Replication Data for: \"The Governance of Public Budgeting: a Proposal for Comparative Analyses - the Cases of São Paulo and London\"

This paper aims at understanding the governance of public budgeting in large metropolises with the use of comparative analysis. The analysis is focused on budgetary governance in London and São Paulo and uses qualitative and quantitative data from 2008 to 2019 to understand whether analytical categories such as incrementalism of expenditures, complexity of budgetary rules, bureaucratic hierarchy, bargaining, and muddling through are useful to compare two metropolises, especially to determine the discretionary power of mayors in making budget allocation decisions. The analytical categories are derived from the studies of theorists of economics and political sociology, notably Wildavsky (1975, 1969), Wildavsky and Caiden (2004), Schick (2009, 1976), Caiden (2010) Lascoumes and Le Galès (2005), Baumgartner and Jones (2005), and Fuchs (2012, 2010). The main argument of the paper is that, despite the administrative and political differences between London and São Paulo, similar dimensions can explain decisions about budget allocation and the political discretionary power of mayors. The study shows that mayors have little discretionary power, particularly in contexts of fiscal austerity; it also highlights the importance of property tax as a means to protect such power.本研究旨在通过比较分析，探析大都市公共预算（public budgeting）治理议题。本次分析聚焦伦敦与圣保罗的预算治理实践，采用2008至2019年的定性与定量数据，以验证支出渐进主义（incrementalism of expenditures）、预算规则复杂性（complexity of budgetary rules）、官僚层级制（bureaucratic hierarchy）、讨价还价（bargaining）及渐进调适（muddling through）等分析范畴，是否适用于两座大都市的比较研究，尤其用于研判市长在预算分配决策中享有的自由裁量权。上述分析范畴源自多位经济与政治社会学理论家的研究成果，具体包括怀尔达夫斯基（Wildavsky）、怀尔达夫斯基与凯登（Wildavsky & Caiden）、希克（Schick）、凯登（Caiden）、拉斯库姆与勒加莱斯（Lascoumes & Le Galès）、鲍姆加特纳与琼斯（Baumgartner & Jones）以及富克斯（Fuchs），相关文献发表年份依次为1975、1969；2004；2009、1976；2010；2005；2005；2012、2010。本研究的核心论点为：尽管伦敦与圣保罗在行政与政治层面存在显著差异，但若干共性维度可有效解释两地的预算分配决策及市长的政治自由裁量权。研究表明，市长的自由裁量权相对有限，尤其在财政紧缩（fiscal austerity）语境下；同时本研究亦凸显了财产税（property tax）作为维护此类权力的重要手段。