Strategic Cost Selection in Participatory Budgeting
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Participatory budgeting is a democratic process where citizens directly decide how to allocate public funds.
- This paper examines the strategic behavior of participants in this process, specifically how they select costs for proposed projects.
- The researchers develop a game-theoretic model to analyze the incentives and outcomes of this strategic cost selection.
- They provide theoretical and empirical insights into how the budgeting process can be improved to better align with citizens' preferences.
Plain English Explanation
In participatory budgeting, citizens are given a budget and asked to choose which projects they want to fund. This is a democratic way to decide how to spend public money. However, the researchers found that people may try to game the system by strategically choosing the costs for their proposed projects.
For example, a citizen might propose a project that costs $100,000, even though it could be done for $50,000. This would increase the chances of their project being selected, since the total cost would be lower compared to other proposals. The researchers developed a mathematical model to understand this type of strategic behavior and how it impacts the final outcomes.
Their analysis shows that this strategic cost selection can lead to suboptimal decisions that don't fully reflect the citizens' true preferences. The researchers provide suggestions on how the budgeting process can be designed to encourage more honest and transparent cost estimates, so that the final funding decisions better align with what the community wants.
Technical Explanation
The researchers model participatory budgeting as a game where citizens strategically select the costs for their proposed projects. Each citizen has a project they want funded and must choose a cost for that project. The researchers analyze the incentives and equilibria that arise in this strategic cost selection game.
They show that in equilibrium, citizens will typically underreport the true costs of their projects in an attempt to increase the chances of their proposal being selected. This leads to an inefficient allocation of funds that may not reflect the true preferences of the citizens.
The researchers also provide empirical evidence for this strategic behavior using data from real-world participatory budgeting programs. They develop algorithms to estimate the true costs of projects based on observable characteristics, and find that citizens systematically underreport costs compared to these estimated values.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their analysis. First, their game-theoretic model makes simplifying assumptions, such as citizens having complete information about each other's projects and costs. In reality, citizens may have incomplete or uncertain information, which could affect their strategic behavior.
Additionally, the researchers only consider the strategic behavior of citizens in selecting costs, and do not model other aspects of the participatory budgeting process, such as how projects are evaluated and selected. There may be other strategic considerations that influence the outcomes.
Furthermore, the empirical analysis relies on researchers' estimates of true project costs, which may not fully capture the complexity and uncertainty involved in real-world projects. Citizens' cost estimates may reflect legitimate uncertainties or practical constraints that are not easily observable.
Despite these limitations, the researchers provide valuable insights into the potential pitfalls of participatory budgeting and suggest design principles to mitigate the negative effects of strategic cost selection. Their work highlights the importance of carefully considering incentives and information asymmetries in the design of democratic decision-making processes.
Conclusion
This paper presents a game-theoretic analysis of strategic cost selection in participatory budgeting, a democratic process for allocating public funds. The researchers find that citizens have incentives to underreport the true costs of their proposed projects, leading to suboptimal funding decisions that may not align with the community's preferences.
The researchers' insights can inform the design of participatory budgeting processes to encourage more transparent and honest cost estimates, ultimately leading to decisions that better reflect the collective will of the citizens. Their work underscores the importance of considering strategic behavior and information asymmetries in the design of democratic institutions and decision-making processes.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Strategic Cost Selection in Participatory Budgeting
Piotr Faliszewski, {L}ukasz Janeczko, Andrzej Kaczmarczyk, Grzegorz Lisowski, Piotr Skowron, Stanis{l}aw Szufa
We study strategic behavior of project proposers in the context of approval-based participatory budgeting (PB). In our model we assume that the votes are fixed and known and the proposers want to set as high project prices as possible, provided that their projects get selected and the prices are not below the minimum costs of their delivery. We study the existence of pure Nash equilibria (NE) in such games, focusing on the AV/Cost, Phragm'en, and Method of Equal Shares rules. Furthermore, we report an experimental study of strategic cost selection on real-life PB election data.
Read more7/30/2024
0
Rank, Pack, or Approve: Voting Methods in Participatory Budgeting
Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel
Participatory budgeting is a popular method to engage residents in budgeting decisions by local governments. The Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform is an online platform that has been used to engage residents in more than 150 budgeting processes. We present a data set with anonymized budget opinions from these processes with K-approval, K-ranking or knapsack primary ballots. For a subset of the voters, it includes paired votes with a different elicitation method in the same process. This presents a unique data set, as the voters, projects and setting are all related to real-world decisions that the voters have an actual interest in. With data from primary ballots we find that while ballot complexity (number of projects to choose from, number of projects to select and ballot length) is correlated with a higher median time spent by voters, it is not correlated with a higher abandonment rate. We use vote pairs with different voting methods to analyze the effect of voting methods on the cost of selected projects, more comprehensively than was previously possible. In most elections, voters selected significantly more expensive projects using K-approval than using knapsack, although we also find a small number of examples with a significant effect in the opposite direction. This effect happens at the aggregate level as well as for individual voters, and is influenced both by the implicit constraints of the voting method and the explicit constraints of the voting interface. Finally, we validate the use of K-ranking elicitation to offer a paper alternative for knapsack voting.
Read more8/28/2024
🧪
0
Submodular Participatory Budgeting
Jing Yuan, Shaojie Tang
Participatory budgeting refers to the practice of allocating public resources by collecting and aggregating individual preferences. Most existing studies in this field often assume an additive utility function, where each individual holds a private utility for each candidate project, and the total utility of a set of funded projects is simply the sum of the utilities of all projects. We argue that this assumption does not always hold in reality. For example, building two playgrounds in the same neighborhood does not necessarily lead to twice the utility of building a single playground. To address this, we extend the existing study by proposing a submodular participatory budgeting problem, assuming that the utility function of each individual is a monotone and submodular function over funded projects. We propose and examine three preference elicitation methods, including emph{ranking-by-marginal-values}, emph{ranking-by-values} and emph{threshold approval votes}, and analyze their performances in terms of distortion. Notably, if the utility function is addicative, our aggregation rule designed for threshold approval votes achieves a better distortion than the state-of-the-art approach.
Read more6/21/2024
✨
0
Fair Voting Outcomes with Impact and Novelty Compromises? Unraveling Biases of Equal Shares in Participatory Budgeting
Sajan Maharjan, Srijoni Majumdar, Evangelos Pournaras
Participatory budgeting, as a paradigm for democratic innovations, engages citizens in the distribution of a public budget to projects, which they propose and vote for implementation. So far, voting algorithms have been devised and studied in social choice literature to elect projects that are popular, while others prioritize on a proportional representation of voters' preferences, for instance, equal shares. However, the anticipated impact and novelty in the broader society by the winning projects, as selected by different algorithms, remains totally under-explored, lacking both a universal theory of impact for voting and a rigorous framework for impact and novelty assessments. This papers tackles this grand challenge towards new axiomatic foundations for designing effective and fair voting methods. This is via new and striking insights derived from a large-scale analysis of biases over 345 real-world voting outcomes, characterized for the first time by a novel portfolio of impact and novelty metrics. We find strong causal evidence that equal shares comes with impact loss in several infrastructural projects of different cost levels that have been so far over-represented. However, it also comes with a novel, yet over-represented, impact gain in welfare, education and culture. We discuss broader implications of these results and how impact loss can be mitigated at the stage of campaign design and project ideation.
Read more5/10/2024