The seesaw experience of participatory budgeting: the role of the institutional entrepreneur

In recent decades, public administrations have increasingly adopted collaborative governance models to generate public value through inclusive decision-making (Osborne, 2006). Among these innovations, Participatory Budgeting (PB) has gained international attention for rebuilding trust between citizens and public institutions (Kurkela et al., 2023; Sinervo et al., 2024). Although the concept and objectives of PB are well-established, its implementation results vary significantly regarding citizen engagement and institutionalization (Ebdon et al., 2016; Jacquet et al., 2024).

Research indicates that the success of PB initiatives hinges on design choices, contextual factors, and the decisions of internal actors in public administration, such as elected representatives and public managers (Pulkkinen et al., 2024). These include political figures (elected representatives) and public managers who influence the process from both strategic and operational standpoints. In particular, organisational capabilities – such as leadership, professionalism, and the quality of interactions between managers and politicians – have been shown to significantly affect the PB success (Ewens and Van der Voet, 2019; Liao, 2018). For example, politicians are responsible for making key strategic decisions and championing PB; simultaneously, public managers oversee its execution, adjusting activities as needed to align with contextual demands (Manes-Rossi et al., 2023). However, despite growing interest in the governance of participatory processes, few studies have systematically examined how internal dynamics – particularly the roles of political and managerial actors – contribute to the PB institutionalisation by engaging with its actual operational phases (Bartocci et al., 2022; Pulkkinen et al., 2024). In this study, institutionalisation is understood not as a static and formal achievement, but as a process shaped through the concrete enactment of PB’s key stages, widely recognised in the literature (Mattei et al., 2022).

Therefore, to address the cited gap, the study focuses on the role of key internal actors across these operative stages, providing an analytical lens through which to examine how internal actors shaped the PB trajectory within the city. This operational focus responds to calls in the literature to move beyond formal frameworks and attend to how PB is enacted in practice, as its institutionalisation hinges not only on legal provisions but also on the capacity to monitor and interpret its concrete variations (Allegretti et al., 2021). The analysis draws on the theoretical framework of institutional entrepreneurship, which identifies characteristics that enable actors to drive institutional change (Battilana, 2006; Battilana et al., 2009).

Using a descriptive and explanatory single-case study with a qualitative approach (Yin, 1984), the research focuses on Rome’s 2019 PB experience, highlighting the role of an institutional entrepreneur (IE) who navigated the process within a complex political and administrative context. Data were collected through interviews, focus groups, meeting transcripts, and official documents, focusing on political leaders and public managers who played a central role in steering the process.

The findings emphasize the crucial role of politicians as IEs, who utilize their skills to drive institutional change. However, the study also points out potential challenges: if political leadership is disrupted by contextual instability, the resulting institutional change may not achieve the intended outcomes.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing literature on PB and outlines the theoretical framework, drawing on the institutional entrepreneurship perspective. Section 3 details the research methodology employed in the study. Section 4 introduces the Roman case study, followed by an analysis of internal actors in Section 5. Section 6 presents a discussion of the findings, and Section 7 concludes with the study’s research contributions and practical implications.

In recent decades, literature has focused on the role of public administration in creating public value, initially evoked by Moore (1995). Meynhardt (2009) suggests that this creation involves more than just public administration; other actors, including citizens, play a crucial role. Consequently, management approaches like new public governance (Osborne, 2006) emerged, recognising citizens as key participants rather than mere end-users (Almqvist et al., 2013).

PB promotes citizen involvement and strengthens ties between communities and public institutions, fostering inclusiveness and equitable deliberation (Bartocci et al., 2019; Aleksandrov and Mauro, 2023; Sinervo et al., 2024). This process is essential for governments with significant autonomy and should incorporate financial aspects (Sintomer et al., 2012). Engaging people in various stages is vital, as public deliberation allows ideas to emerge, ultimately leading to constructive debate and their fulfilment. Sintomer et al. (2008) identify six PB models:

1. Participatory Democracy empowers citizens with decision-making authority, promoting social justice thanks to political support.

2. Proximity Democracy encourages local involvement while elected representatives retain decision-making power, often leading to merely consultative outcomes.

3. Participatory Modernization enhances public administration efficiency, focusing on legitimacy and involving mainly middle-class participants.

4. Multi-stakeholder Participation includes various actors in budget discussions, although power imbalances can limit citizen influence.

5. Neo-corporatism involves organised groups representing societal interests, but often fails to promote real civic independence.

6. Community Development prioritises local communities in executing projects, fostering autonomy and collaboration.

Although Sintomer et al.’s (2008) taxonomy remains influential in PB research, it fails to capture the hybrid, digital nature of newer models that blend traditional approaches with e-participation tools. This highlights the need for a broader framework, as suggested in recent e-PB literature (Mattei et al., 2024; Santolamazza et al., 2024).

Although PB can be institutionalized in various ways, it is possible to identify key stages that structure the process (Mattei et al., 2022):

1. Initiation and Information Dissemination: This phase focuses on launching the process, defining key topics, and sharing information.

2. Proposals Presentation: Citizens submit suggestions either individually or through co-design with the administration, fostering open discussion.

3. Evaluation of the proposals: Proposals are assessed for technical and economic feasibility, often involving technical committees and, in some cases, citizen participation.

4. Voting: Citizens or the public administration express their preferences on which projects should be implemented.

5. Implementation and Monitoring: This phase ensures accountability by tracking project progress and addressing any emerging issues in the project’s implementation.

Despite PB’s global recognition, it often favours symbolic over real empowerment, leaving citizens feeling excluded (Mattei et al., 2022). Therefore, the success of PB is not guaranteed and can vary based on cultural, environmental, and individual factors (Murray Svidroňová et al., 2024).

Among the factors that affect PB’s success, the behaviour and motivations of key internal actors, particularly politicians and public managers – who can influence policy decisions, institutional reforms, and the practical implementation of innovative processes (Manes-Rossi et al., 2023) – play a significant role.

Sharing governance with citizens initially depends on the willingness of politicians (Sønderskov, 2019; Murray Svidroňová et al., 2024), as they are often responsible for framing policy agendas, building political coalitions, and legitimising change (Kingdon, 2002). However, how this process unfolds can vary significantly depending on individual political actors and their strategic orientations.

Politicians’ openness and commitment strongly influence citizen engagement (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006), while personalism can undermine PB’s democratic goals (Aleksandrov et al., 2018). In some cases, personal agendas lead to symbolic or manipulative participation, thereby reinforcing power imbalances rather than promoting inclusive governance (Kuruppu et al., 2016).

Public managers also play a crucial role in the institutionalisation of PB, translating strategic visions into procedures that ensure legal compliance, technical feasibility, and continuity beyond political cycles (Manes-Rossi et al., 2023).

Effective collaboration between public managers and political actors is essential to the success of participatory initiatives; however, their professional interests and incentives may not always align, potentially affecting the implementation of PB in practice.

In contexts lacking established participatory practices, strong political leadership may be viewed as patronage or interference (Lopes and Vieira, 2023; Staronova et al., 2025). However, politicians often rely on public managers for technical expertise and navigating governance systems (Broccardo et al., 2019), emphasizing the need for coordination and trust. This interdependence relates to organisational capabilities – such as leadership style and political-managerial collaboration – critical for successful participatory budgeting (Ewens and Van der Voet, 2019; Liao, 2018). Effective collaboration ensures that political vision aligns with managerial feasibility; poor alignment can lead to superficial or ineffective outcomes.

Despite growing recognition, little research has examined how internal actors initiate, shape, and sustain PB (Bartocci et al., 2022). Their strategic roles, interdependencies, and agency remain underexplored, a gap this study seeks to address.

As noted in Section 2.2, understanding the institutionalisation of governance-sharing practices, such as PB, requires close attention to internal actors, even in contexts shaped by similar societal values (DiMaggio, 1988). Local reforms have often been explained through individual agencies at the micro level (Xing et al., 2018), especially when external pressures are vague and standardization is lacking (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2012). In such cases, internal actors respond in diverse ways, often introducing innovation (Jensen and Fersch, 2019; Hyvönen et al., 2012). While agency in institutional change has been studied (DiMaggio, 1988), few works connect strategic intent with actual implementation (Bakir et al., 2021).

To address this gap, institutional entrepreneurship provides a valuable lens for understanding how internal actors drive PB. IEs are change agents who create or reshape institutions and build shared rationales (DiMaggio, 1988; Battilana, 2006; Bakir et al., 2021). Their traits are key to overcoming challenges and seizing opportunities in PB processes:

1. IEs use their social position to influence other actors, shaping perceptions and mobilising support for change (Maguire et al., 2004; Hardy and Maguire, 2008; Vakulenko, 2022).

2. IEs possess strong social skills, enabling them to motivate cooperation and create a shared understanding of the problems and the necessity of change through continuous discursive interactions (Fligstein, 1997; Hardy and Maguire, 2017; Argento et al., 2018).

3. They manage to create supportive relationships, calling the right people to action or constructing new relationships to expand their support network (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2012; Albu et al., 2014; Vakulenko, 2022). These actors can strategically motivate others to perform the necessary changes (Qureshi et al., 2016).

4. IEs possess a strong sense of reflexivity and personal preferences involving internal dialogue and critical self-awareness. They evaluate existing norms and envision changes that challenge entrenched institutional frameworks (Battilana, 2006; Mutch, 2007; Albu et al., 2014; Vakulenko, 2022).

5. IEs often bring extensive professional and educational experience and expertise in their field, equipping them with the knowledge needed to challenge institutional structures and propose viable alternatives (Mutch, 2007; Argento et al., 2018).

In the context of PB, the role of IEs can often be attributed to politicians and public managers, who leverage their unique skills to drive the process.

Thus, these insights enable the development of a framework analysing how IE characteristics impact PB phases, as shown in Table 1.

The framework emphasises how IE characteristics, such as social position, interpersonal skills, professional experience, and educational background, can affect the successful institutionalisation of PB. Each PB stage is shaped by IEs’ abilities to mobilise resources, build support networks, and foster active citizen involvement.

However, IEs may also fail, mainly due to internal resistance from politicians and managers (Major et al., 2018). Moreover, IE dominance can overshadow other participants, leading to symbolic changes that focus on the IE’s interests (e.g. Khan et al., 2007).

This study employs a single case study approach, a valuable tool for examining contemporary phenomena in their real-life context (Yin, 1984). This method, previously utilised in studies exploring the drivers behind policy implementation from an institutional entrepreneurship perspective (Argento et al., 2018; Jensen and Fersch, 2019; Ferry et al., 2019), offers both descriptive and explanatory analyses (Scapens, 2004). This case aims for analytical generalisation by applying and refining theoretical propositions on institutional entrepreneurship within a real-life governance context rather than statistical generalisation to a population (Yin, 1984). Specifically, the authors detail the PB process and aim to elucidate the role of internal actors in promoting institutional change.

The authors chose to investigate the PB institutionalisation in Rome not only due to the complexity of its governmental and administrative organization – marked by a multilayered structure and the challenges typical of a large metropolitan city – but also because it represents a particularly illustrative case of the tensions and opportunities involved in institutionalising participatory governance in major urban centres.

Moreover, the period under analysis is especially relevant, as it coincides with the rise of a political movement that gained traction not only in Rome but in several other cities in recent years. This movement promoted new forms of citizen involvement, with a particular emphasis on digital tools and platforms designed to enhance transparency, accountability, and civic participation.

Rome’s case, therefore, provides a valuable lens through which to examine how political leadership, administrative capacity, and technological innovation intersect within a fragmented institutional context. These dynamics are not unique to Rome but resonate with broader patterns observed in metropolitan governance worldwide, making the case both locally grounded and globally relevant.

The data collection followed these five phases:

1. Document analysis to provide an overview of the PB process;

2. Supplementary data collection from newspapers and social media to understand the broader context;

3. First focus group to explore the Roman PB experiences and understand the roles and interactions of internal actors;

4. Semi-structured interviews with key individuals;

5. Second focus group (follow-up meeting) to validate the findings and gain additional perspectives.

A document analysis of PB-related materials, including city council judgements and other documents accessible online from the official Rome website, was initially performed to provide an overview of the PB process, which was needed to define the context within which to conduct the research (Bowen, 2009). The analysis helped define the formal structure and key stages of Rome’s PB experience, as outlined in paragraph 2.1. (Bowen, 2009).

Additionally, the analysis of supplementary sources – including articles from major Italian newspapers (e.g. La Repubblica) and public social media posts – proved instrumental in understanding the political context during the final phase of the PB process, particularly concerning proposal implementation. These materials were identified through targeted keyword searches on prominent Italian news outlets and open social media platforms, focusing on verifiable episodes of political tension among the institutional actors involved in the initiative. This helped reveal internal political instability that could affect PB continuity (Du et al., 2025).

The reviewed documents are summarised in Table 2.

Subsequently, a focus group was held with members of the Participation, Communication, and Equal Opportunities (PCEO) Department, which is responsible for promoting citizen engagement in line with political directives. The session explored internal roles and interactions, covering early steps like statutory reform and the digital agenda, as well as key stages of the PB process. Semi-structured interviews (Runeson and Höst, 2009) followed, targeting individuals identified as key actors, who were:

1. The Head of the PCEO Department, who played a dual role, serving as both the head of the Participation Department and the head of the Technological Innovation Department, and was a crucial actor in the implementation of PB in Rome. The PCEO Department was responsible for fostering citizen engagement, coordinating participatory initiatives, and ensuring the integration of these processes within the city’s broader governance framework.

2. The Chairman of the Political Commission, comprising city councillors, who was responsible for proposing statutory reforms. The Commission’s primary role was to draft and advocate for legislative changes that aligned with the principles of participatory governance.

Individuals were selected for interviews based on their key roles in the PB process, as identified by the initial focus group. Conducted in 2020, after the voting phase and at the beginning of implementation, the interviews, guided by IE characteristics (Table 1), explored participants’ roles, experiences, networks, and affiliations (Horton et al., 2004). Internal political disagreements emerged during data analysis and were noted for their potential impact on PB implementation. Following the November 3, 2021, municipal election, a shift in political leadership led to the creation of a new “Decentralisation, Territorial Services” department within the “Participation” directorate.

To gain further insight into the final PB phase, a public follow-up meeting organised by the new city administration was held in July 2022. Two authors attended as non-participant observers to gather contextual data on how the 2019 PB outcomes were presented and discussed. Representatives from the restructured PCEO (“Participation” Directorate) reported on project progress, and institutional actors engaged in dialogue with citizens. The session also allowed for validation of research findings through triangulation with new stakeholder perspectives, including previously unconsulted external actors.

A comprehensive overview of the first focus group, the semi-structured interviews, and the follow-up meeting can be found in Table 3.

Recordings and transcripts from focus groups and interviews were thematically analysed using IE characteristics from Table 1 to ensure comprehensive data triangulation (Flick, 2004). The analysis examined how the experiences, roles, networks, and affiliations of key actors influenced the initiation, development, and support of institutional change. This framework helped map individual agency and strategy across PB phases, assessing each actor’s impact on institutionalisation.

Ethical standards were upheld, with participants informed of the study’s purpose and data anonymised to ensure confidentiality.

Rome’s governance comprises a city council for policymaking and an executive body led by the mayor for implementation (Articles 15–25 of the Roman Statute). The city is divided into 15 autonomous districts (Article 26). The Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) party, which champions citizen participation and E-governance, won the 2016 local elections. Their programmatic guidelines (2016–2021) focused on enhancing citizen satisfaction and improving administrative efficiency. To foster participation, the “Partecipa Area” was introduced on Rome’s website. Efforts from 2017 to 2018 aimed to expedite digitalization and engage citizens in public life, culminating in the launch of the Roma Capitale website. This platform was seen as “a precondition for citizens’ participation and active collaboration” (Digital Agenda, 2017).

Efforts to enhance civic engagement led to legislative reforms that incorporated digital tools and technologies. The Commission refined these reforms, starting with a new statute that included PB, supported by digital mediums, “to ensure the broadest popular involvement and the highest level of direct democracy and transparency” (Roman Statute, art. 8-bis). Subsequently, the PB regulation was introduced on April 4, 2019 (Resolution 31/2019). This regulation was previously tested in a 2018 trial in Rome’s VIII District (Deliberation of the City Council 12/2018). The PB regulation detailed the steps to enhance citizen engagement, particularly in the project proposal and voting stages.

The first official PB edition in Rome took place in 2019. The right to present ideas and proposals was given to residents, city users, and district committees, hence, the main target groups. EUR 20 million was allocated, with a focus on “urban décor”, a theme selected by the city council (Rules of the 2019 PB). This was the largest allocation for PB in Italy, representing 0.3% of the Roma Capitale budget, amounting to 6,550,913,812 euros in 2020 (Multi-year Budget, 2020–2022).

The process employed a combination of online and in-person methods: information was shared digitally and via city-wide stands. Citizens submitted proposals either online or through co-design sessions in district focus groups, while the evaluation process was carried out solely by technicians. Voting took place online, with in-person assistance available, and citizens could monitor project progress via the website, although they did not have direct involvement in the monitoring phase.

Details of each PB step are included in Table 4 (Santolamazza et al., 2024).

Of the 1,521 submitted proposals, only 111 reached the final voting phase after consolidating similar projects and assessing their feasibility in the evaluation phase. In total, 46,204 people participated in at least one phase, such as online proposal submission or voting, while 16,993 participants took part in the final voting round. Ultimately, 65 projects were selected for the 2020–2022 budget (Documento della Partecipazione – Final report). Citizens could track each project’s progress through continuous updates on the platform, with dedicated pages for “progressive monitoring by citizens of the execution of works and interventions to be carried out.” (Agenda No. 168 of December 16, 2019 – attached to proposed resolution No. 152/2019). However, upon reviewing the PB regulation, it became clear that the monitoring phase lacked proper structure. This deficiency resulted in a systemic absence of citizen engagement and the necessary technological tools, as Article 14 did not explicitly address active citizen participation.

Meanwhile, Rome’s political scene was marked by instability, with the M5S-led administration facing internal conflicts and shifting alliances that led to the collapse of its majority shortly before the 2021 elections. This unpredictability hindered policy continuity and the full implementation of participatory reforms, such as PB. Consequently, a left-wing party won the 2021 elections and aimed to refine the original strategies, focusing primarily on addressing gaps in the previous PB regulation.

The interviews revealed the key roles of major actors throughout the PB process, with significant efforts focused on Initiation, Information Dissemination, Proposal Presentation, Evaluation of the proposals, and Voting to ensure administrative prioritisation and fairness. Implementing PB was complex, requiring collaboration, with Rome’s mayor and M5S playing a vital role in launching the initiative and promoting citizen engagement. As the Head of the PCEO Department stated, “With the new mayor, E-governance and Participatory Governance have become fundamental pillars. It was not just a political process but a team effort that made all the instruments for citizen participation effective.”

A key figure identified by the staff was the Chairman of the Commission, who was responsible for statutory reform. The Chairman’s role was pivotal in leading the PB initiatives, transforming political strategies, defined by M5S, into concrete proposals and decisions, as emphasised by the administrative staff during the first focus group. A member of the PCEO Department noted: “The political party’s will was the impetus for this path (i.e. the PB introduction). In particular, the Chairman of the Commission embraced this initiative as a personal conviction. His determination and straightforwardness enabled the process’s implementation despite tight deadlines. Together with him, we formed a real ‘team’ aimed at achieving the goal”.

The Chairman was seen as actively steering each of the PB’s initial phases, working to build consensus around his vision, aligning with Kingdon’s (2002) theory on agenda-setting. During the initiation phase, the Chairman’s ability to frame PB as a priority for the administration helped ensure strategic alignment and mobilisation. His background and ideological alignment with the M5S made him a suitable candidate for this role. In addition, his expertise in digital platforms – especially crowdsourced law-making – enabled him to lead reforms and integrate digital participation tools into the statute. As he remarked, “my personal convictions have played an essential role in my dedication to implementing this process. These have driven me to independently study participatory budgeting in other cities, such as Milan, Paris, and Barcelona”. This in-depth knowledge shaped the approach to soliciting and managing proposals, ensuring that digital tools played a central role in both the proposal submission and feedback processes. Additionally, several best practices were derived from these prior experiences.

His previous experience in drafting legal norms equipped him to rewrite the statute and the PB regulation. The inclusion of this process in the statute marked an innovation in Rome’s governance, introducing PB into the traditionally top-down governance structure of local governments. The capacity to draft the regulation influenced all phases of the process except the final one, which lacked detailed operational planning.

The administrative staff consistently recognised their vital role throughout the PB stages. Beyond his institutional responsibilities, described by a PCEO Department member as “translating the emerging participatory process into legislation”, the Chairman was also able to engage all department members. Public managers also played a crucial role in PB implementation, making regulations effective and establishing the necessary digital infrastructure. The Chairman’s coordination with the PCEO Head, responsible for the Digital Agenda, was vital for spreading the initiative early and throughout the process. They ensured the dissemination of wide-ranging information via digital platforms, social media, and in-person channels, thereby building a strong foundation for citizen engagement. Digital tools also supported Evaluation and Voting. Following M5S’s communication style, civil servants promoted broad awareness through official websites, district ads, and social media.

The Chairman’s strong networking skills set him apart from the typical M5S reluctance to engage with other political forces. He fostered collaboration by involving experts and inviting diverse political factions to Commission meetings, promoting openness and objectivity. His communication skills and expertise were crucial in building consensus during the Initiation and Information Dissemination phases.

As confirmed by interviewees, interactions between administrative staff and politicians were frequent, particularly initially, fostering collaborative decision-making. The Chairman’s leadership was crucial in aligning staff with his vision. Efforts to encourage districts to engage more actively through co-designed proposals faced challenges due to tight submission timelines. His experience and educational background were key in advocating for reform and citizen engagement in PB. Despite achieving significant outcomes in a challenging context, his focus on PB lessened as internal political disagreements within the M5S arose (paraphrase from his May 11, 2021, Facebook post).

The public meeting revealed that this shift impacted the process’s success, as the administration no longer prioritised full PB implementation. This lack of focus also affected citizen engagement, as highlighted by a citizen during the meeting: “I found out today (ed: during the public meeting two years since the vote) that the project I proposed, which won, has been heavily defunded”.

This internal political dynamic led to reduced citizen empowerment, with many people feeling abandoned in the latter stages of the process, a common issue noted in other experiences (Santolamazza et al., 2024).

People view the PB experience as a significant institutional shift in an area that had previously been unsuccessful. The strength of PB lies in its flexible regulatory framework, described by the Chairman of the Commission as “rigid in terms of the principles set out in the statute, semi-rigid in terms of its implementation regulations, and flexible in terms of the subjects that can be decided collectively, thus making it attractive to several political forces and detaching it from the logic of the proposing party”. The follow-up meeting highlighted some shortcomings, particularly in citizen involvement during the final stages of the process (Evaluation of the proposals and Monitoring and Implementation), where the lack of communication was perceived as a “deafening silence” (a citizen).

Previous studies note that policy introduction does not guarantee effective implementation (Bakir et al., 2021), a gap evident in Rome’s PB case. While formally adopted, PB’s impact varied and was heavily influenced by individual agencies – especially the Decentralisation Commission Chairman, who was central throughout all PB phases (see Table 5).

During Initiation and Information Dissemination, the Chairman’s leadership was key to launching PB, supported by the city’s digital transition and M5S’s political commitment. His background in digital governance and belief in participatory democracy tailored the process to Rome. Utilising his legal expertise, he collaborated with staff to develop innovative and practical PB regulations. His networking skills engaged experts and fostered cross-party consensus (Albu et al., 2014; Hardy and Maguire, 2017), establishing a structured, digitally supported approach to citizen participation (Rodriguez Müller et al., 2025). His actions were also enabled by a favourable institutional climate: the city’s broader digital transition agenda, promoted by the PCEO department, and the M5S’s commitment to citizen participation.

Since the Proposals Presentation, the Chairman has clearly supported participatory principles through a dual approach: digital platforms for submitting ideas and in-person focus groups for collaboration. His leadership was key in creating user-friendly platforms, fostering inclusivity and transparency. However, the initiative faced challenges due to limited time and resources, underscoring the difficulties in implementing a participatory agenda in a complex governance environment.

In the Evaluation of the proposals, the Chairman’s experience in drafting legal norms had a minor influence on creating clear and transparent evaluation criteria. This helped ensure that assessments of technical and economic feasibility were comprehensive. The administrative staff played a crucial role in applying these criteria; however, the limited citizens’ involvement highlighted the need for more direct public engagement (Mattei et al., 2022).

Considering the Voting phase, digital platforms for voting were central to the PB process, a choice that aligned with the Chairman’s belief and background in e-governance as a tool for broadening citizen participation. He coordinated with public managers to ensure accessibility and transparency during this phase.

The Monitoring and Implementation phases revealed significant obstacles due to internal political disagreements within the M5S party, leading to diminished focus on PB. Although the regulatory framework offered a basic foundation, insufficient monitoring and transparency eroded trust and underscored the challenges of sustaining long-term commitment in complex governance (Bartocci et al., 2022).

As Table 5 illustrates, the Chairman’s leadership was crucial in the early stages of the PB process, turning abstract political commitment into a structured participatory initiative through consensus-building, stakeholder engagement, and administrative coordination. However, later challenges underscore a key insight: strong individual leadership alone is insufficient without sustained, coordinated political support throughout the policy cycle.

Our findings align with previous research (Sønderskov, 2019), which underscores the central role of political actors in shaping the PB initiatives’ trajectory. With his leadership, he also introduced reforms such as digital innovation and fostered a collaborative administrative culture, creating a favourable environment for experimentation. However, this personalisation of the PB initiative exposed its structural fragility: the dependence on individual political leadership to drive institutional change.

In addition, Rome’s experience underscores the significant dependence of institutional entrepreneurship on the political context (Du et al., 2025). Administrative instability and shifting political alliances hindered the capacity to sustain participatory innovation, the process generated intangible capital in the form of participatory culture and institutional learning. Therefore, the Roman case offers insights for other large cities seeking to institutionalise PB, because this case shows that visionary leadership alone is necessary, but not sufficient. In fact, our case demonstrates that it is tough for a process, even if well designed, to be successful without a stable political alignment and sustained IE commitment. This serves as an example for other cities pursuing participatory innovation, highlighting the value of political actors who embody the characteristics of IEs. At the same time, it is essential to recognise that such political leadership must be supported by a combination of exogenous and endogenous enabling factors.

The increasing focus in the literature on developing processes that engage citizens in public management reflects the effort to rebuild relationships with them, facilitating shared and sustainable change (Osborne, 2006). This engagement leads to more objective, critical, representative, and legitimate decision-making, ultimately creating public value (Meynhardt, 2009).

This study contributes to this growing body of literature by exploring how internal actors, viewed through the lens of institutional entrepreneurship, shape the PB institutionalisation in Rome.

Our findings confirm the key role of political leadership – especially the Chairman of the Decentralisation Commission – in guiding PB. His legal expertise, digital governance experience, and commitment to participatory democracy bridged political ambition and administrative action (Bakir et al., 2021).

Nevertheless, significant challenges emerged during implementation and monitoring. Internal disagreements within the M5S majority led to a decline in political sponsorship, weakening the institutional focus on PB. These dynamics highlight the need for sustained political commitment and cross-actor alignment throughout the process. Democratic reform cannot rely solely on individual initiative – however influential – but requires a stable and supportive institutional environment, which has been lacking in Rome. Indeed, this case study demonstrates that for a radical change to occur, there must be a consensus among all involved actors (Broccardo et al., 2019). The Roman case underscores that the IE’s social skills and leadership were fundamental to achieving this consensus and advancing the process. At the same time, the institutional environment – characterised by managerial professionalism and early collaboration – provided enabling conditions for participatory practices to initially take root, even though they later faltered due to political disengagement. This case also suggests that IE, while at times resembling patterns of patronage, can nonetheless serve as a necessary catalyst for innovation in contexts where participatory practices are not yet fully institutionalised.

Despite the challenges, this experience marked the beginning of a new chapter in citizen participation in the city, which continues to thrive even under a new political leadership.

The main theoretical contribution lies in highlighting the internal actors’ roles in PB, a topic often overlooked (Bartocci et al., 2022). In doing so, it offers a new understanding of PB institutionalisation, suggesting a middle ground of fluctuating outcomes, unlike other studies focusing solely on IE success (Argento et al., 2018) or failure (Major et al., 2018). This variation depends on how much the IE focuses on driving change and maintaining ongoing citizen dialogue. In Rome, the IE’s role evolved during PB’s institutionalisation, resulting in partial success: while participatory institutions like PB have gained more recognition and are actively discussed and utilised, the process has also encountered shortcomings that are being addressed by the new political leadership.

Therefore, this study illustrates how reform outcomes can fluctuate due to contextual fragility and the uneven influence of internal actors. Rather than portraying PB as either a clear success (Argento et al., 2018) or outright failure (Major et al., 2018), the Roman case reflects a moderate change in which a radical institutional innovation was initiated but not fully consolidated. This “in-between” outcome resonates with Modell’s (2022) view of institutional change as moderate, partial, contingent, and shaped by actor strategies and unstable environments. Even if IEs alone cannot ensure lasting transformation in politically fragile contexts, our findings show they can still trigger significant, though incomplete, reforms that influence future reforms. The Roman experience offers a valuable example for other large cities, demonstrating how even unfinished reforms can lay the groundwork for participatory governance.

From a practical perspective, these findings offer valuable insights for politicians, managers, and reformers. The IE’s leadership played a key role in promoting participatory thinking, which, as Ebdon and Franklin (2006) note, has to have a lasting impact, driven by the IE’s focus and strategy. However, without the IE’s skill in channelling resources and maintaining momentum, participatory processes risk underperformance, potentially reverting to a top-down approach that marginalises citizens and silences their voices.

This study also highlights the crucial role of consensus-building among key actors in the successful PB institutionalisation, especially in participatory democracy models integrated with e-tools (Sintomer et al., 2008; Santolamazza et al., 2024). In this view, the IE played a key role in PB’s digital dimension, shaping the agenda, designing the online platform, and spreading online information. However, in line with the broader trajectory of the PB initiative, the digital tool faced limitations in later phases (Santolamazza et al., 2024).

The main limitation of this study pertains to its timing, as the investigation was undertaken after the voting phase. Future research could use action research to compare participants’ early perceptions with post-implementation reflections. Additionally, limited citizen input – mainly from a public meeting – restricts insights; a broader, ongoing exploration of citizen views would be valuable. Finally, reflecting on Rome’s PB experience, a longitudinal study could be illuminating to assess PB’s enduring role as a conduit for citizen dialogue and its efficacy in addressing prevailing challenges.