evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Zeguo Deliberative Participatory Budgeting — Random-Sample Citizen Poll Sets Infrastructure Spending, Wenling

China · Zeguo (Wenling) · See the China profile

Top 27% 76/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

In 2005 Zeguo township randomly selected 275 residents to deliberate on 30 infrastructure projects; the People's Congress then funded the top 12. Repeated annually to 2018.

Details

Promoter
Zeguo Township Government, Wenling City (with Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy and Deakin University)
Period
2005-2018
Keywords
participatory budgeting, deliberative polling, local government

Description

In March–April 2005 Zeguo township (Wenling, Zhejiang) combined Deliberative Polling with participatory budgeting. 275 residents were randomly sampled from household registers; 269 completed the pre-poll survey and 235 attended the deliberation day on 9 April 2005, moderated by 16 trained local teachers, with advice from James Fishkin (Stanford) and Baogang He (Deakin).
Participants ranked 30 infrastructure projects (total cost 137 million RMB) against about 40 million RMB available. The poll cost around 100,000 RMB. Knowledge questions rose by an average 8.9% between pre- and post-deliberation surveys.
On 30 April 2005 the local People's Congress voted to fund the top 12 projects, which the government implemented. Participedia describes annual deliberative polls from 2005 to 2018 with modifications; the 2005–2006 rounds covered infrastructure, roughly 30–40% of the budget.
Caveats: the process is government-initiated and advisory to the Congress, and academic study (He, Public Administration and Development) records limitations, e.g. a 2008 budget session nearly derailed when deputies walked out over an omitted school project. Evidence is mostly case-study based rather than independent outcome evaluation.

Read the full analysis: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/pad.1853

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful