Public Information, Institutional Answerability, and Participatory Budgeting in New York City and Paris
Abstract. Commercial funnels describe progression from attention to conversion, whereas civic participation requires a distinct analytical vocabulary. This article proposes two connected pathways: a public information journey and a representative accountability lifecycle. Drawing on sociology, political science, and journalism studies, it examines the relationships among information, institutional responsibilities, and public scrutiny. Participatory budgeting in New York City and Paris provides illustrations of participation beyond elections. These cases illuminate rather than test the framework; the proposed pathways constitute a conceptual synthesis, not a validated causal or measurement model.
Keywords: civic accountability; civic participation; political sociology; political communication; journalism studies; participatory budgeting; public deliberation; institutional answerability.
Conceptual and disciplinary foundations
The marketing-funnel analogy can structure discussion of public attention, but its explanatory value is limited when electoral participation is treated as conversion and public representatives as products. Citizenship entails judgment and continuing relationships with institutions rather than merely an endpoint of acquisition. The framework therefore distinguishes a public information journey—awareness, information gathering, deliberation, and electoral participation—from an accountability lifecycle comprising public commitments, service delivery, ongoing scrutiny, and public feedback. These pathways may overlap, recur, or be interrupted. Non-electoral participation must also be recognized as a form of civic engagement in its own right, rather than solely as a preliminary step toward voting.
A sociological perspective directs attention to the conditions that enable public voice. In their study of participation in the United States, Verba et al. (1995) relate unequal political activity to unequal access to resources as well as differences in individual inclination. Applied to the present framework, this perspective raises questions about time, access to information, and opportunities for participation. Attendance or online engagement alone cannot establish whether a process provides broadly accessible opportunities. This interpretation is an analytical implication of the literature, not an empirical finding concerning the two cases discussed below.
Political science provides a more precise account of accountability. Bovens (2007) describes a relationship in which an actor must explain and justify conduct to a forum that can question, judge, and potentially impose consequences. Transparency alone is therefore insufficient: disclosing information is distinct from responding to questions about it. Evaluation must also distinguish elected representatives’ commitments from the responsibilities of agencies charged with implementation. Responsibility for a delayed project cannot automatically be assigned to a single office without examining its authority, resources, and administrative constraints.
Media and journalism studies examine the relationship between visibility and public understanding without treating them as equivalent. McCombs and Shaw (1972) investigate media agenda-setting and perceived issue importance; their study does not establish that coverage determines individual electoral choices. Kovach and Rosenstiel (2021) provide a complementary foundation in verification, independence, and journalism’s public-service role. Within the present framework, the relevant distinction is between attracting attention and providing evidence that citizens can assess. Reporting on commitments, implementation, and unresolved questions can connect the two pathways without assuming that publicity itself produces accountability.
Two real-world illustrations
New York City. The City Council’s participatory-budgeting process began in 2011. Its documented cycle encompasses collecting ideas through community meetings, developing proposals with agency and staff support, voting on projects, and evaluating the process while overseeing implementation. Funding supports capital improvements to schools, parks, libraries, and streets (New York City Council, n.d.). This sequence illustrates how public information and deliberation can inform a decision within a defined budget rather than an electoral choice. It also raises a subsequent accountability question: can residents trace a selected proposal from its inclusion in the budget through implementation? The official description documents the institutional design; it does not demonstrate that every project is completed or that every participant exercises equal influence.
Paris. Launched in 2014, the city’s participatory budget enables residents to propose projects and vote on the allocation of a portion of municipal investment. The Council of Europe describes a process in which, before the public vote, municipal services assess proposals against criteria that include public interest, municipal authority, and eligibility for investment funding (Council of Europe, n.d.). This case highlights institutional limits: submitting a proposal does not guarantee its eligibility or implementation. Within the framework, explaining why proposals advance or are excluded is important alongside publicizing participation. As in the New York City example, the source documents procedures; it does not establish causal improvements in trust, equality, or service quality.
Implications, limitations, and conclusion
The examples suggest questions for assessment rather than a universal score: Is public information understandable? Are opportunities for participation accessible? Are decision criteria explained? Can implementation be tracked, and does the responsible institution respond to concerns? Researchers could investigate these questions through documents, interviews, and implementation records. Journalists could distinguish announcements of project selection from evidence of delivery. Neither vote totals nor digital reach alone can answer these questions.
This article presents an interpretive framework rather than an original empirical study. Two municipal budgeting processes cannot validate a general model of electoral behavior or representative accountability. Their contribution is illustrative: they demonstrate forms of participation beyond elections and highlight the importance of continued scrutiny during implementation. The framework’s central proposition is that civic communication should be assessed in terms of the quality of public understanding and institutional answerability, rather than reduced to commercial conversion. Public information supports scrutiny, while evidence of institutional action informs subsequent deliberation.
References
- Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
- Council of Europe. (n.d.). City of Paris participatory budget. Intercultural Cities Programme.
- Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2021). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect (Rev. and updated 4th ed.). Crown.
- McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. DOI: 10.1086/267990
- New York City Council. (n.d.). Participatory budgeting.
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics.Harvard University Press.