Participatory budgeting is easier than participatory policy making.

Let's inflate it with AI.

Specificity and scope limitation:

In budgeting, the specifics of how funds will be spent are determined, so participants can easily intuitively understand how their input will be reflected. In policy making, the results are sometimes difficult to see and feel.

Because participants can be directly involved in how the money is spent, they are more likely to be interested and motivated. Policymaking is highly abstract and can be difficult to interest participants.

Decision-making process:

The budgeting process is relatively standardized and can easily incorporate participatory processes. Policymaking requires bringing together diverse opinions, and consensus can be difficult to achieve.

For these reasons, participatory budgeting is often felt to be easier than participatory policymaking.

But this set of "cases that could occur in the future" is discrepant to begin with.

Unless you're gathering information professionally, it's hard for people to imagine only their own familiar cases.

The level of abstraction makes it easy to get into an ideological fight.

AI is bad" or "I don't understand AI, I'm worried about it" or "AI will be detrimental to my current job" can turn into "AI is bad.

Ideological battles tend to be watertight.

It's a struggle for "rightness."

At the time, I also wrote: "I was also

Participatory budgeting asks, "Would it be beneficial to me to spend my budget on this?" and elicits a pragmatist pattern of thinking that says, "Is it beneficial to me to spend my budget on this?

Unlike "correctness," it is natural for everyone to be different.

---