Rural participatory budgeting: virtual vs face-to-face

Caceres Cabana Y. · European Public and Social Innovation Review (2025) · DOI: 10.31637/epsir-2025-1421

Resumen

Introduction: The article analyzes two participatory budgeting processes, one virtual and one in-person, in two similar rural Peruvian areas. It reflects on the characteristics that have prevailed after 20 years of mandatory participatory budgeting law under crisis conditions and the impact of virtual versus in-person workshops. Methodology: 25 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants and authorities, processed using Nvivo software. Results: They indicate that, regardless of the format, participation is limited by a lack of credibility, trust, and legitimacy, as the agreements are not legally binding. Discussion: It suggests that in-person workshops are preferable even in contexts of territorial remoteness due to internet access and usage limitations. Conclusions: They highlight that the lack of credibility in fulfilling agreements and the legitimacy of authorities affects both in-person and virtual processes. Furthermore, implementing a generalized model without considering territorial disparities and virtuality has hindered adaptation in rural areas, concentrating decisions and limiting effective participation.

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa