Participatory institution and institutionalization of participation: a conceptual discussion

Author: Ms. Gisele Heloise Barbosa, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, BrazilCo-author: Dr. Maria Teresa Kerbauy, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Bauru, Brazil

Research financied by CAPES

IntroductionParticipatory democracy is strongly placed in Brazil on the political scene with the 1988

Constitution, which legitimized various spaces of popular participation as a response to the failure ofrepresentation to consolidate democracy. Referendums, plebiscites, public hearings, participatorybudgeting, councils, mainly were broadcast and amplified by the Workers Party (PT), both inmunicipalities and in the government of Lula (FARIA, 2010). The goal is to create bureaucratic controlmechanisms and generate more equality between civil society and political society, given the distrust ofpolitical representatives, creating a new standard of public management reform inspired byparticipatory assumptions (MILANI, 2008). However, it is possible to think of institutionalization ofparticipation? We can talk about participatory institutions in Brazil?

Researches as Avritzer (2008, 2009) and Pires (2011, ed.) were concerned in discuss the conceptof participatory institution (IP), bringing definitions that could guide the research area. This exercisehas great importance for intellectual work, because the concepts, in an effort to describe reality as anweberian "ideal type", help researchers in defining the study object. Despite the mentioned authorsconsider limited the definition of participatory institution from the institutionalist literature, by notincluding the diversity of experiences, the purpose of this article is precisely to define the concept withmore details, to delimit the search field, i.e., which means the institutionalization process in aparticipatory democratic context.

Therefore, we will discuss the concepts “institutionalization of participation” and “participatoryinstitution”, its development and use by the authors of participatory democracy, based on the idea thatthe concepts have history (KOSELLECK, 1992). This discussion is relevant because the concepts aremuch used in the recent literature on participatory democracy. The method used here is a theoretical-conceptual review of the institutionalist literature and researchers on participatory democracy, in orderto understand the concepts uses and what means the combination of the words "institution" and"participation", as it is understood in the context of Brazil's participatory democracy. To do this, westart with the neo-institutionalist debate, and then we get to democratic participation and, finally, to ourconception of a participatory institution.

1. The concept of institution: definitions and logic of functioning in the political science literatureOne of the Political Science study objects, along its historical trajectory, has been the

institutions (THELEN AND STEINMO, 1992). Since the concerns of Plato and Aristotle with thequality of politics, through the contractualist philosophers, there is a categorization of types ofgovernment and a concern in understanding how the institutions that control the power function andhow effective they are, though it was not made in order systematic or with great methodological rigor1.Thus, the discipline incorporated a normative character, dedicated to show the rules that function or notin the exercise of power and why, and point out what changes can or should be made. According toImmergut (1998), the institutional tradition has in Rousseau a boundary: his criticism to Hobbes andLocke for assuming that individual behavior in a social and historical context expresses the naturalpreferences and traits of all human beings is one institutionalist claim that behavior and preferences are

1 “Para o velho institucionalismo, instituições representavam apenas estruturas materiais. Estas poderiam ser constituições,gabinetes ministeriais ou presidenciais, parlamentos, burocracias, cortes, organizações militares, arranjos federais e, emalgumas instâncias, sistemas partidários. Em outras palavras, instituições referir-se-iam somente a órgãos do Estado ou,mais precisamente, ao governo” (NASCIMENTO, 2009, p.101).

not a coincidence. To restore the natural liberty of man on modern conditions, Rousseau proposed thesocial contract. Institutions constrain and corrupt human behavior; as history artifacts, they induceparticular behavior. Being human creations, however, they can be transformed by the policy. However,according to Peres (2008), in the first half of the twentieth century researchers start questioning thisinstitutionalist bias, criticizing the capacity of studies on formal laws, rules and administrativestructures to explain political behavior and political results.

According to Thelen and Steinmo (1992), the old institutionalism focused on the study ofadministrative structures, laws and policies, making more normative work, in order to understand howthe institutions work and which do not produce political results. There was few comparison , only somejuxtaposition of descriptions from different institutional settings in various countries, contrasting them.The behaviorism gains space, proposing a more conceptually rigorous analysis and empiricallyoriented, using methods of sciences such as anthropology, sociology and psychology, to focus on thepolitical action of the people and no more the institutions (PERES, 2008). Thus, in the 1950s and 1960soccurred the “behavioral revolution”, especially the Chicago School, rejecting the old institutionalismand focusing on informal distribution of power, attitudes and political behavior, not on the formalattributes of government institutions. However, the institutions have not disappeared from the researchagenda, although these theorists have built their analysis around critical of the dominant trends in thediscipline. They went beyond the formal structures of the old institutionalists and reified structures ofMarxist theories of capitalist domination, looking at the observable current beliefs and behaviors ofindividuals and groups.

The problem with this behaviorist approach is the loss of important institutional details: on theone hand, the "grand theory" obscured the intermediary institutions that structure policies in differentcountries; on the other, according to Moreira (2012), the behaviorist turned distanced consolidatedsubfields of political science political theory, focusing more on empirical research techniques, with apositivist influence, than on philosophical and normative discussions. Then, in the late 1960s, thebehaviorist approach receives criticals for its excessive "theoretical eclecticism", which sprayed thespecificity of Political Science, and the analytical failure to focus only on the individual actions,without making an institutional contextualization2. The questions were also related to the a-historicalapproach of traditional theories of interest groups and Marxist analysis. The point of differencebetween the two currents, according to Immergut (1998), is the observable behavior: the newinstitutionalists reject it as the basic data analysis, not be a sufficient basis to explain the entiregovernment of the phenomenon. The behavior occurs in an institutional context, and only in this waycan be understood. Thus, the institutional debate reassume the centrality in political science.

Political scientists of the American Political Science Association (APSA), especially DavidEaston, took a post-behaviorist position, making a synthesis of the old institutionalism, whichprioritized the institutions in the study of political phenomena, with behaviorism, which emphasizedthe empirical foundation and the theoretical and conceptual rigor (MARCH AND OLSEN, 2008). Thenew institutionalists, emerging in the American academy, want to know why interest groups demandeddifferent policies in different countries and what class interests are expressed in different ways acrossthe nations. They also avoided general concepts such as modernity and tradition, which tend tohomogenize classes of nations, taking concepts that capture the diversity among them. The years 1970and 1980 are marked by an intermediate level between institutional factors and the constellation ofincentives and constraints faced by political actors in different national contexts. There is a concernwith the construction of the theory, as the behaviorists, but explaining the systematic differencesbetween countries, obscured by previous theories. The question is how institutional settings form thepolitical interactions, how they affect the behavior of social actors (ANDREWS, 2005). Institutions areseen as structuring of political situations, not only as variables, and the actors are also not unaware

2 Peres (2008) also highlights the development of economic analysis on political phenomena from the 1950s, with adeductive logic that will be incorporated by rational choice theory.

(MARCH AND OLSEN, 2008).It is important to emphasize that the emerging neo-institutionalism in this context can not be

understood as a homogeneous methodological current. Hall and Taylor (2003) distinguish threeschools: historical institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and sociological institutionalism (ortheory of organizations), analyzing the function of institutions in determining policy outcomes. Theauthors also state the need for an intersection between the arguments of these schools, because all havestrengths and weaknesses. Thus, combination could complement institutional analysis, solving the gapsleft by the application of only one explanatory models. Immergut (1998) believes that the newinstitutionalism in its three chains mentioned above, have a common goal, despite the theoretical andmethodological differences; she said, it is the lack of a clear and unique proposition of what would bean institution that generates doubt about what is new in neoinstitutionalism. According to Nascimento(2009, p.100), these three chains make up a new institutional tradition, which brought to the center ofthe debate the definition of institution once political analysis is better when it starts by the institutions.

With these assumptions, the following is a presentation on the concept of institution in the neo-institutionalist perspective, starting with the rational choice institutionalism, through the historicalinstitutionalism and ending with the sociological institutionalism. Some neo-institutionalists authorswill be discussed in order to collect characteristics of what is an institution, later to get the concept ofparticipatory institution.

According to Nascimento (2009, p. 103), “o argumento central dos neo-institucionalistas é queas instituições moldam a ação. Os novos institucionalistas argumentam que a teorização dentro daciência política deve levar em conta o fato de que a ação jamais ocorre no vácuo institucional”. Withinthis line of thought, North (1993) has a short definition of an institution: the rules of the game. Anorganization, according to him, would be the group of individuals engaged in purposeful activities.Institutions determine the payoffs, as are humanly structure imposed on human interaction and,therefore, defines the incentives that determine, with other restrictions, the choices that individualsmake and shape the performance of societies and economies all the time. Its definition intends to betotalizing, however, does not go deep in the origins of the institutions or delimits its relationship withsociety. Extending this concept, Rothsthein (1998) states that institutions are the rules of the gamecapable of adding individuals and regulate their behavior; they are formal arrangements that, throughexplicit rules and decision-making, actualize the social rules through formally recognized actors withsome power. Political institutions not only distribute power or influence strategies, but also determinehow the various groups came to defend their political interests. They say who are the legitimate actors,which the number of actors, what sort of action, what information should be transmitted to the actors.

The rational choice institutionalism assumes that institutions are important as a strategic contextof resources, imposing restrictions on the self-interested behavior. According to Immergut (1998), thisline of thinking is an analysis of the choices made by rational actors under interdependent conditionsand a study of its strategic action, using tools such as game theory. Political choices should beunderstood and interpreted from the institutions (rules of the game) that allow these choices, becausethey do not permit every conceivable choice to be considered. Moreover, as political actors are awareof the effects of these rules, they will try to manipulate the rules to achieve your desired result. Thus,the choice does not express the true preferences of the actors, but an indeterminate amalgam honestlyand strategic choice. Therefore, institutions significantly affect political choices, and they are importantfor defining or constraining strategies that political actors adopt according to their interests3. “Para os

3 We consider important to differentiate rational choice institutionalism and public choice theory: “Para os teóricos daescolha pública, a intervenção do Estado não pode corrigir as externalidades negativas geradas pelas ações de atores nasociedade sem causar outras externalidades igualmente indesejáveis, como a apropriação de bens públicos por políticos eburocratas além da “quota” individual [...]. Por sua vez, os teóricos institucionalistas que se vinculam à abordagem daescolha racional crêem que as instituições são capazes de alterar as expectativas de atores que agem estrategicamente, o quepode assegurar efeitos sociais desejáveis” (ANDREWS, 2005, p.278).

institucionalistas da escolha racional, uma instituição é simplesmente um equilíbrio, isto é, um modeloregular de comportamento com expectativas mútuas sobre os cursos de ação que os atores irão tomar”(NASCIMENTO, 2009, p.116). An example is the prisoner's dilemma; when the rules change, prisonerchoices also change, because these rules structure the choices that maximize the prisoner's self-interest.Thus, who is at the center of discussion is the institutional actor (THELEN AND STEINMO, 1992).

Olson (1999) also starts with the principle of a self-interested behavior, stating that individualsor groups exist in an organization to promote their common interests, when individual action is notenough to achieve particular goals. Without this support, the organization could fail. Therefore,maximization of interest is considered as its engine, as opposed to the idea of belonging to a group, andthis is another explanation for the formation of an organization. If each group has an interest, there is a"social competition" based on a market logic. It is possible to see that emotional and ideologicalelements are not sufficient to support an organization, according to rational choice theory. To providecollective benefits, organizations must be coercive; an example is the method of trade unions, whichpromotes the compulsory affiliation with payment of fees. Workers saw the importance of the union,but if they were not in any way obliged to join, to pay contributions and to attend meetings, theorganization does not have the same strength. Similarly the State: everyone support the public benefitsit provides, but without the obligation to pay taxes, it would not survive with voluntary contributions.Furthermore, the services offered by them must be accessible to all and not just for some, State can notrefuse public benefits to who do not pay for them.

The function of an organization, therefore, consists in the provision of public and collectivebenefits to its members, because without this dimension it would not support its existence. Those whocan not make a compulsory affiliation should offer collective benefits to encourage potential members.What estimulates the association is not instinct, but the role it plays in society. The "Great of Pareto" is,in Olson's line of thinking (1999), the optimal amount of a collective benefit for a group which is givenwhen the gain group grow at the same rate as the cost of collective benefit. However, “quanto maior ogrupo, mais longe ele ficará de atingir o ponto ótimo de provimento do benefício coletivo” (OLSON,1999, p.47). This statement refers to the "logic of the ride": individuals want the benefits from theorganization, but without sharing the costs. For example, not all adhere to a strike, although everyonewants better payments; however, it is better to bear all costs and get the benefits of not achievinganything, even if others do not have any cost and receive the same way.

Another important author of the rational choice theory is Tsebelis (1998): he says that the choiceof actors is determined by the interests at stake. A seemingly suboptimal choice can result in somethingbetter according to the player's perspective. That's why it is necessary to analyze the hidden games,revealing the strategic thinking of the actors. The author of the thesis, therefore, argues that humanactivity is guided by the goal, being instrumental. individual and institutional actors tend to promote themost of their goals. However, if with the proper information the actor's choice seem suboptimal, reallyis the perspective of the observer that is incomplete: it is necessary to consider the entire networkgames. For Tsebelis (1998), the rationality is the great correspondence between ends and means,between the attitudes of the actors and the reality around them. The rational choice theory would bebetter for situations where the identity and objectives of the actors are established and the rules of theactors are accurate and known by the actors interacting.

With reference to instrumental action of institutional actors, Tsebelis (1999) defines two typesof hidden games: games in multiple arenas, where the observer considers the suboptimal choicebecause they do not realize that the actor plays in various arenas; institutional design, in which theobserver does not see that the actor is not only involved in a game inside the main arena, but in a gameabout the rules of the game. It is possible to note that it presupposes an understanding of the institutionas the rules of the game, as North (1993), and defines it like the formal rules of a political or socialgaming applicant, which are supposed to be known to the players, and that expects everyone to followthem. These rules regulate the action among political actors, institutionalized actors and individual

citizens, and bring more stability to the political game. Institutions are a combination of two idealtypes: efficients and redistributives. The efficients are those which improve the conditions of all oralmost all groups or individuals. These were defined by authors such as Plato, Thomas More, AdamSmith and the utopian socialism. The redistributives are those that improve the conditions of one groupover another, redistributing power. Authors such as Marx, Machiavelli, Mosca and Michels discussedthese institutions, which can appear in two types: first type is consolidation, preserving the interests ofa ruling coalition, ie, most are preserved and improved their condition; second type is new deal, inwhich there is the preservation of the interests of a new majority made up of previous losers and someprevious winners, significantly changing politics.

The institutions can not be examined only in the short term to Tsebelis (1998), for itsconsequences extend long-term. The rational-choice approach focuses on the constraints imposed onrational actors, which determine the behavior of actors and they produce results. Institutional changecan only occur if the following elements are changed: set of players; allowed steps; sequence match;evaluation available. Interestingly, in Tsebelis (1998), there is the assumption of the player's interest,but at the same time, his understanding of institution does not emanate from political actors. It is likethe institutional setting was already something given, and the actors just fit in it acting according totheir priorities.

The understanding of an organization or institution within the rational choice school refersprimarily to the interests of the players. In fact, the authors of this area show no concern to make a cleardistinction between institution and organization, but only Tsebelis proposed to define what is aninstitution. There is a greater sense of aggregation, a principle of identity between individuals that leadto aggregate, but just ordinary individual interests; the perception that, together, actors can get morebenefits than separated. The notion of a reward for aggregating action is also present in this stream: thegoal is to have a benefit, something that, personally, will be advantageous, as a product. Only Rawls inhis book "A Theory of Justice" (2002) puts the theory of justice as part of the theory of rational choice 4

and demonstrates an effort to break with this perspective, defining institutions as a public system ofrules that states offices and functions with their rights and duties, specifying which forms of action arepermissible or not, similar to North (1993) definition. Institutions can be considered as an abstractobject, a possible form of conduct expressed by a system of rules or the execution of the acts specifiedby those laws in the thinking and behavior of the people. Critics to rational choice theory refer to theabsence of historical element as part of the training institutions and how context of decisions taken byindividuals. Rational choice researchers present, according to Thelen and Steinmo (1992), a "universaltool kit", a model applicable to virtually any political setting, which, is not very different from previoustheories. The following model will bring a historical view of the institutions.

The historical institutionalism, according to Thelen and Steinmo (1992), part from adifferentiation of rational choice theory to understand the institutional dynamics by the perception thatinstitutions have more influence on policy formation than suggested. Most people just follow the socialrules defined, without thinking in maximizing their individual interests. Moreover, not only strategiesbut also the goals are defined by the institutional concept. The historical institutionalism rarely focuseson a single organizational sphere, as the theory of rational choice; instead, it analyzes how sets oforganizations and institutions relate to each other. Institutions are understood as a process withhistorical dimensions of causality; not just about looking at the past, but to look at processes over time.It is important to take into account the timing and sequence, the order of events, as this can make adifference (PIERSON AND SKOCPOL, 2002). The junctures involving the interaction effects betweendifferent causal sequences are relevant, which shows a macroscopic gradient historical institutionalism:“Historical institutionalists analyze organizational configurations where others look at particularsettings in isolation; and they pay attention to critical junctures and long-term processes where others

4 Rawls (2002) justifies this inclusion stating that you need to check what principles would be rational to adopt in the contractual situation.

look only at slices of time or short-term maneuvers” (PIERSON E SKOCPOL, 2002, p.693). Immergut(1998) points out that contextual factors may affect the operation and boss of the institutions and caninfluence their design. Because of the dense array of institutions in which individuals maneuver, theyare motivated by a complex mix of preferences and behaviors that may even be conflicting; here is thedynamism of the system. For the historical institutionalist, the idea of a "self-interested behavior" ofrational choice theory is limited; it is necessary an analysis historically grounded to show what actorsare trying to maximize and why the emphasis on certain goals instead of others. In addition, new ideasand facts can lead groups to rethink their interests. The project of historical institutionalism aims toexamine the relationship between political actors as objects and agents of history (THELEN ANDSTEINMO, 1992). The authors propose an analytical model based on institutional dynamics,examining the interaction of institutions and political processes in time and space.

Goodin (1996) traces the continuities and discontinuities in the study of institutions and notes aminimalist definition of institution. He states that new institutionalism is a reminder of the variouscontexts in which social action is given, bringing the following propositions: individuals and groupspursue their projects in a context that is collectively embarrassed; collective constraints are theinstitutions, marked by a values dimension and predictability. The constraints, with a historical origin,are advantageous for individuals and groups in search of their particular projects, however, the samefactors that constrain also form their preferences. The constraints embody, preserve and transmitdifferent power resources related to different individuals and groups. The individual or group action,contextually constrained and socially formed, is the engine of society. Goodin (1996) brings back thestory and the actors for the institutional debate. He conceptualizes institutionalism as a process inwhich organizations and procedures acquire value and stability. A well-designed institution is one thatis internally consistent and externally harmonious with the rest of the social order in which it operates.

By analyzing political parties, Panebianco (2005) notes the need to conceptualize institution andorganization in the light of party logic, and also makes through historical explanation. To make thisdistinction, it poses several dilemmas, stating that parties are faced with new requirements to come outof an organizational dimension to an institutional dimension, which does not mean a replacement of itspurposes as stated Michels, but a reorganization. The coherence between goals and behavior is alwaysreaffirmed by the leaders, but the strategies selected to achieve the objectives will be those that providemore organizational stability. Institutionalization is the consolidation of the organization, an output ofthe initial flow state, based on a solidarity system, to another stability and bureaucratization, withinterests and stable organizational loyalties. So there is a passage from an initial moment of creationand development of the party, with certain requirements, to a later stage, that is the consolidation, withnew responsibilities.

The party as institution is a natural system, a structure that responds and adapts to the variety ofdemands, combining them, and the leaders are the mediators, weights of these demands. The benefitsbecome selective, being distributed only to some participants and unequally. The organizationalideology is more vague, implicit and contradictory, because of its tendency to generalize andreconciliation of various demands. Leaders have a restricted freedom of choice, and the aggressivestrategy is replaced by adaptation strategy, given the environmental constraints that force the party toseek their survival. Instead of a solidarity system, the party makes a system of interest with highbureaucracy and a defined routine. Participatory logic changes, leaving the social movement type to amore professional participation. It is an understanding that values the trajectory of the historicalprocess, but also brings interpretative elements of self-interested behavior of the actors, with the lookof rational choice theory.

The third current neo-institutionalist is the sociological institutionalism, which arises from thetheory of organizations and is focused on a cognitive dimension of the institutions that shapes theperception of the actors, since they internalize this evaluative code (HALL AND TAYLOR, 2003).Thus, the analysis of institutions is accomplished through a cultural look, to understand the ideas and

standards that constitute them. “O foco é sobre a rotinização de efeitos psicológicos das estruturasculturais. Institucionalistas sociológicos argumentam que o que você sustenta (preferências, interesses,posições e finalmente, a ação) usualmente, depende do ambiente normativo e dos modelos cognitivosprevalecentes naquela sociedade” (NASCIMENTO, 2009, p.117). According to Immergut (1998), timeand information are not sufficient to allow individuals to calculate their preferences based on aweighing all alternatives and their consequences. Political decisions can not be understood as simplemacro-aggregations of individual preferences; instead, resulting in cognitive and organizationalprocedures that generate decisions, despite the uncertainty of the actors.

Following this line of thought, Putnam (1993) states that new institutionalism understandsinstitutions as those who shape policy, structuring political behavior (identity, power and strategy of theactors), but that are shaped by history: what happens before influences what comes after. Individuals“choose” institutions, but in pre-existing conditions, and their choices influence the choices of theirsuccessors. Said with other words: history, which is done by the behavior of actors, shapes institutionsand institutions shape the behavior of actors. The practical performance of the institution, to Putnam(1993), depends on the social context in which it is inserted and acts. To make this claim, he presentshis definition of institution: mechanism to achieve purposes, not only to get agreement, bringing avision that goes beyond the rules of idea of the game, because those rules, on the understanding Putnam(1993), serve to achieve socially established purposes. The institutions should be sensitive to theelectorate and effective to use resources to meet demands, sometimes even anticipating them.

Putnam (1993) assumption is that there is a relationship between institutional performance andthe "civic community", that is the system of social cooperation, which implies trust. Then he developsthe concept of "social capital": characteristics of social organization (trust, norms, systems) thatincrease the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions of voluntary cooperation, reducingthe need for physical capital. Social capital is a public good that makes democracy work, and is a resultof other social activities; none trust a person or institution only because it said that will do something,but because there is a prior knowledge of your actions and it is expected that it will prefer to do so.Social capital comes from the rules of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement that are createdand sustained by conditioning and socialization or through formal or informal sanctions. Civicparticipation systems consist of a horizontal interaction, which helps solve dilemmas of collectiveaction: the more horizontal (cooperatives, trade unions, clubs) the structure of social organizations, themore it favors the institutional performance of the general community, and the more verticalized( mafia, churches), the worse the institutional performance.

Putnam (1993) theory replaces the actors in the center of the institution, acting not only tomaximize their personal interests, but also through a logic of social cooperation. This is the majorcriticism of rational choice theory, through the actors action of understanding linked to a historicalbuilding of a value, trust - social capital. Small interest groups has no reason to work for the commongood of society, but engage in systems and norms of civic participation for collective growth. Theincorporation of civic community is not legal and economic but a moral construction. The social unitycan be maintained by reciprocity and trust or dependency and exploitation, with different levels ofefficiency and institutional performance, and institutional models tend to reinforce it, even ifineffective, because it is easier to adapt than to change. Putnam (1993) also brings back the history ofthe institutional debate, stating that you can not understand the options today without understanding itshistorical and social context, since both determine the performance of institutions.

Putnam's (1993) thesis brings us to the civic culture: is civic culture necessary for an institutionendure? According to Putnam (1993), the institutions work more effectively if there is social capital.Here we enter into a culturalism debate, referring to the democracy, which includes our object of study.What comes first: democratic institutions or democratic culture? For March and Olsen (2008, p.127),“a democracia política depende não somente da economia e das condições sociais, mas também dodesenho das instituições políticas”. Limongi et al (2003), discuss with culturalist authors and ideas,

especially Almond and Verba (authors of the reference book "The civic culture - Political Attitudes andDemocracy in Five Nations"), adopting a more skeptical stance, from the perspective of rational choice,and questioned the thesis that a political culture is requisite for a stable democracy. According to them,countries in economic vulnerability and whose democratic institutions are mostly controlled by a partyor for long terms, are more unstable. When no political force dominates completely and permanently,democracy is consolidated, favored by economic growth. This paper will adopt Putnam's (1993)perspective, contradicting the thesis of the authors and valuing the construction of a civic culture,focusing on cultural aspects that encourage the support of the democratic regime instead of institutionsformed by an instrumental rationality. However, we do not reject the need that institutions offerbenefits to the actors, for them not to see these as unnecessary.

It is also important to clarify that the institutions should not be taken as static, but susceptible tochanges in time and space; an institution model or its conceptualization do not intend to propagate thisunderstanding. Institutions may change for cyclical reasons, for not meeting effectively the purposesfor which there are, or to follow cultural nature changes. According to Goodin (1996), the maincapacity that an institutional design should have is "robustness": change and not change, whennecessary, be tough and malleable.

Qualquer instituição pode ser objeto de crítica e reforma; para isso, basta que acomunidade política chegue a um consenso – ou, mais provavelmente, a uma barganhajusta, como observa Habermas em Between Facts and Norms (1998) – sobre asmudanças que devem ser introduzidas nas instituições existentes ou ainda sobre acriação de novas instituições. Em outras palavras, o padrão de justiça não é “externo”aos atores sociais, mas é construído por esses mesmos atores por meio de discursospráticos. Assim, não é necessário recorrer a um padrão absoluto, sendo preciso apenasque os atores sociais busquem o entendimento mútuo sobre as reformas institucionais(ANDREWS, 2005, 276).

Immergut (2006) discusses this issue of institutional change, pointing how the threeinstitutionalisms face this debate from questions regarding their theoretical and methodological bases,as shown below.

The rational choice theory is an effort to understand the political behavior based onmicroeconomic models of individual choice; if it says that the special rules stabilize the results, whatbecome institutional arrangements unstable? (Immergut, 2006). According to the sociologicalinstitutionalism, humans can not process all the information they need to make fully rational decisions;and if it were possible, the cost to gather all this information would be excessive. However, what makesa routine behavior ceases to be routine? (Immergut, 2006). The historical institutionalism emphasizedhow pre-existing institutions structure conflicts and contemporary political results, concluding that pastinfluences the present policies for a variety of mechanisms. However, if the institutions socialize actorsand introduce preferences, would these actors prefer a new set of institutions? According to Immergut(1998), as the historical institutionalism never taken an equilibrium between power and institutions, toexplain the institutional change is not a problem. Institutions do not necessarily determine behavior, butpromote an action framework that helps us to understand why actors make the choices they make. Ifhistorical institutionalism does not claim that the social and political phenomena are in balance, there isno concern to explain departures from equilibrium. There is an interest in the study of distortions of theinstitutions, which denotes a pattern to be compared. According to Andrews (2005, p.274), “em geral,as investigações institucionalistas adotam uma orientação positivista, uma vez que procuram descrevere explicar a gênese de políticas públicas sem, no entanto, sugerir procedimentos visando a superar osefeitos negativos decorrentes do arranjo institucional estudado”.

From these affirmations, we have a justification for constructing an ideal type of participatoryinstitution: how to know what are the distortions if we do not have a standard? How to assess whetherthere has been institutional change in participatory institution without a benchmark? This is our

intention: to bring together elements that can compose the "ideal type" in a weberian model ofparticipatory institution. We passed the neo-institutionalist literature and their conceptualizations ofwhat is an institution, and go forward in our purpose with a discussion of the concept of democracy,since the participatory institution only exists in the context of democratic institutions. As pointedKoselleck (1992), the concepts have a history, and we must take it into account in the understanding ofits meaning. Therefore, our next goal will be to understand, starting from the conceptual frameworksthat thought participation in the democratic context, as the concept of participatory institution was builtin Brazil.

2. Democracy and participation: a history of the concept of participatory institutionHow to join neoinstitutionalism to the theory of democracy? We can say that democracy

requires the creation and maintenance of specific political institutions, as forms of politicalrepresentation. However, other mechanisms of participation are also important for society to be moreinvolved in decision-making processes and debates. Andrews (2005) discusses this issue fromHabermas' theory. Participatory institutions emphasize the communicative rationality, rather thanfocusing only on instrumental rationality. “A ação comunicativa [...] está orientada para o entendimentomútuo, ou seja, os atores sociais buscam harmonizar suas ações por meio de discursos que consistem naapresentação, crítica e obtenção de consenso sobre reivindicações de validade” (ANDREWS, 2005,p.272) the instrumental action oriented to success, in fact, may be stripped of legitimacy by the lack ofmoral consent on whom it impact; that's why the need for consensus, which is promoted by dialogue.Institutions merely guided by instrumental rationality may lack social legitimacy; so the opening forparticipation becomes relevant, especially in Brazil, where civil society demands, with democracy, aState more connected to their demands.

“[...] a legitimidade de facto das instituições não pode ser estabelecida em termosteóricos, mas apenas pela prática, ou seja, pela deliberação intersubjetiva de atoressociais cujos projetos de vida são afetados pelas instituições. Qualquer padrãosubstantivo de justiça que possa ser utilizado na construção de instituições sociais nãopoderia ir além de uma solução tecnocrática” (ANDREWS, 2005, p.277).

The democratic model institutionalizes the need for a government that is based on the demandsand social interests, as well as a hereditary power or absolute. Hence the mechanism of voting: citizenshave no time to discuss politics, but may choose representatives in elections to defend their interestsand demands. Associated to the understanding of the concept of democracy is a principle of freedom -expression, organization, to come and go - and the principle of equality - universal suffrage, the right torun for elections. According to Ugarte (2004), democracy presupposes a concept of equality: whoparticipates, has an equal right to participate and their opinions and political orientations are worthy ofbeing taken into account; it is their legitimacy, coupled with the assumption that “o número mais amplopossível de indivíduos adultos da coletividade (os cidadãos) participa livremente na tomada de decisõescoletivas por meio de procedimentos prestabelecidos como a regra da maioria” (UGARTE, 2004, p.96).The matters to be decided not to enter into the essential definition of democracy, as this would letdeliberation and democratic decision without sense.

Thus, democracy is the expression of a paradox: conflict and consensus coexist, the clashbetween ideas and interests and the articulation of political arrangements for decision-making, giventhe social demands, are the pillars of its existence. However, representative democracy has beeninsufficient to answer to the various demands of society. As already said Schumpeter, it had become anelite selection method, which perpetuation of the political system and power of possession ofmaintenance are the essential goals, with the development of an increasingly political society distancedfrom civil society instead of being immanent to it. Therefore, the concept of political participation

becomes more and more relevant in the theoretical debates on democracy and functioning.Participation was set between 60 and 80 years, according to Ribeiro and Borba (2011), in a very

embracing manner: vote, participation in discussions and political meetings, candidate for elective post,dedication to political campaign, with the creation of various types to measure the level of participationin various areas. Analyzing Brazil, the authors take as a data basis the World Value Survey (WVS) for2006, aiming to measure participation. However, among the categories used are Church, Party, Union,Under-Signed, boycotts and even manifestations, not including spaces as Participatory Budgeting,councils or conferences. It is possible to notice that the participation to which the authors refer to isquite wide, not including what has been agreed to call a participatory institution. In the political scienceliterature produced after the re-democratization in Brazil, the concept of participation has been definedfrom authors such as Pateman (1992), Arendt (2002, 2008, 2010), Habermas (1987, 2007) and Honneth(2003) , taking into account more specific aspects, such as the educational nature of the experiences ofparticipation through learning about the rules and the provision of which was held accounts, the needfor communicative rationality in the construction of a dialogical public sphere and recognition of thelegitimacy of the demands of other groups in participatory spaces. According to Marques (2012, p. 22),citing Marcos Nobre is “[...] a democracia deliberativa o modelo que institucionaliza o ideal deexercício coletivo do poder político”.

It is necessary here to make a clarification on some differences between the concept ofparticipatory democracy and deliberative democracy:

Enquanto os teóricos identificados com o modelo participativo […] procuravamestabelecer os fundamentos de sua concepção no tão somente oferecimento deoportunidades de interferência no processo de produção da decisão política (com finspedagógicos, sobretudo), a impressão que se tem é que, no modelo deliberativo, talparticipação é vista como algo natural. Isto é, não se faz necessária, para a concepçãodiscursiva, uma defesa tão enfática e contínua da participação dos cidadãos, a ponto detal aspecto caracterizar a reivindicação por excelência da tradição. É nesses termosque, partindo-se dos pressupostos da democracia deliberativa, abre-se espaço paradiscutir não simplesmente a importância da participação (seu status é reconhecido apriori), mas para esclarecer-se, paralelamente, em que parâmetros, e por meio de quaisinstrumentos, deve-se dar tal interferência (MARQUES, 2012, p.25-26).

The idea of deliberative democracy does not ignore the sphere of representation, but aims toseek new forms of representation and participation of citizens in politics. However, it is impossible totreat these concepts without taking into account the Brazilian political history and its institutionalissues, relating the impact of this when thinking about new designs democracy, expanding popularparticipation. As will be noted below, the difference between theory pointed participatory anddeliberative democracy does not faithfully apply the Brazilian reality. The theories seem to blend, sinceparticipation is an achievement of democracy that involves the development of a participatory politicalculture, in order to emphasize the importance of this participation, while that on the constitutionallegitimacy, the need arises to think and evaluate the parameters of its occurrence. Therefore, thistheoretical distinction is shown not as clear in Brazilian debate area, so that the two fields are treated asa unit in this work.

Entering the debate about Brazil, its political institutions were marked by the strong presence ofthe State as "guide" of modernization, as well as personalistic and property relations, favoring a smallgroup at the expense of the needs and most of the claims. This is evident when we look at the history ofthe country, especially for the revolts in local and higher amplitude were violently suppressed by theState, being it imperial, coronelist, populist or military. Many authors5 portrayed this State force over a

5 Some of them: Oliveira Viana (1974), Raymundo Faoro (1998), José Murilo de Carvalho (2012).

civil society "weak", "disorganized" and fragmented into various interests. Therefore, the concept ofinstitution in the Brazilian political context has always been strongly linked to the State logic, fromState to society, not emanating from the society and resulting in the creation of State institutions. Butthe concept of democracy arises in two important moments of political history of the country: after theend of “Estado Novo” dictatorial government in 1945, after the military dictatorship, being widelydiscussed in the '80s.

In the latter point, the Federal Constitution of 1988 consolidated means of expandingdemocracy beyond representation, and from that, we have the inclusion of the concept of participationin the political debate. Therefore, this time in Brazil's history was extremely important because itshould fulfill two major missions: to consolidate representative democracy, returning to people the fullpower to choose their political representatives, and open political space to a new democratic way:participatory democracy. In this context, the concept of democracy appears closely linked to theexpansion of citizenship and public participation mechanisms constitutionally legitimated, such asreferendums, plebiscites, public hearings, participatory budgets, advice. The Brazilian population, wholived twenty years of military authoritarianism, could now express their demands in these spaces,mainly extended by the Workers Party (PT), initially in the prefectures and later in the federalgovernment, with Lula's election to presidency (FARIA, 2010). The goal is to create bureaucraticcontrol mechanisms, given the distrust in political representatives, creating a new standard of publicmanagement reform inspired by participatory assumptions (MILANI, 2008).

In the 90s and 2000, with the first studies on the experiences of participation, especiallyparticipatory budgets and councils, the prevailing view was that “[...] a nova cidadania transcende umareferência central do conceito liberal que é a reivindicação de acesso, inclusão, membership,'pertencimento' (belonging) ao sistema político na medida em que o que está de fato em jogo é o direitode definir aquilo no qual queremos ser incluídos” (DAGNINO, 2004). The discussions occouredaround the creation of public spaces where the discussion and recognition of various demands could bepossible, at the same time that their structure and its initial impact was evaluated. Although at first theuse of the term "public space" in the literature did not have much concern in detail how theparticipation should take place, being used as a theoretical category to define a scope of experiencesthat emerged at the same time, several studies6 arise in order to describe, critically, the parameters of itsoccurrence, some with a little pessimistic view about the process (Gurza LAVALLE, 2011b). Toaddress the issue of rights, Telles (2004) states that for the mediation of conflicts of social life isnecessary the

[...] constituição de espaços públicos nos quais as diferenças podem se expressar e serepresentar em uma negociação possível; espaços nos quais os valores circulam, argumentos searticulam e opiniões se formam; e nos quais, sobretudo, a dimensão ética da vida social pode seconstituir em uma moralidade pública através da convivência democrática com as diferenças eos conflitos que carregam e que exigem, por isso mesmo, de cada um, a cada momento, oexercício dessa capacidade propriamente moral de discernimento entre o justo e o injusto [...](TELLES, 2004, p.92).

This use of the term "public space" differs from Habermas' concept of the public sphere,understood as a mediator between system and lifeworld, as an open space for interaction betweenindividuals who should discuss the State's decisions and present demands to it (REESE-SCHÄFER,2009). This definition goes beyond the issue of creating spaces like the councils: communicative actionmust be the basis for its operation. According to Habermas (2014, p.135):

A esfera pública burguesa pode ser entendida, antes de mais nada, como a esfera de pessoasprivadas que se reúnem em um público. Elas reivindicam imediatamente a esfera pública,regulamentada pela autoridade, contra o próprio poder público, de modo a debater com ele as

6 Some examples: Gohn (2001), Tatagiba (2002), Côrtes (2001).

regras universais das relações vigentes na esfera da circulação de mercadorias e do trabalhosocial.

In this first moment, the notion of public space, a term used in reference to “[...] àimplementação, ao longo da última década, dos vários conselhos, fóruns, câmaras setoriais, orçamentosparticipativos, etc” (DAGNINO, 2002a), was not concerned with the way the participation shouldoccur. Public spaces were only defined as places of "encounters" between civil society and government(in Brazil, a bet of 80's and 90's) “[...] regulados democraticamente para a administração de conflitos epara a construção de consensos”, resulting in a “[...] dimensão propriamente pública na sociedadebrasileira, distinta da regulação produzida pela lógica estrita do Estado ou do mercado” (DAGNINO,2002a, p.12). Therefore, starting from this definition, public spaces are part of Habermas's publicsphere, but not fully represent it, because this concept was inserted in a specific situation. The mostimportant was to consolidate the notion that this space emerged as a State control mechanism by thesociety and as a deepening of the recent democratic opening, considering the failure of formalrepresentative institutions7, and channeling the claims of a civil society that perceived itself ascomposed by diverse demands after democratization.

[…] o antagonismo, o confronto e a oposição declarados que caracterizavam essas relações noperíodo da resistência contra a ditadura perdem um espaço relativo substancial para umapostura de negociação que aposta na possibilidade de uma atuação conjunta, expressaparadigmaticamente na bandeira da “participação da sociedade civil” (DAGNINO, 2002a,p.13).

Dagnino (2002a) also distinguishes two relationship categories, based on her studies about theseparticipatory spaces: the formalized relations with a legislation tha defines functions and procedures,with a permanent character, examples are participatory budgeting and councils; and relations lessformalized, more fluid and vulnerable to relations of forces present, where the initiative varies, may befrom State or from civil society. The institutional framework of these spaces, according to the author(DAGNINO, 2002b), is variable, presenting different institutional formats; at councils, for example, theparticipation of civil society is required, however, the format they take depends on the disputes existingin different contexts. Dagnino (2002b) concludes that the relations between State and civil society aretense and conflitual, and when there is sharing of power, it does not concern about the wider andgreater impact policies, but is very restricted. However, for the author, we can not understand that “[...]‘a verdadeira política pública’ é a ideia de que seu conteúdo deve ter um sentido universalizante,dirigindo-se à população como um todo” (DAGNINO, 2002b), criticizing the policies resulting from"encounters" point and sectored, with thematic and limited groups. The analysis about these spacesneeds to be realistic, defining their scope and limits, without giving excessive importance to them orsimplifying the analysis to assign them the character of mere instrument of state legitimation.

At the book “Participação e deliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais noBrasil contemporâneo”, organized by Coelho and Nobre (2004), the terms begin to mix in the debateabout the expansion of participation in Brazil. Some of them: opportunities for participation, newinstitutional forms, institutional arrangements or institutional designs of spaces for participation,deliberative institutions, participatory institutions, institutionalized participation. However, these termsare not clearly defined or differentiated from each other, just treated as synonyms, and the definitionseems to be presupposed. As the mechanisms of participation provided for in the Constitution werebeing consolidated, the terms "institutionalization of participation" and "participatory institutions"

7 “[...] na medida em que o retorno às instituições formais básicas da democracia não produziu o encaminhamento adequadopor parte do Estado dos problemas de exclusão e desigualdade social nas suas várias expressões, mas antes coincidiu com oseu agravamento, aguçaram-se percepções que enfatizam a necessidade de aprofundar o controle do Estado por parte dasociedade” (DAGNINO, 2002a, p.10).

began to appear more frequently in the papers about participatory democracy in Brazil, expressing anew reality in the field. According Gurza Lavalle (2011, p.13):

[...] a participação, que nos anos 1960 a 1980 condensava a crítica dos atores sociais e de parteda academia perante os déficits de inclusão das instituições políticas e do crescimentoeconômico, bem como exprimia um reclamo de autodeterminação efetiva em face de partidos eintermediários políticos vários, tornou-se progressivamente, nos anos pós-transição, parte dalinguagem jurídica do Estado e atingiu patamares de institucionalização ímpares não apenas nahistória do país, mas em outras democracias.

This institutionalization movement, according Gurza Lavalle (2011), changed the content of thecrucial issues raised by the population. The participation understood in the institutional sphere meansputting rules in this the game, as pointed out by North (1993), rules for this participation happens in anorderly way, more purposeful and dialogical than merely combative (FARIA, 2010). What happens is apassage from "organized participation" to "institutionalized participation", taking the concepts ofPanebianco (1993). Federal Constitution of 1988 granted, through its commitment to democracy, a kindof "permission", a prior institutional guarantee, which legitimized the development of theseparticipatory institutional arrangements. Then, what arose is a "true institutional forest" (GurzaLAVALLE, Houtzager, ACHARYA, 2004), covering a number of "institutions of participation," insidevarious dimensions of power. However, the constitutional legitimacy is not synonymous ofparticipatory institution. It is a determining factor, but we can not say that all the spaces forparticipation that has constitutional legitimacy are institutions, since not all instances of the powereffectively implemented. At the same time, these new institutional arrangements for participationwould be the expression of a new civil society with a new political culture, and in them it wouldcontinue to be expressed.

Since the moment the participation is included in the state sphere, being recognized andaccepted by it as legitimate, allowing the sharing of the exercise of political power, there is a change inactors behavior, because they neede to deal with a predetermined work routine, with a bureaucracy,with a new agenda of priorities, with the development of a hierarchy of power and the with possibilityto express their needs. According to Carlos (2011, p.315), “a inserção institucional de movimentos eorganizações sociais [...] por um lado, ampliou as arenas de acesso à institucionalidade política e, poroutro, desafiou os atores coletivos para novas práticas e relações com o Estado”. Furthermore, thegovernment presence is essential for the proposals to be forwarded and can be effective. At Lulagovernment, political representatives were more present in these participatory spaces, according toFaria (2010). This is a factor that civil society must learn to deal, establishing a clear and conciliatorydialogue, going beyond the pure negation of the state sphere, characteristic of some social movements.State also must learn to give space to hear these social movements, leaving to deny its existence orrepressing them. In addition, you must include the individual actors, those who do not belong to anorganization, union or movement, but who are interested in the possibility of participation in publicaffairs discussions.

[...] as novas instituições de participação foram intencionalmente criadas para incluir asociedade civil, e, em alguns casos, os cidadãos individuais, nos diferentes momentos doprocesso de políticas públicas – no desenho e regulação, na supervisão ou monitoramento daimplementação e mesmo na implementação e gerenciamento de programas (GURZALAVALLE, HOUTZAGER, ACHARYA, 2004, p.345-346).

By analyzing São Paulo, Gurza Lavalle, Houtzager, Acharya (2004) create a typology with threecategories: participatory spaces in general - not constitutional councils, committees, programs,commissions (PartGeral); policy councils (PartCons) and participatory budgeting (PartOp). Wamplerand Avritzer (2004) developed the concept of "públicos participativos" (participatory teams), which“[...] compreende cidadãos organizados que buscam superar a exclusão social e política por meio da

deliberação pública, da promoção de transparência e responsabilização (accountability) e daimplementação de suas preferências políticas” (WAMPLER, AVRITZER, 2004, p.212). The existenceof this “participatory teams” contributes to the rise of institutional forms, which not only deal abstractinstitutional engineering. Opportunities for participation exist because, beyond the intention of thepolitical society to be open to dialogue, there is a civil society interested in taking advantage of theimplemented decisions. In a first stage, “participatory teams” would arise among the voluntaryassociations - neighborhood, interests - that gained strength with the return to democracy. In a secondstage, there was the challenge of overcoming clientelist and hierarchical traditions that characterizepublic goods as "favors" to be granted by the government, spreading the concept of the "right to haverights". In a third stage of development of “participatory teams”, new institutions began to develop andto absorb these new practices of binding decision.

Cornwall and Coelho (2007) used the term "participatory sphere institutions", creating adefinition that focuses least in the establishment of the concept and further in the idea of participatorysphere:

In contrast to analyses that situate such institutions within the public sphere, such as Avritzer's(2002) powerful account of Brazil's participatory governance institutions, or within the ambitof the state, as in Fung Wright's (2003) 'empowered participatory governance', we suggest thatthey constitute a distinct arena at the interface os state and society: what we term here the'participatory sphere'. The institutions of this sphere have a semi-autonomous existence, outsideand apart from the institutions of formal politics, bureaucracy and everyday associational life,although they are often threaded through with preocupations and positions formed in them. Asarenas in which the boundaries of the tecnical and the political come to be negociated, theyserve as an antirely different kind of inteface whith policy processes than other avenues throughwhich citizens can articulate their demands – such as protest, petitioning, lobbying and directaction – or indeed organize to satisfy their own needs (Cornwall and Gaventa 2001; Goetz andGaventa 2001). These are spaces of contestation as well as colaboration, into whichheterogeneous participants bring diverse interpretations of participation and democracy anddivergent agendas. As such, their are crucibles for a new politics of a public policy.(CORNWALL AND COELHO, 2007, p. 1 e 2).

The authors also punctuate that there are some preconditions for joining these spheres thatdepend on who occupies these spaces, which are the terms and who are epistemic authorities. It isimportant to highlight the representative character of these spaces, considering the presentation ofgroups demands by leaders. The authors also state that the "participatory sphere institutions" expandspaces in which population becomes aware about "political life", opening for decision-making withpublic engagement, "creating" citizenship. However, this depends not only on the performance of thesespaces, but relationships with other institutions within the public sphere and the state. There are amultitude of participants, including government officials, civil servants and affiliated to parties, a factorthat is important for happening a real debate. The problem raised in relation to "ordinary" citizens –those who are not engaged in movements or parties – is the lack of technical issues, which maydiscourage participation (CORNWALL AND RABBIT, 2007).

[…] simply putting structures of participation in place is not enough to create viable politicalinstitutions. Much comes to depend on the motivations of those who enter them, and what'participation' means to them.[…] no one wants to just talk and talk and not see anything change (CORNWALL E COELHO,2007, p. 9).

In more recent work, Avritzer (2008, 2009) Pires (2011, ed.) discussed the concept ofparticipatory institution, bringing definitions that could guide the work at the field. Avritzer (2008,p.45) understand the concept of participatory institutions as “[...] formas diferenciadas de incorporação

de cidadãos e associações da sociedade civil na deliberação sobre políticas”8, distinguishing three typesof institutions: from the bottom up (Participatory Budget: more democratizing and vulnerable topolitical will), power sharing (Council: average democratizing capacity and average dependence of thepolitical system) and public ratification (Director Plan: little democratizing and less dependent on thepolitical will). This concept is developed more detailed by him in his book “Participatory Institutions indemocratic Brazil” (2009). Avritzer (2008, 2009) also proposes the category of interactive participatorydesign, which attributes the institutions success to the relationship between institutional design, civilsociety organizations and political will to implement participatory design. This multidimensionalanalysis is also pointed by Wampler (2011) as fundamental to evaluate the impacts of participatoryinstitutions. However, the definition of Avritzer (2008, 2009) and Pires and Vaz (2010) are fairlyexpansive, not referring directly to issues such as the stability of these institutions. Cortes (2011b)posits that participatory experiences are institutions because they are not punctual, but it has become acharacteristic of Brazilian public management. The institutions impose constraints, and in the case ofparticipation, civil society is obliged to clearly define their needs and to be purposeful. Borba (2011)states, based on the neo-institutionalist literature, that participatory institutions constrain and delimitbehavior, on the other hand they also define opportunities to participate in public decisions that did notexist. This conceptual discussion will be developed below.

3. A discussion about participatory institution concept

Although some authors as Avritzer (2008, 2009), consider limited the definition of participatoryinstitution from the institutionalist literature, for not considering the diversity of experiences, thepurpose of this job is to delimit that not all experience of participation should be called institution. It isnecessary to define the concept deeply, to better delimit the field of work, what means the process ofinstitutionalization of participation. Therefore, an important reference is the institutionalism, even in itstheoretical and interpretive variations. This section intends to discuss the meaning of participatoryinstitution and institutionalization of participation concepts in Brazilian participatory practices context,articulating the institutionalist literature presented to the literature about participation.

Goodin (1996) discuss the importance of values and predictability dimension in institutions, andPanebianco (2005) speaks of stability and bureaucratization as a prerequisite for the institutionalization,leaving the “social movement participation type” for a more professional participation. Authors likeBarbosa (2014) point out problems in participatory organs studied, as the big executive intervention inthe dynamics of working in both local and national levels. However, to become an institution means tohave more strength and a level of independence. A participatory space that is vulnerable to politicalparty interests, that does not exist or has its rules circumvented by the elected representatives, could becalled participatory institution? To have legitimacy, the rules of the game must be done by participatoryinstitutions and not externally imposed. Of course they can not be totally distant of representativeinstitutions, but a participatory institution does not survive as an institution if it is totally dependent onparties or spheres of power - Executive or Legislative. If this independence of action is notconsolidated, the purpose of a participatory institution is not realized, which is to bring people to have aplace of debate and guaranteed action within the political system.

A participatory institution also presupposes State sphere; it does not exist independently, like apolitical party or an NGO. Who participates, does it into something; therefore, you can not consider atthis concept only the governmental sphere or just society. As pointed Barbosa (2014), when we talkabout participation, we assume it is in another decision-making arena. Thus, participatory democracy isnot synonymous of direct democracy, at Athenians molds. Therefore, this participation does notnecessarily imply absolute decision on all matters discussed by society, but also includes consultation

8 Pires e Vaz (2010) also share the idea that the concept of participatory institution should be exphansive to cover variousinstitutional processes.

and representation mechanisms. The concept of participatory institution contradicts the idea that Stateand participation of society are incompatible.

[...] um democrata participativo não aceita qualquer divisão rígida entre Estado e sociedadecivil, mas antes, seguindo Jean-Jacques Rousseau – o inspirador maior dessa vertente teórica - ,enfatiza a necessária identidade entre governantes e governados resultante de um único contratosocial que instituiu um único corpo político. Desse inspiração rousseauísta segue-se também adesconfiança em relação a todas as teorias democráticas fundadas na “agregação de vontades” ena competição entre líderes políticos, pois que não são capazes de apreender a “vontade geral”,mas apenas a “vontade de todos” (NOBRE, 2004, p.33-34).

A political party is created within civil society, but when compete and win elections,incorporates the State dynamics and speech, including getting the opposition groups and other partiesthat integrate it. Therefore, the party does not exist in the same way in both areas - civil society and theState. An NGO is not part of the State sphere, but try to reach the areas where there is no Statepresence. However, a participatory institution presupposes the presence of the two sides: State andsociety (civil or not9), and its existence and functioning can not be conditioned to representationmechanisms, for example, the exchange of the Executive party in elections. Also can not be consideredas participatory institution a manifestation or a popular protest, because the performance space in thiscase is only the civil society. Government comes as a target, and not as a "partner" in the process. Aparticipatory institution places in a dialog field both sides to reach an agreement.

Of equal importance is to differentiate the concepts participation in political institutions (orinstitutionalized participation), participatory institution and institutionalization of participation. In thefirst case, participation in political institutions, we can include protesters who go to the House ofRepresentatives, for example, during a vote on a matter of interest, expressing their demands throughtalks and posters. This is a political representation instance that already exists, that the population canfrequent, but whose decision-making power is concentrated in the government members elected bypopular vote for a certain time. The theoretical assumption here is that of hegemonic conceptions ofdemocracy (Santos and Avritzer 2002), who value the representation because of the unavailability ofpopulation to discuss and decide on policy issues. Of course these representative institutions can coversmaller or larger popular participation, but the question here is the guiding principle of its existence.According to Marques (2012, p.23): “o modelo democrático de viés liberal acabou privilegiando, demodo a excluir outras modalidades mais fortes de participação, a capacidade dos cidadãos de, na possede liberdades e direitos individuais, deputar mandatos em intervalos pré-estabelecidos”.

At a participatory institution, the intention is different: predominates the recognition of publicinterest by public questions and the need for it to manifest, opening an intersection space with politicalsociety - here we include both elected representatives as public servants which participate in thesespaces. The theoretical assumption are counter-hegemonic conceptions, who value accountability anddialogue as a vehicle of deepening democratic experience:

a democracia deliberativa busca uma saída com vistas a recuperar, pelo menos parcialmente, aconsistência da idéia de soberania popular e assegurar à esfera civil um lugar de maior destaquena divisão do trabalho político. Tal empreendimento coaduna-se com a necessidade, defendidapor certos teóricos do modelo discursivo, de realização de modificações institucionais naconfiguração dos estados democráticos (MARQUES, 2012, p.23).

The process of institutionalization of participation means to legitimate and consolidate spacesof participation, in order to make them participatory institutions. It is also important to note that theseorgans also combine representation mechanisms, as pointed out Carlos (2011) when she analyzed the

9 There are stages of Participatory Budgeting, for example, that any ordinary citizen can have a voice to express their demands, even if belongs or not to any organized group.

institutional design of the participatory budgeting in three municipalities from the state of EspíritoSanto. These civil society representatives do not receive remuneration as members of representativeinstitutions in elected or commissioned positions, and in the public functionalism service. Again, it ispossible to speak of greater or lesser opening of interest; as already mentioned, what differentiates isthe reason that guided its creation. However, it is also important to consider the ability to consolidateitself autonomously on representative institutions, so that does not become just another extension ofthem to legitimize governments. We should also consider the condition of the actors who have unmetneeds, as “[…] se há agentes que sequer conseguem fazer-se ouvir ou que não possuem as mínimascondições de iniciar uma contenda, pode-se questionar a legitimidade da decisão (MARQUES, 2012,p.26).

Institutionalizing participation also means to introduce participants in a universe of differentneeds, taking these actors to the understanding that it is not possible to comply with all demands atonce, it is necessary to expand their political horizon and also look at the reclames of other groups,selecting collectively service priorities. The groups learn to not only maximize their own interests, asstates rational choice theory, but they learn to take collective decisions based on even trustful ties withState sphere. The maintenance of "social capital” (PUTNAM, 1993) is essential for institutionalperformance to be satisfactory. Institutions to Putnam (1993) serve to achieve socially establishedpurposes. If participatory spaces do not reach these purposes, should them be called participatoryinstitutions? Complementing this argument, we have Milani (2008) statement:

Para que o governar localmente adquira relevância política nesse segundo conjunto de reformasdo Estado e da administração pública, é essencial conceber políticas efetivas dedescentralização de meios e recursos, que é fundamental na construção da institucionalidadeparticipativa, visto que não haveria nada mais desgastante para a participação do cidadão e dasorganizações da sociedade civil do que uma série de discussões sem a posterior implementaçãodas decisões.

However, remembering Olson's theory (1999), it is clear that obtaining benefits, mostlycollective, is also a stimulating factor for participation10. The scope of the demands required by theparticipants is an important point to stimulate participation and also should be considered (CORTES,2011a). As Panebianco (2005) points to explain the passage of the party as an organization for the partyas an institution, in which there is an adaptation to the variety of social demands, the institutionalizationof participation takes to the proposition of clear and achievable goals, which do not abolish the needsfrom other groups. There is also the accountability, which must be done by civil society too (GurzaLAVALLE, 2011), and the partnership between it and the State: “[...] governo e partidos numa frente esociedade civil em outra atuam de ‘ambos os lados da mesa’, quer dizer, os primeiros disputam arepresentação da sociedade civil e os segundos procuram agir a partir da sua inserção na sociedadepolítica” (GURZA LAVALLE, 2011, p.16). Faria (2007) also says, when discussing Habermas'discursive / deliberative model, which is more important to understand what is the rationality whith thatcitizens establish the rules of the democratic game than to measure the number of participants in theprocess. Following his line of thought, which would give legitimacy to a participatory institution is thequality of the decision and not the amount of people involved.

The factors listed above as characteristic of a participatory institution determine and constrainactors behaviors; from this, it is possible to develop political and democratic learning. Thisunderstanding of institutionalization of participation as the establishment of rules of the game is placedmore implicitly in some work on participatory democracy in Brazil, that focused more on the conceptof participation than in the concept of institution, except for some authors discussed above. Faria

10 Borba (2011) places that participatory budgeting tends to generate selective benefits by putting several regions incompetition for investments, while the management councils are more likely to result in collective benefits because discussbroad issues and produce results for all citizens, even if they did not contribute to decision making process.

(2010), for example, states that the creation of a "participatory method" is necessary, to regulatedialogue between civil society organizations and the government. Romão and Martelli (2013)summarize the debate on participatory democracy, showing how the theory is connected to reality andwhich advances the literature made in relation to the subject and indicate that the evaluation of theresults need to consider the multidimensional character of these institutions, but not define a conceptfor participatory institution, although systematically use the term.

Carlos (2011) proposed to discuss the issue of institutionalization from the perspective of socialmovements, building on the participatory spaces made, however, it states that the inclusion inparticipatory institutions and changes in government relations11 become predominant formalmechanisms of action in some movements, instead of protests and occupations12. In his doctoral thesis,the author is referred to the definition of Avritzer (2008) as a basis for discussion, as well as thedefinitions of Cortes' levels of institutionalization (2011b), mentioning that participatory institutionscan constrain collective action (NASCIMENTO, 2012). Bunivich (2014, p.58) brings a somewhatclearer delineation of their understanding of institutionalization of participation:

Não foram objeto da pesquisa os mecanismos de participação social não institucionalizados.Isso significa que não estão incluídas as diversas associações da sociedade civil brasileira, mastão somente os conselhos de políticas e programas legalmente institucionalizados peloExecutivo federal e municipal.

In her research, Bunivich (2014) aims to map and classify the federal and municipal councils.For that, she defines as participatory institutions councils and formalized programs for political power.Starting from the basic understanding of the institution as the rules of the game, we could questionwhether the formal political recognition by either the Executive, the Legislature or the Judiciary,implies the establishment of these rules, or what is called institution is totally dependent on orders andoutrages from these political power. If there is no clear definition of rules, which are enforced by theactors, varying according to the political party in power, for example, that space could be calledparticipatory institution13? So the search field lacks a clear definition of the terms.

The fact is that researchers in this field has been dedicated to studying these rules of the gameestablished in the various participatory institutions, evaluating the institutional design, recruitment andperformance of the actors and also which answers these bodies have offered to civil society. However,there must be a clear understanding that a participatory space or a public sphere of political deliberationare not synonymous with participatory institution. An IP requires more stability in their practices,defined rules, defined actors, as discussed in the institutionalist literature. A clear definition of what is aparticipatory institution, which means the process of institutionalization may serve to enhance thestudies of the area, in that the operating logic, the fields of action and the limits of these bodies couldbe better defined, without exaggerated optimism and pessimism about its dynamics and producedresults. In addition, the definition assists in the understanding of study object: any environment orspace that is open to public participation is a participatory institution? Are there regularly at rulesestablished for its operation, generating hierarchies and work routine? Is there a definition of the actors

11 The author points out that relations with government were confrontational and repressive when these movementsemerged. With the institutionalization of participation in government agencies, it opened space for cooperation anddialogue.12 The protests of June 2013 in Brazil and the following events are the opposed to this thesis.13 The purpose of this discussion is not invalidate jobs that do not examine this institutional dimension, but only discuss theneed to conceptualize what is a participatory institution. It is also necessary to develop studies on informal practices that aremore related to the environment in which the organism is inserted than the formal rules that guide. An example is the workof Romão (2011) analyzing the relationship between OP counselors of Osasco, which places the close relationship of thesewith the political parties and the municipal electoral process. This relationship determines the OP's agenda and constrainsthe behavior of the actors. However, this constraint does not come from formal rules, but from the parties and politicalpractices of the actors inserted in the two spheres.

behavior by the rules/ routines created? Public audiences, participatory budgetings, councils, all ofthese spaces at all, can be called participatory institutions? Was there institutional change? Theseanswers will solved in future research, with more conceptual rigor by researchers, clearly defining whattheir understanding of participatory institution.

The process of institutionalizing participation intensified during the Lula government, aspointed Faria (2010), with the goal of creating a new kind of governance through the development of a"participatory approach". The boundary of this intention was the creation of the National SocialArticulation Secretariat, linked to the General Secretariat of the Presidency, combining institutionallyparticipation and representation and giving voice to civil society. However, as the author points:

[...] a presença desses canais não garante, por si só, que estas mesmas vozes serão incluídasnos processos decisórios destas mesmas sociedades. Para a construção de uma dinâmicacooperativa, que redunde em um processo inclusivo mais amplo, uma série de variáveis deveestar presente. Destacamos aqui, além da necessidade de uma sociedade civil ativa e atenta, aimportância da presença de um conjunto de atores institucionais engajados na promoção esustentação das inovações participativas em curso (FARIA, 2010, p.202).

Faria and Ribeiro (2011) state that the larger regulating operation, the most institutionalized areparticipatory spaces. However, an institution that requires participatory can not be considered as suchonly because of regular operation, if there is no guaranteed means for the population to have a voice. Itis necessary that there are no "informal laws" that block participation. The existence of constraintsstays with the political process , in wich a group may not want to decide only in their favor; there aremany interests in the game. What can not happen are constraints from elected politicians, because itbrings down the process of institutionalization of participation.

In a study covering twenty years of participatory budgeting in several municipalities, Costa(2010) mentions the process of institutionalization, understanding that it is not enough only to includethe Participatory Budgeting as part of the political process to it lasts over several mandates. There mustbe a real incorporation of the policy decisions, changing the local political culture. This process ispresented by the author based on the type of Ruda Ricci14, dividing it into three stages: legitimization,effectiveness and institutionalization. This last one

É a fase em que o OP é consolidado (ou interiorizado) na cultura política e social do município,capaz de se sustentar ao longo dos mandatos. Para isso, a dinâmica participativa deve superar aestrutura burocrática da organização estatal por meio de um sistema de gestão de naturezahíbrida (instâncias estatais onde o governo e a sociedade civil estariam assentados paragerenciar as políticas públicas). É nesse momento que é possível vislumbrar a superação daantiga cultura local por uma nova cultura política de desenvolvimento do município a partir daidentificação explícita das intenções políticas e do envolvimento do cidadão na decisão daalocação dos recursos públicos (COSTA, 2010, p.11).

The consolidation of participatory institutions does not depend on aspects such as localassociations, as shown by Carlos (2011, p.123): “[…] alguns estudos têm demonstrado que o desenhodas instituições participativas e o compromisso do governo local podem abrandar o efeito dadesigualdade de tradição associativa e conduzir a experimentos bem-sucedidos de democraciaparticipativa”. Both the institutional design of participatory spaces and the association have an impacton the degree of institutionalization of participation, restricting their progress or contribute to itsconsolidation. To participatory spaces become participatory institutions, they must operate changes, asdescribed by Carlos (2011, p.128):

A construção de uma “nova institucionalidade” norteada por princípios, regras e critérios deinclusão dos atores sociais no processo decisório pode viabilizar a adequação do fazer públicoao exercício de autoridade societal, ajustando a máquina administrativa ao fortalecimento das

14 Avaiable in http://www.espacoacademico.com.br/036/36ricci.htm

experiências de participação e a alterações nas políticas do governo.

Finally, as the end product of all theoretical discussion, we produced a conceptual frameworksummarizing the characteristics attributed to the concept of participatory institution, in order to create asort of "ideal type", an additive-normative definition able to guide work field related to participatorydemocracy. According to the literature presented, the items were divided by the conceptual approach:those who are closer to the concept of institution, and linked to the concept of participation. This doesnot mean that all participatory institution should be fully fit this model; it just makes a synthesis thatallows to measure the degree of institutionalization of participation.

Table 1 - Participatory Institution: type ideal

Theoretical overview about the characteristics of a participatory institution. Self elaboration.

Final considerations

It is necessary to clarify that the intention of this work is not to delegitimize research onparticipatory spaces, for example, are greatly influenced the outrages supporters, but set a limit to whatcan be called participatory institution and what is the institutionalization process participation. We cannot "consecrate" a model of participation, such as participatory budgeting, and state that any experiencemust be considered a participatory institution, treating it generically. The ideal type here should not bethe participatory budget, but the concept of participatory institution and what that means to the processof institutionalization of participation. This kind of generalization can lead to the erroneous notion thatour participatory democracy is consolidated only because there are numerous participatory spaces, butin practice has not stable procedures, or in structural terms or in terms of inclusion to participation.Institutionalization analysis of participation needs to be diachronic; participatory spaces were not born"ready", but it has been appropriate and rebuilt by its actors, gaining more stability in the rules of thegame. Therefore, it would be pertinent to ask: what is the level of institutionalization of certainBrazilian participatory spaces? What institutional changes occurred along the participatory practices?The synthesis of the characteristics found in the literature discussed is an effort to clear the field of

study, facilitating future analysis which intend to answer similar questions.

Brazilian participatory democracy has the peculiarity of constitutional legitimacy, but that doesnot mean we necessarily have participatory institutions when we talk about all participatory budgeting,management councils, conferences, among others, generically. The factors here listed from theinstitutionalist literature can lead us to conclude that, in fact, participation in Brazil still follows ageneral process of institutionalization, because participation as a legitimate institution that dictates therules of the game, giving voice citizens to have stability and autonomy from the party wants, it is notthe "general rule" of national and local political organizations. Our democracy has some participatoryinstitutions between the councils, participatory budgetings and others, but not yet a necessary practicein our policy, as the mechanisms of representation. However, empirical work and the protests in June2013 showed that the great demand of civil society is to have recognition of their needs, and that theway democracy should follow is to give voice to population, restructuring their institutions and makingthem more inclusive.

The institutionalization of participation, as has been raised in empirical research, made thespaces of participation lose part of their social legitimacy, suffering from excessive bureaucracy and theextension for you the state financial crisis (Bresser-Pereira and SPINK 1998 ; MILANI, 2008). ToRomão (2013), these organs have their limits, two of plants: the restriction of public funds and the factthat participation covers society as a whole, the "ordinary citizen", that directly affected by publicpolicies. However, according to the author, participatory institutions have not lost their place andcontinue to fulfill an essential role in society, which is the right to quality information and learning ofthe actors in relation to the rules of the game.

References

ANDREWS, C. W. Implicações teóricas do novo institucionalismo: uma abordagem habermasiana. DADOS – Revista de Ciências Sociais, Rio de Janeiro, v. 48, n.2, 2005, p.271-299.

ARENDT, H. A condição humana. 11.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2010, p.1-25; 219-308.

_____. Crises da república. 2.ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 2008.

_____. O que é política? 3.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2002.

AVRITZER, L. Instituições participativas e desenho institucional: algumas considerações sobre a variação da participação no Brasil democrático. Opinião Pública, Campinas, v.14, n.1, p.43-64, 2008.

AVRITZER, Leonardo. Participatory institutions in democratic Brazil. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009, 205p.

BORBA, J. Participação política como resultado das instituições participativas: oportunidades políticas e o perfil da participação. In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

BRESSER-PEREIRA, L. C.; SPINK, P. Reforma do Estado e administração pública gerencial. São Paulo: FGV, 1998.

BUVINICH, D. P. R. O mapeamento da institucionalização dos conselhos gestores de políticas públicasnos municípios brasileiros. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v.48, n.1, p.55-82, 2014.

CARLOS, E. Movimentos sociais: revisitando a participação e a institucionalização. Lua Nova, São Paulo, vol.84, p.353-364, 2011.

CARVALHO, J. M. Cidadania no Brasil: o longo caminho. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2012.

COELHO, V. S. P.; NOBRE, M. Apresentação. In: COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (orgs.).Participação e deliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p. 11-18.

CORNWALL, A.; COELHO, V. S. P. (orgs.). Spaces for change? The politics of citizen participation innew democratic arenas. London; New York, Zed Books, 2007, 270p.

CORTES, S. V. Instituições participativas e acesso a serviços públicos nos municípios brasileiros. In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011a, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

_____. As diferentes instituições participativas existentes nos municípios brasileiros. In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011b, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

COSTA, D. M. D. Vinte anos de orçamento participativo: análise das experiências em municípios brasileiros. Cadernos Gestão Pública e Cidadania, São Paulo, v.15, n.56, p.8-28, 2010.

DAGNINO, E. Os movimentos sociais e a emergência de uma nova noção de cidadania. In: ______. (org.) Anos 90: política e sociedade no Brasil. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 2004.

DAGNINO, E. Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. In: ______. (org). Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2002a.

DAGNINO, E. Sociedade civil, espaços públicos e a construção democrática no Brasil: limites e possibilidades. In: ______. (org). Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2002b.

FAORO, R. Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro. São Paulo: Globo, 1998.

FARIA, C. F. Complexidade social e soberania popular: uma tensão constitutiva na teoria democrática. Teoria & Pesquisa, São Carlos, vol. XVI, n.1, p. 61-96, 2007.

FARIA, C. F. Estado e organizações da sociedade civil no Brasil contemporâneo: construindo uma sinergia positiva? Revista de Sociologia Política, Curitiba, v.18, n.36, p.187-204, 2010.

FARIA, C. F.; RIBEIRO, U. C. Desenho institucional: variáveis relevantes e seus efeitos sobre o processo participativo. In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

GOODIN, R. E. Institutions and their design. In: GOODIN, R. E. The Theory of Institutional Design.Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

GURZA LAVALLE, A. Após a participação: uma nota introdutória. Lua Nova, São Paulo, v.84, p.13-23, 2011.

GURZA LAVALLE, A. Participação: valor, utilidade, efeitos e causa. In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org).Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília: Ipea,2011b, p.33-42. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento, 7).

GURZA LAVALLE, Adrián; HOUTZAGER, Peter P.; ACHARYA, Arnab. Lugares e atores da democracia: arranjos institucionais participativos e sociedade civil em São Paulo. In: COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (orgs.). Participação e deliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p.343-367.

HABERMAS, J. Teoria de la acción comunicativa. V. 2. Madrid: Taurus, 1987.

HABERMAS, J. Três modelos normativos de democracia. In: _____. A inclusão do outro. 3.d. São Paulo: Loyola, 2007, p.277-292.

HABERMAS, J. Mudança estrutural na esfera pública: investigações sobre uma categoria da sociedade burguesa. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2014.

HALL, P.A; TAYLOR, R.C.R. As três versões do neo-institucionalismo. Lua Nova, São Paulo, n.58, p.193-223, 2003.

HONNETH, A. Luta por reconhecimento. São Paulo; Editora 34, 2003.

IMMERGUT, E. M. Historical Institutionalism in Political Science and the problem of change. In: Andreas Wimmer & Reinhart Kössler (eds.). Understanding change: models, methodologies, and metaphors. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, p.237-259.

IMMERGUT, E. M. The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism. Politics & Society, v.26, n.1,March 1998, p. 5-34.

KOSELLECK, Reinhart. Uma história dos conceitos. Estudos Históricos, Rio de Janeiro, vol.5, n. 10, p. 134-146, 1992.

LIMONGI, F; PRZEWORSKI, A; CHEIBUB, J. A. Democracia e cultura: uma visão não culturalista. Lua Nova, n.58, p.11-35, 2003.

MARCH, J. G.; OLSEN, J. P. Neo-institucionalismo: fatores organizacionais na vida política. Revista de Sociologia e Política, Curitiba, v. 16, n. 31, p. 121-142, 2008.

MARQUES, Francisco P. J. A. O problema da participação política no modelo deliberativo de democracia. Revista de Sociologia Política, Curitiba, v. 20, n. 41, p. 21-35, fev. 2012.

MILANI, C. R. S. O princípio da participação social na gestão de políticas públicas locais: uma análise de experiências latino-americanas e europeias. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, v.42, n.3, p,551-579, 2008.

MOREIRA, M.S. O debate teórico-metodológico na ciência política e o pensamento social e político brasileiro. Teoria e Pesquisa, São Carlos, v.21, n.1, p.73-89, 2012.

NASCIMENTO, E. C. Movimentos sociais e instituições participativas: efeitos organizacionais, relacionais e discursivos. Tese de doutorado. São Paulo: 2012, 399p.

NASCIMENTO, E. O. do. Os novos institucionalismos na ciência política contemporânea e o problemada integração teórica. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, n.1, Brasília, 2009, p. 95-121.

NOBRE, Marcos. Participação e deliberação na teoria democrática: uma introdução. In: COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (orgs.). Participação e deliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p.21-40.

NORTH, D. Institutional Change: a framework of analysis. In: SJÖSTRAND, S.-E. InstitutionalChange. New York: SSE - Studies in Socio-Economics. 1993.

OLSON, M. A lógica da ação coletiva: os benefícios públicos e uma teoria dos grupos sociais. São Paulo: Edusp. 1999.

PANEBIANCO, A. Modelos de Partido: organização e poder nos partidos políticos. São Paulo:Martins Fontes, 2005.

PATEMAN, C. Participação e teoria democrática. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1992.

PERES, P.S. A evolução histórica do neo-institucionalismo da ciência política. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v.23, n.68, p.53-71, 2008.

PIERSON, Paul; SKOCPOL, Theda. Historical Institutionalism in contemporary Political Science. In:KATZNELSON, Ira; MILNER, Helen V. (eds). Political Science: the state of the discipline. New York:W.W. Norton, 2002, p.693-721.

PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

PIRES, R. R. C.; VAZ, A. C. N. Participação faz a diferença? Uma avaliação das características e efeitos da institucionalização da participação nos municípios brasileiros. In: AVRITZER, L. (org.). A dinâmica da participação local no Brasil. São Paulo: Cortez, 2010, p.253-304.

PUTNAM, R. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

RAWLS, J. Uma teoria da justiça. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2002.

REESE-SCHÄFER, W. Compreender Habermas. 2. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2009.

RIBEIRO, Ednaldo A; BORBA, Julian. As dimensões da participação política no Brasil. Teoria &Pesquisa, v.XX, n.2, jul/dez 2011, p.11-36.

ROMÃO, W. M. Conselheiros do Orçamento Participativo nas franjas da sociedade política. LuaNova, São Paulo, v.84, p.353-364, 2011.

ROMÃO, W. M.; MARTELLI, C. G. Estudos sobre as instituições participativas: o debate sobre suaefetividade. Pensamento e Realidade, v.28, n.1, p.124-143, 2013.

ROTHSTEIN, B. Political Institutions: An Overview. In: GOODIN, R. E.; KLINGEMANN, H.-D. ANew Handbook of Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998.

SANTOS, B. S.; AVRITZER, L. Para ampliar o cânone democrático. In: SANTOS, B.S. (org.)Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Rio de Janeiro: CivilizaçãoBrasileira, 2002. p.39-82.

TELLES, V. S. Sociedade civil e a construção de espaços públicos. In: DAGNINO, E. (org.) Anos 90: política e sociedade no Brasil. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 2004.

THELEN, K.; STEINMO, S. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. In: STEINMO, S.;THELEN, K.; LONGSTRETH, F. Structuring Politics. Historical institutionalism in comparativeanalysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

TSEBELIS, G. Jogos Ocultos: escolha racional no campo da política comparada. São Paulo:Edusp, 1998.

UGARTE, Pedro Salazar. Participação para qual democracia? In: COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE,Marcos (orgs.). Participação e deliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2004, p.93-106.

VIANA, O. Instituições políticas brasileiras. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 1974.

WAMPLER, B. Que tipos de resultados devemos esperar das instituições participativas? In: PIRES, R. R. C. (org.) Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação. Brasília, Ipea, 2011, v.7, 372 p. (Diálogos para o desenvolvimento).

WAMPLER, Brian; AVRITZER, Leonardo. Públicos participativos: sociedade civil e novas instituiçõesno brasil democrático. In: COELHO, Vera Schattan P.; NOBRE, Marcos (orgs.). Participação edeliberação – teoria democrática e experiências institucionais no Brasil contemporâneo. SãoPaulo: Editora 34, 2004, p.210-238.