Recipe for Game Lending Libraries: Participatory Budget as a Way of Financing the Creation of Game Lending Libraries in Poland

This article examines how participatory budgets (budżety partycypacyjne/obywatelskie) can finance the creation of toy and game lending libraries in Poland, using the Warsaw project "Wypożyczalnie gier planszowych w bibliotece" as a case study. Its central argument is that the participatory budget is an effective tool for establishing board game collections within existing public libraries, a practical application of earlier scholarship suggesting that library networks are the most realistic institutional channel for expanding access to games in Poland. The author positions the work within the broader development of participatory budgeting, which first appeared in Sopot in 2011 and had spread to 62 Polish cities by 2013.

The analysis of participatory budget archives across Poland's voivodeship cities reveals a striking asymmetry: Warsaw recorded 27 proposals for game lending libraries in libraries, media centers, or cultural houses, all of which received funding, while Kraków and Katowice had only one proposal each. The article identifies two structural barriers that shape these outcomes: regulations that exclude "soft" non-infrastructure projects, which in 2014 applied to 24.7% of cities, and the dependence of library-based projects on the consent of institutional management and on sometimes arbitrary eligibility decisions by city officials.

The Warsaw project, conceived in late 2015 and voted on in June 2016, sought roughly 3,400 to 4,000 zł per district, with over 90% spent on games selected across educational and family categories and limited to titles published after 1990. It gathered 4,363 votes across six districts, with the highest turnout in Śródmieście Sawa (997 votes). Follow-up evaluation found that about 23% of the purchased games were borrowed during a December 2018 sample period, suggesting sustained public use, and the approach was widely imitated in subsequent budget cycles. The authors also note weaknesses, including underestimated budgets, low click-through rates on paid promotion, and the burden of attending sparsely attended informational meetings.