Introduction and Contribution:

There is a growing recognition, both in and outside of the academy, that democracy requires more than simply voting for and removing incumbents during elections. For one, relying solely on elected representatives deprives those being represented of direct control over decisions that affect them. In addition, it can also generate — as it has in the United States and elsewhere — large gaps in responsiveness and representation, particularly for historically disenfranchised and marginal groups. 

Participatory budgeting (PB) represents one influential attempt to overcome these gaps in democratic practice. First introduced in the 1980s by the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT), PB empowers voters to allocate public funds to projects that benefit them. Since then, ordinary citizens in thousands of places across the world have helped determine the content of local budgets.

Despite its successes, academics and practitioners remain unclear about how to address and balance considerations related to budget constraints and ease of participation. This coincides with well-known mathematical difficulties surrounding the aggregation of votes, for example, that individually consistent preferences can yield inconsistent group outcomes.

In “Rank, Pack, or Approve,” Lodewijk Gelauff and Ashish Goel introduce a dataset drawn from the novel and comprehensive Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform. The data span over 150 real participatory budgeting processes, or “elections.” Importantly, the elections vary in terms of how ballots are designed and how participants make budgeting decisions. Gelauff and Goel ask how such variation shapes important budgeting outcomes, such as when participants are more likely to become fatigued and abandon the process. 

Two key findings from the study are as follows: First, more complex PB designs lead voters to, perhaps unsurprisingly, spend more time participating; however, this does not significantly increase abandonment or “dropout” rates. Second, voting methods that force participants to deal with cost trade-offs — as opposed to merely indicating their preferences — have been found to generate less expensive projects. 

The reader comes away with a sense of how subtle differences in the design of budgeting elections meaningfully shape the allocation of resources. This will resonate with social scientists who are familiar with how, for example, different kinds of electoral rules shape political competition. To understand Gelauff and Goel’s findings, it helps to first outline how PB elections differ from one another.

Ballot Design and Voting Methods:

The basic PB setup involves organizers choosing a voting method, a list of projects to potentially be funded, and an authentication process (i.e., checking that participants are valid voters). Voters then select or rank projects given the constraints of each voting rule or method. These three rules, captured in the paper’s title, are as follows: 

The first, “K-approval,” asks voters to select up to “K” projects. The top-voted projects receive funding until the budget runs out. K-approval is simple, but its main drawback is that it ignores the costliness of each project: voters only indicate which projects they like, rather than how those choices fit within a fixed budget. The second method, “K-ranking,” asks voters to rank their preferred projects, capturing their preferences in a more fine-grained manner. As votes are aggregated using the Borda scoring method, higher-ranked projects receive greater weight or value. Finally, the “knapsack” method asks voters to choose projects that fit within a fixed budget. This method best allows participants to balance costs in a way that mimics real city councils. However, knapsack is more complex and time-consuming than K-approval or K-ranking, although the online interface design, which mimics a shopping cart, is already much simpler than it would be on paper. 

Data Collection and Findings:

As mentioned, Gelauff and Goel’s data is drawn from the open-source Stanford PB platform. This tool enables cities to conduct online PB elections with a great deal of customizability, including location, budget, language of operation, authentication process (e.g., requiring personal information or sending SMS messages), as well as methods, phases, and windows of voting. Key for the authors’ purposes, it also tracks (anonymous) voters’ choices and how much time they spend during the election. Data collection began in 2014. 

The first key finding is motivated by the fact that election organizers often prefer K-approval for its simplicity. As such, Gelauff and Goel analyze how much time participants spend on their ballots and how often they quit. Although more complex ballots — those with a larger budget and number of projects — are shown to predict longer completion times, they do not significantly increase dropout rates. The authors note that more research is needed to assess whether knapsack specifically affects dropout.

The authors also find that voters select more expensive projects with K-approval compared to the knapsack methods. However, voters indicate similarly expensive preferences for their most-preferred projects under both methods; the key difference appears lower down the list of preferences, where the knapsack constraint forces them to be more cost-conscious. In other words, the knapsack cost constraint doesn’t affect which expensive project participants most prefer. Rather, it limits how many extra expensive projects they can add.

Overall, “Rank, Pack, or Approve” deepens our understanding of how PB can improve direct democratic engagement while reducing burdens on participants. It does this while providing a large quantity of real-world data, compared with prior research that has relied on crowdworkers without a real stake in the budgeting outcome. The authors helpfully illustrate how local governments can design PB processes that are clearer and more inviting to ordinary voters. Subsequent research will benefit from using this powerful data resource, as will organizers seeking to expand local engagement.

*Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.

Below are some of the most significant activities from the series of events that marked the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico. The Lab’s launch is made possible through the support of VélezReyes+ and the Zampa Foundation.
 

Meeting with Minister Giovanni Figueroa — Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation

On October 29, the DAL delegation, led by Professors Magaloni and Díaz-Cayeros, along with Kim Juárez, a research affiliate at DAL, was received at Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice by Minister Giovanni Figueroa. Justice Figueroa is one of the nine Supreme Court judges, one of the first ministers to reach the bench under Mexico's new constitutional reform, which, for the first time in the country's history, requires all federal judges to be chosen by direct popular vote.

Minister Figueroa, a distinguished constitutional scholar, has long advocated for a judiciary that is accessible, socially responsive, and attuned to Mexico’s constitutional challenges. The dialogue examined the capacity of constitutional courts to defend democratic principles in increasingly polarized environments, with particular attention to Mexico’s new judicial reform that introduces popular elections for all judges. These developments echo the broader questions explored in DAL’s comparative work on the resilience and design of rule-of-law institutions. The visit to the Mexican Supreme Court also included a tour of the “Un clamor por la justicia. Siete crímenes mayores” by Rafael Cauduro.

For the DAL team, this meeting set the tone for the visit: connecting high-level constitutional debates to the Lab’s broader effort to fortify and reconfigure democratic institutions from within.

Roundtable on Security and the “Bukele Model” — Hosted by Lantia and Eduardo Guerrero

One of the trip’s most dynamic discussions took place at El Colegio de México on October 30, where DAL co-hosted a closed-door roundtable on security and authoritarian drift in Latin America. Organized by Lantia Consultores and security expert Eduardo Guerrero, the session convened some of the leading experts on security in Mexico.

Participants included public security policymakers of the highest level, including police chiefs, cabinet advisors, journalists, and scholars, who debated the appeal and risks of the so-called “Bukele Model” — the Salvadoran government’s aggressive anti-crime strategy — within the Mexican context. The conversation, held under Chatham House rules, examined how citizen demand for security can erode democratic checks and liberties if not balanced by institutional safeguards.

The security meeting discussion centered on Beatriz Magaloni’s presentation of her field research on El Salvador’s “Bukele model” of public security and its broader implications for Latin America. Magaloni explained how President Nayib Bukele’s approach — initially framed as a successful anti-crime policy — rests on prolonged states of exception, mass arbitrary detentions, and fabricated arrests incentivized through police quotas and bounties. She described widespread abuses inside Salvadoran prisons, where thousands of innocent civilians, many poor and rural, are detained without due process and subjected to inhumane conditions.

This exchange epitomized DAL’s commitment to generating cross-sectoral, evidence-based dialogue that bridges policy, academia, and civic engagement — helping Latin American societies navigate the tension between security and democracy.

Participants compared these dynamics to Mexico’s own prison system and warned that similar practices could take root in democracies under pressure. They discussed the popular appeal of punitive “mano dura” policies, the risk of their normalization in fragile democracies, and the absence of credible alternatives in citizen security policy. The group emphasized the need for rights-based, community-centered models of public safety, stronger rule of law, and social prevention measures. The conversation concluded with a shared concern that the Bukele model’s political success could inspire copycat versions across the region — including in Mexico — if democratic actors fail to deliver both security and justice simultaneously.

Inaugural Conference at El Colegio de México: “A Half-Century After the Third Wave of Democratization”

The centerpiece of the launch was the public inaugural conference, held in the Alfonso Reyes Auditorium at El Colegio de México (Colmex) on October 30, one of Latin America’s premier academic institutions.

The event was co-hosted by Colmex’s Centro de Estudios Internacionales (CEI) and featured welcoming remarks from Dr. Ana Covarrubias Velasco, President of Colmex, who highlighted that the partnership “marks a new chapter in the internationalization of our work and our shared commitment to the study and defense of democracy.”

Professor Alberto Díaz-Cayeros presented DAL's mission, describing it as “a response to the global democratic crisis — an initiative that seeks to co-create, alongside those on the frontlines of democratic defense, new analytical tools and strategic responses to authoritarian threats.”

Tamara Taraciuk, Vice President for Democracy at the VélezReyes+ Philanthropic Platform, one of the initial funders of DAL, emphasized the urgency of moving “from diagnosis to action,” and outlined the foundation’s support for DAL’s mission to connect academic rigor with democratic innovation in Latin America.

The center of the conference was the lectures of professors Adam Przeworski and Beatriz Magaloni, reflecting on “Authoritarianism and Democracy Half a Century After the Third Wave.” 

Adam Przeworski delivered a profound reflection on the conditions under which democracies survive or collapse, drawing on his intellectual journey from witnessing the 1973 coup in Chile to observing today’s democratic crises in the United States. He contrasted two conceptions of democracy: the maximalist vision, which aspires to equality and justice, and the minimalist or procedural one, centered on competition and the peaceful alternation of power.

Based on decades of comparative research, Przeworski explained that democracies tend to endure in wealthy societies with repeated peaceful transfers of power, where political stakes are relatively moderate. Yet, the U.S. case challenges this logic: despite meeting these conditions, its institutions show signs of internal erosion. He called this not only a political crisis but also an intellectual crisis for political science, since classical theories no longer explain contemporary fragility. Przeworski concluded that it is no longer enough to defend democracy; we must reform and reinvent it, combining rigorous inquiry with practical experimentation of the kind advanced by the Democracy Action Lab.

Beatriz Magaloni focused on democratic backsliding in Latin America, emphasizing the cases of El Salvador, Venezuela, and Mexico. She noted that although the region is living through its most democratic era in history, since 2013 it has faced a gradual erosion of liberal institutions — judicial independence, checks and balances, press freedom, and civil rights — driven by democratically elected leaders. Unlike the military coups of the past, today’s threats arise from within the system, through legal reforms and popular mandates that progressively concentrate power.

Magaloni identified the Bukele model in El Salvador as a regional turning point: a democratically elected leader who uses the promise of security to justify authoritarian practices and gains massive popular approval. She argued that citizens’ support for democracy depends not only on normative commitment but also on performance legitimacy — whether democratic regimes deliver security, justice, and economic opportunity. When democracies fail to meet these expectations, authoritarian alternatives gain appeal. Magaloni concluded that defending democracy in Latin America requires restoring citizens’ trust through tangible results, especially in the areas of security, inequality, and public services.

The keynote sessions concluded with a lively exchange between the speakers and the audience, reflecting the strong public interest in the themes of democracy and authoritarianism. Attendees noted that they had rarely seen the Sala Alfonso Reyes so full — an estimated 300 people packed the auditorium, underscoring the significance of the discussion and the enthusiasm surrounding the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico City.

Reception at Librería and Gallery Miguel Angel Porrúa: A Gathering of Scholars and Civil Society

After the inaugural conference, a special reception was held at Librería Miguel Angel Porrúa, one of the country’s most emblematic cultural spaces and a historic venue for intellectual and civic debate. The event brought together an extraordinary community of scholars, researchers, journalists, civic leaders, and members of civil society organizations working on democracy, human rights, security, and governance across Mexico.

The reception served as more than a celebratory gathering — it was a forum for substantive dialogue. Attendees engaged with DAL’s mission and shared reflections on the urgent challenges facing democracy in Latin America at a time marked by rising political polarization, institutional weakening, and escalating pressures on civic space. The discussions underscored the vital role that empirical research, cross-sector collaboration, and evidence-based policymaking must play in strengthening democratic institutions.

The atmosphere at Porrúa reflected both concern and hope: concern over the democratic erosion sweeping the region, and hope that networks such as DAL can help generate new knowledge, amplify local expertise, and support the resilience of democratic actors in Mexico and beyond. The reception marked an important first step in positioning DAL as a convening platform that listens to, learns from, and engages directly with those shaping the future of democracy on the ground.

Visit to Mexico’s National Electoral Institute (INE)

On October 31, the Democracy Action Lab delegation visited Mexico’s Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE), meeting with Electoral Councilors Carla Humphrey, Claudia Zavala, Martín Faz, Arturo Castillo, and Uuc-kib Espadas Ancon. The dialogue centered on the institution’s enduring role as a cornerstone of Mexico’s democratic transformation.

Created in the wake of Mexico’s transition from single-party dominance to competitive pluralism in the 1990s, INE (formerly IFE) emerged as one of the region’s most trusted electoral authorities — instrumental in ensuring free, transparent, and credible elections after decades of state-controlled contests. Its establishment marked a turning point in Latin America’s third wave of democratization, proving that institutional reform could anchor democratic legitimacy.

During the meeting, participants discussed how INE continues to safeguard electoral independence and citizen trust amid new challenges: political polarization, disinformation, and attempts to weaken autonomous institutions. For the Democracy Action Lab, the visit underscored the importance of institutional integrity as both a historical achievement and a living frontier in the struggle to sustain democracy across the region.

Academic Collaborations: Building a Network for Democratic Research

Later that day, the Democracy Action Lab held a working session with the Colmex–Stanford Research Group, bringing together scholars from Colmex. The conversation focused on identifying joint research agendas that could bridge theoretical insights and policy relevance in areas such as democratic resilience, social cohesion, governance, and state capacity. Participants discussed the design of comparative studies on democratic backsliding and institutional trust, as well as methodological strategies — ranging from survey experiments to subnational diagnostics — that could capture how citizens experience and respond to democratic erosion. The session reinforced the shared commitment of Colmex and Stanford to building evidence-based frameworks that inform both academic debate and practical reform.

The visit concluded with a working lunch at ITAM, where the discussion turned toward the economic and institutional dimensions of democratic performance. Faculty members reflected on the intersection between governance quality, inequality, and citizen trust, exploring opportunities for collaboration in the study of fiscal accountability and electoral behavior. These exchanges deepened DAL’s partnerships with Mexico’s leading universities — El Colegio de México and ITAM — and laid the groundwork for a regional academic consortium capable of producing comparative insights and applied tools for democratic renewal across Latin America.

Mexico as a Bridge for a Regional Effort

The Mexico City launch of the Democracy Action Lab marked more than the beginning of a new Stanford initiative: it represented a regional call to action.

As Professor Magaloni noted, Latin America today is both a region of growing democratic threats and extraordinary democratic courage. By starting in Mexico, DAL affirms its belief that the defense and reimagination of democracy must be both locally grounded and globally connected.

Through research, dialogue, and partnership, the Democracy Action Lab seeks to build the tools, coalitions, and evidence needed to confront authoritarian resurgence and renew faith in democratic governance, beginning in Latin America and reaching far beyond.

At the institute level, the partnership also reinforces Stanford’s broader role in advancing research and engagement on democracy.

“As the threats to democratic governance around the world multiply, so too must our commitment to the rigorous, interdisciplinary scholarship that seeks to understand and address them,” said Colin Kahl, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “Bringing the esteemed Journal of Democracy to CDDRL creates a powerful nexus for this vital work, strengthening FSI's role as a global leader in the study of democracy."

At the same time, the partnership comes at a moment of heightened global pressure on democratic institutions, underscoring the importance of the Journal’s role in the field.

“We are now in the twentieth consecutive year of global democratic decline — no longer just a ‘democratic recession,’ but a broader wave of authoritarian reversals,” said Larry Diamond. “Yet the struggle for democracy continues. Now more than ever, we need to understand both the causes of democratic decay and the conditions for recovery and renewal. The Journal of Democracy is unique in combining rigorous scholarship with timely, accessible analysis of developments around the world.”

For Stanford students, the partnership creates a more direct pathway into the world of ideas, publishing, and public scholarship. Through new editorial internships, undergraduates and recent graduate alumni can gain hands-on experience working with a leading journal that bridges scholarship and practice.

It also strengthens Stanford’s intellectual presence in democracy studies by giving CDDRL-affiliated faculty a more formal role in supporting the Journal’s work through serving on its editorial board. Stanford faculty will contribute to the Journal’s editorial mission, inspire new lines of inquiry, and help to identify emerging areas of research to be explored in its pages.

“This partnership with CDDRL is exceptionally exciting for the Journal of Democracy and its readers,” shared Will Dobson, the Journal’s co-editor. “CDDRL is not only the leading research center in the field, but its long history of collaboration with the Journal makes this a natural fit. We are thrilled to be working with CDDRL and with the possibilities this partnership will unlock.”

With a wide readership and growing digital footprint, the Journal of Democracy reaches audiences across academia, government, journalism, and civil society. It publishes roughly 100 online-exclusive essays each year alongside its quarterly print issues and engages readers through newsletters with more than 20,000 subscribers, across social media, in Apple News, and on leading podcasts. As the most-read journal in the Johns Hopkins University Press portfolio of more than 750 publications, it has become a central venue for ideas about democratic governance and political change worldwide. Through its partnership with CDDRL, the Journal is positioned to expand that reach even further — drawing on Stanford’s research community and global practitioner networks to bring new voices and perspectives into the conversation.