Facilitation tools in proactive budgeting

The role of facilitation as a modern tool for developing proactive budgeting in the Russian public finance system has been studied. The research analyzes the theoretical and methodological foundations of facilitation, its functions and mechanisms of impact on the quality of interaction among authorities, citizens and public institutions. Facilitation is interpreted not only as a method of conducting group discussions, but also as a technology for organizing dialogue and joint decision-making, which helps to increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of budgetary processes. The study highlights the main functions of facilitation such as communicative, information and educational, project-consolidating, and conflict-based. It also reveals specific tools used in proactive budgeting such as brainstorming, SWOT analysis, the “world cafe” format, open space, prioritization methods, focus groups, and scenario modeling. Special attention has been paid to the analysis of foreign experience in Portugal, Brazil, and South Korea, where facilitation has become an integral element of the state policy of civic participation. It has been noted that in Russia, facilitation approaches, which have been actively implemented since the mid-2010s, require further institutionalization and regulatory consolidation. The study results show that facilitation in proactive budgeting contributes to civic engagement development, increases the efficiency of using budget funds, and strengthens trust in government authorities. The author concludes that in the context of digital transformation and the transition to an “open state” model, facilitation is becoming a key mechanism for creating a culture of participation and social partnership that ensures sustainable spatial development and improves the quality of public administration. Facilitation technologies have a high potential for integration into strategic and project management processes at the regional level.

1. Balynin, I. V. (2016). The participation of civil society in the implementation of social functions of the state as a factor in improving the quality of budget expenditure management. Accounting in Budgetary and Non-Profit Organizations, 22(406), 20–31. (In Russian).

2. Boytsov, P. A., Dorofeev, M. L. (2023). Prospects for development of initiative budgeting in mobilization economy. Vestnik universiteta, 6, 97–105. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2023-6-97-105

3. Chumikov, A. N. (2023). Negotiations – facilitation – mediation. Moscow: Prospekt. (In Russian).

4. Falanga, R., Luchmann, L. H. H., Nicoletti, A., & Domingos, H. C. (2020). Participatory budgets in Canoas (Brazil) and Cascais (Portugal). A comparative analysis of the drivers of success. Journal of Civil Society, 16(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2020.1788246

5. Firova, I. P., Redkina, T. M., & Solomonova, V. N. (2021). Communications in the sphere of state and municipal management. St. Petersburg: RGGMU. (In Russian).

6. Galynis, K. I. (2022). Development of the initiative budgeting theory. Innovation and Investment, 10, 35–38. (In Russian).

7. Kirillova, A. N., Musinova, N. N. (2022). Implementation of initiative projects as a factor in increasing the potential of municipal territories. Vestnik universiteta, 9, 20–27. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2022-9-20-27

8. Kuryachaya, M. M. (2022). Proactive budgeting: Synergy of the potentials of civil society and the local community. Law and the State: Theory and Practice, 8(212), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337_2022_8_57 (In Russian).

9. Musinova, N. N., Sergienko, N. S. (2020). On the issue of financial support for initiative budgeting. Economics and Entrepreneurship, 7(120), 1295–1299. https://doi.org/10.34925/EIP.2020.120.7.268 (In Russian).

10. Noh, W., Xue, L. (2022). How a participatory process with inclusive structural design allocates resources toward poor neighborhoods: The case of participatory budgeting in Seoul, South Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320943668

11. Radzik-Maruszak, K. (2016). The Tampere model: An example of implementation of the New Public Governance idea. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 64(2), 110–131.

12. Sergienko, N. S. (2025). Proactive budgeting: choosing a development vector in the context of digitalization. Vestnik universiteta, 5, 190–199. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.26425/1816-4277-2025-5-190-199

13. Sergienko, N. S., Suslyakova, O. N. (2017). Forms of initiative budgeting in Russia. In: Patterns and trends in the formation of the system of financial and credit relations. Ufa: Aeterna. (In Russian).

14. Tsurkan, M. V. (2017). Analysis of regional participatory budgeting practices in the framework of local initiatives support program. Financial Journal, 3(37), 119–130. (In Russian).

15. Vagin, V. V., Shapovalova, N. A., & Gavrilova, N. V. (2019). Monitoring the development of initiative budgeting: Methodology and practice of the organization. Financial Journal, 2(48), 51–64. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31107/2075-1990-2019-2-51-64

16. Vagin, V. V., Shatokhin, D. A., & Petrova, I. V. (2024). Digital solutions in proactive budgeting: status, trends and barriers. Proceedings of the St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 3(147), 63–68. (In Russian).

17. Vagin, V. V., Shugrina, E. S. (2021). The role of participatory budgeting in forming an ecosystem of civic participation in state and municipal governance. Financial Journal, 2(13), 9–24. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31107/2075-1990-2021-2-9-24

18. Vekerle, K. V., Sokolov, I. A. (2022). Prospects and demand factors of participatory budgeting in Russia. Economic Policy, 2(17), 34–61. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2022-2-34-61 (In Russian).