixa de
Fe amen as de Go e nação U bana. un-habi a /Inicia i a Comuni á ia equal. h p://
opac.ie p.p :8080/images/winlibimg.exe?key=&doc=78228&img=1156.
caldas, J. C. 2012. “The consequences o aus e i y policies in Po ugal”. F ied ich Ebe
S i ung. h p://lib a y. es.de/pd - iles/id-moe/09311.pd .
ca doso, D., R. B anco. 2017. “Labou ma ke and he c isis in Po ugal: no change, u- u n
o new depa u e?”. Wo king Pape 56/2017 ip i. h p://www.ip i.p /images/publicacoes/
wo king_pape /2017_WP/WP_IPRI_56-2017.pd .
ca pen ie , N. 2016. “Beyond he ladde o pa icipa ion: an analy ical oolki o he c i ical
analysis o pa icipa o y media p ocesses”. Ja nos – The Public, 23 (1): 70-88.
cha ez, D. 2008. “The wa e ing down o pa icipa o y budge ing and people powe in Po o
Aleg e, B azil”. Pa icipa o y Lea ning and Ac ion, 58: 57-60.
ch is ensen, H. S. 2016. “Poli ical dissa is ac ion and ci izen in ol emen : poli ical
pa icipa ion in Eu ope du ing he ea ly s ages o he economic c isis”. Pa ecipazione e
Con li o, 9 (1): 19-45.
co nwall, A. 2004. “Spaces o ans o ma ion? Re lec ions on issues o powe and di e ence
in pa icipa ion in de elopmen ”. In Pa icipa ion: F om Ty anny o T ans o ma ion?
Explo ing New App oaches o Pa icipa ion in De elopmen , eds. S. Hickey, G. Mohan.
London/New Yo k: Zed Books, 75-91.
co nwall, A. 2008. “Unpacking ‘pa icipa ion’: models, meanings and p ac ices”. Communi y
De elopmen Jou nal, 43 (3): 269-283.

316 ci izenship in c isis
dagnino, E. 2004. “Cons ução democ á ica, neolibe alismo e pa icipação: os dilemas da
con luência pe e sa”. Polí ica & Sociedade, 3 (5): 139-164.
de gio gi, E., C. Mou y, and J. P. Rui o. 2015. “Incumben s, opposi ion and in e na ional
lende s: go e ning Po ugal in imes o c isis”. The Jou nal o Legisla i e S udies, 21 (1):
54-74.
de sousa, L., J. Maia. 2017. “Democ acia”. In Po ugal Social em Mudança: Re a os Municipais,
eds. J. Fe ão, A. Delicado. Lisbon: Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, 9-20.
de sousa, L., P. Magalhães, and L. Ama al. 2014. “So e eign deb and go e nance ailu es:
Po uguese democ acy and he inancial c isis”. Ame ican Beha io Scien is , 58 (12):
1517-1541.
de ies, P. 2016. “The inconsis en ci y, pa icipa o y planning, and he pa o no pa in
Reci e, B azil”. An ipode, 48 (3): 790-808.
deleon, P. 1992. “The democ a iza ion o he policy sciences”. Public Adminis a ion Re iew,
52 (2): 125-129.
dias, N. 2008. O çamen o Pa icipa i o: Animação Cidadã pa a a Pa icipação Polí ica.
P ojec o O çamen o Pa icipa i o Po ugal – Mais Pa icipação Melho Democ acia. São
B ás de Alpo el: São B ás Solidá io.
dias, N., ed. 2013. Espe ança Democ á ica – 25 Anos de O çamen os Pa icipa i os no Mundo.
São B ás de Alpo el: Associação In Loco.
d yzek, J. 2010. Founda ions and F on ie s o Delibe a i e Go e nance. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
ec. 2016. Ex Pos E alua ion o he Economic Adjus men P og amme Po ugal, 2011-2014.
h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/in o/publica ions/economy- inance/ex-pos -e alua ion-economic-
adjus men -p og amme-po ugal-2011-2014_en.
eu. 2001. Whi e Pape on Eu opean Go e nance. A ailable a : h p://eu -lex.eu opa.eu/
LexU iSe /si e/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pd .
ede , K. 2014. “The pa adox o poli ical pa icipa ion. Theo izing unci il socie y”.
Pa ecipazione e Con li o, 7 (3): 551-575.
io ino, D. J. 1990. “Ci izen pa icipa ion and en i onmen al isk: a su ey o ins i u ional
mechanisms”. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15 (2): 226-243.
onseca, P., M. J. Fe ei a. 2015. “Th ough ‘seas ne e be o e sailed’: Po uguese go e nmen
discu si e legi ima ion s a egies in a con ex o inancial c isis”. Discou se and Socie y, 26
(6): 682-711.
on , J., D. della Po a, and Y. Sin ome . 2014. Pa icipa o y Democ acy in Sou he n Eu ope.
Causes, Cha ac e is ics and Consequences. London/New Yo k: Rowman & Li le ield.
ganuza, E., G. Baiocchi. 2012. “The powe o ambigui y: how pa icipa o y budge ing a els
he globe”. Jou nal o Public Delibe a ion, 8 (2): A icle 8: h p://www.publicdelibe a ion.
ne /cgi/ iewcon en .cgi?a icle=1229&con ex =jpd.
ga en a, J., G. Ba e . 2010. “So wha di e ences does i make? mapping he ou comes o
ci izen engagemen ”. Wo king Pape , Ins i u e o De elopmen S udies, De elopmen
Resea ch Cen e Ci izenship, Pa icipa ion and Accoun abili y, 347: 1-72.
gold ank, B. 2012. “The Wo ld Bank and he globaliza ion o pa icipa o y budge ing”.
Jou nal o Public Delibe a ion, 8 (2): A icle 7: h p://www.publicdelibe a ion.ne /jpd/
ol8/iss2/a 7/.
haje , M. 2003. “Policy wi hou poli y? Policy analysis and he ins i u ional oid”. Policy
Sciences, 36 (2): 175-195.
c i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking 317
hoppe, R. 2011. “Ins i u ional cons ain s and p ac ical p oblems in delibe a i e and
pa icipa o y policy making”. Policy and Poli ics, 39 (2): 163-186.
im . 2015. Po ugal: Selec ed Issues 15/27, May 2015. A ailable a : h ps://www.im .o g/
ex e nal/pubs/ /sc /2015/c 15127.pd .
im . 2016. F om c isis o con e gence. Cha ing a cou se o Po ugal. A ailable a : h ps://www.
im .o g/en/Publica ions/Depa men al-Pape s-Policy-Pape s/Issues/2016/12/31/F om-
C isis- o-Con e gence-Cha ing-a-Cou se- o -Po ugal-43 481.
jessop, B. 2002. “Libe alism, neolibe alism, and u ban go e nance: a s a e- heo e ical
pe spec i e”. An ipode, 34 (3): 452-472.
leal, P. A. 2010. “Pa icipa ion: he ascendancy o a buzzwo d in he neo-libe al e a”. In
Decons uc ing De elopmen Discou se: Buzzwo ds and Fuzzwo ds, eds. A. Co nwall, D.
Eade. Wa wickshi e (uk): P ac ical Ac ion Publishing & Ox am.
lee, C. W. 2015. Do-I -You sel Democ acy. The Rise o he Ci izen Engagemen Indus y.
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
linke, D. T. 2009. “Democ a ic pa icipa ion and he managemen o sca ce esou ces: he
con e gence o le is and neolibe al app oaches in imes o discon en wi h he social
con ac ”. Temas de Adminis ação Pública, 4 (5): h p://mas e . cla .unesp.b /Home/
Depa amen os/Adminis acaoPublica/Re is aTemasdeAdminis acaoPublica/ heue 5.
pd .
mi a ab, F. 2009. “Insu gen planning: si ua ing adical planning in he global sou h”.
Planning Theo y, 8 (1): 32-50.
mohan, G., K. S okke. 2000. “Pa icipa o y de elopmen and empowe men : he dange s o
localism”. Thi d Wo ld Qua e ly, 21 (2): 247-268.
moini, G. 2011. “How pa icipa ion has become a hegemonic discu si e esou ce: owa ds an
in e p e i is esea ch agenda”. C i ical Policy S udies, 5 (2): 149-168.
mosse, D. 2001. “People’s knowledge, pa icipa ion and pa onage: ope a ions and
ep esen a ions in u al de elopmen ”. In Pa icipa ion: The New Ty anny?, eds. B. Cooke,
U. Ko ha y. London: Zed Books, 16-35.
mou y, C., A. S and ing. 2017. “Going beyond he T oika: powe and discou se in Po uguese
aus e i y poli ics”. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch, 56 (3): 663-679.
nielson, D. L., M. J. Tie ney, and C. E. Wea e . 2006 “B idging he a ionalis -cons uc i is
di ide: e-enginee ing he cul u e o he Wo ld Bank”. Jou nal o In e na ional Rela ions
and De elopmen , 9: 107-139.
oecd. 2001. Ci izens as Pa ne s. oecd Handbook on In o ma ion, Consul a ion and Public
Pa icipa ion in Policy-Making. Pa is: oecd.
oecd. 2009. Focus on Ci izens: Public Engagemen o Be e Policy and Se ices. Pa is: oecd.
oecd. 2011. The Call o Inno a i e and Open Go e nmen . An o e iew o Coun ies’
Ini ia i es. Pa is: oecd.
oecd. 2015. Reducing Inequali y and Po e y in Po ugal. Economics depa men wo king
pape s 1258. Pa is: oecd.
pa eman, C. 1970. Pa icipa ion and Democ a ic Theo y. London: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess.
pe ez, S. A., M. Ma saganis. 2017. “The poli ical economy o aus e i y in Sou he n Eu ope”.
New Poli ical Economy, 22: 1-16.
obe s, N. 2002. “Public delibe a ion in an age o di ec ci izen pa icipa ion”. Ame ican
Re iew o Public Adminis a ion, 34 (4): 315-353.
318 ci izenship in c isis
od igues, C. F., R. Figuei as, and V. Junquei a (Eds.) 2016. Desigualdade do Rendimen o
e Pob eza em Po ugal: In odução ao Es udo. Lisbon: Fundação F ancisco Manuel dos
San os.
osenbaum, W. A. 1976 “The pa adoxes o public pa icipa ion”. Adminis a ion and Socie y,
8 (3): 355-383.
osene , J. B. 1978. “Ci izen pa icipa ion: can we measu e i s e ec i eness?”. Public
Adminis a ion Re iew, 38 (5): 457-463.
sin ome , Y. 2005. “Los p esupues os pa icipa i os en Eu opa: e os y desa ios”. Re is a del
clad Re o ma y Democ acia. h p://www. edalyc.o g/pd /3575/3575336 63003.pd .
sin ome , Y., G. Alleg e i. 2009. I bilanci pa ecipa i i in Eu opa. Nuo e espe ienze
Democ a iche nel ecchio con inen e. Rome: Ediesse.
smi h, G. 2009. Democ a ic Inno a ions. Designing Ins i u ions o Ci izen Pa icipa ion.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
swyngedouw, E., F. Moulae , and A. Rod iguez. 2002 “Neolibe al u baniza ion in eu ope:
la ge-scale u ban de elopmen p ojec s and he new u ban policy”. An ipode, 34 (3): 547-
-582.
eles, F. 2016. “Local go e nmen and he bailou : Re o m singula i ies in Po ugal”. Eu opean
U ban and Regional S udies, 23 (3): 455-467.
un. 2014. Wo ld’s Popula ion Inc easingly U ban Wi h Mo e Than Hal Li ing in U ban A eas.
New Yo k: Uni ed Na ions.
undesa. 2008. People Ma e : Ci ic Engagemen in Public Go e nance. New Yo k: Uni ed
Na ions.
whi e, S. C. 1996. “Depoli icising de elopmen : he uses and abuses o pa icipa ion”.
De elopmen in P ac ice, 6 (1): 6-15.
ci e his chap e as:
alanga, R. 2018. “C i ical ends o ci izen pa icipa ion in policymaking. Insigh s om Po ugal”. In
Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. ii. Ci izenship in C isis, eds. M. C. Lobo, F. C. da Sil a
and J. P. Zúque e. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 295-318.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715047.12