Fair Voting Outcomes with Impact and Novelty Compromises? Unraveling Biases of Equal Shares in Participatory Budgeting

Overview

• This paper explores the impact and novelty of winning projects in participatory budgeting, where citizens propose and vote on public projects.
• Existing voting algorithms focus on electing popular projects or ensuring proportional representation, but the actual impact and novelty of the winning projects has not been well studied.
• The paper aims to address this gap by developing new metrics and a framework for assessing the impact and novelty of participatory budgeting outcomes.

Plain English Explanation

Participatory budgeting is a process where citizens get to decide how a portion of a public budget is spent. People propose project ideas, and then everyone votes on which ones should be funded. The voting methods used can affect which projects get chosen.

Previous research has looked at ways to make the voting process fair, such as ensuring equal representation or learning voter preferences. However, this paper focuses on a different question - how impactful and innovative are the projects that end up getting funded through participatory budgeting?

The researchers analyzed over 300 real-world participatory budgeting outcomes to understand the types of projects that get selected and how novel or impactful they are. They found that voting methods that aim for "equal shares" of the budget can sometimes lead to less impactful infrastructure projects being chosen, but may also result in more innovative welfare, education, and cultural projects being funded.

The key idea is that the choice of voting method can shape the kinds of projects that get implemented, and this has implications for the broader societal impact. The researchers discuss ways to design the participatory budgeting process to better maximize both impact and innovation.

Technical Explanation

The paper introduces a novel portfolio of metrics to characterize the impact and novelty of projects selected through participatory budgeting. These metrics capture factors like the expected benefit to the community, the level of innovation, and the degree of representativeness.

Using this framework, the researchers conducted a large-scale analysis of 345 real-world participatory budgeting outcomes. They found causal evidence that voting methods aimed at "equal shares" of the budget can lead to the selection of less impactful infrastructure projects, but may also result in more innovative welfare, education, and cultural initiatives being funded.

The researchers hypothesize that this is because infrastructure projects, even if less innovative, are often perceived as more universally beneficial, whereas welfare, education, and cultural projects may be seen as more specialized or targeted. Voting methods that focus on equal representation can thus privilege the former category of projects.

The paper discusses broader implications and ways to mitigate this "impact loss" during the participatory budgeting campaign and project ideation stages. For example, techniques like federated learning and quadratic voting could help surface more impactful and novel project ideas.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a rigorous and novel framework for assessing the impacts of participatory budgeting, filling an important gap in the literature. The large-scale analysis of real-world data provides valuable empirical insights.

However, the research is limited to a specific set of participatory budgeting initiatives and may not generalize to all contexts. The impact and novelty metrics, while comprehensive, could potentially be expanded or refined further.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the mechanisms underlying the observed biases in project selection. More research is needed to fully understand the psychological, social, and political factors at play.

Nonetheless, this work represents an important step towards developing more effective and equitable participatory budgeting processes that optimize for genuine community impact and innovation, not just popularity or equal representation. Readers are encouraged to think critically about the tradeoffs involved and consider how these insights could be applied in their own contexts.

Conclusion

This paper tackles the crucial but under-explored question of how participatory budgeting voting methods shape the impact and novelty of the winning projects. Through a large-scale empirical analysis, the researchers uncover important biases and tradeoffs, suggesting ways to design more effective participatory budgeting processes.

The findings have significant implications for policymakers, civic technologists, and community organizers seeking to leverage participatory budgeting as a tool for meaningful social change. By better understanding the factors that influence project selection, they can work to ensure that participatory budgeting leads to impactful and innovative outcomes that truly benefit the community.