participatory budgeting (pb)
DESCRIPTION
Participatory Budgeting (PB) . Brian Wampler January 18, 2011. What is Participatory Budgeting?. A policymaking process that brings together citizens, community leaders, and government officials to deliberate over and vote on the allocation of public resources. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING (PB)
Brian Wampler
January 18, 2011
WHAT IS PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING? A policymaking process that brings together
citizens, community leaders, and government officials to deliberate over and vote on the allocation of public resources.
Started in 1989 southern Brazilian city of Porto Alegre through the joint efforts of CSOs and the Workers’ Party’s (PT) municipal government.
There are now thousands of PB programs modeled after the pioneering case of PB. In Brazil, 13 in 1992 to 201 in 2008 200+ cases in Europe Thousands in Latin America, Africa and Asia
CLASS EXERCISE:WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE ABOUT PB?
(a) Citizens are directly incorporated into incremental decision-making venues
(b) Citizens elect representatives who engage in ongoing negotiations with government officials and exercise oversight of project implementation
(c) Citizens’ vote is largely focused on a percentage of the government’s new capital outlays.
(d) Only a small minority of participants speak during public meetings
(e) Supply-side, administrative reforms are a vital part of making PB programs function well
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING:FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
Reward citizen mobilizationEncourage pro-poor policy
selectionPromote deliberationReform administrative proceduresInstitutionalize transparencyLinks Citizens and Activists to
Government Officials
WHO, WHEN, AND HOW MUCH? Stakeholders
Government officials Citizens and Activists representing CSOs/CBOs/NGOs Bureaucrats Implementing agencies/companies
Time-line Annual or bi-annual policy cycle Several Large Public meetings; monthly meetings with
activists/leaders/citizen representatives Cost
Personnel to run meetings Transportation of citizens to meeting sites Public work projects to be implemented—High
Variation from US $50 million per year to very little.
HOW TO INCORPORATE CITIZENS?KEY TYPES OF PB
PB Urban Public Works Small to mid-size projects such as paving roads,
building foot bridges, water delivery and drainage projects, slum upgrading,
PB Housing— Land, building sites, distribution
PB Thematic Health care, social services
PB Digital On-line voting from government’s pre-selected
menu
ECUADOR: GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
SUPPLY-SIDE METHODOLOGY: WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO
Setting up PB City is divided into regions and micro-regions as the basis for
participation and resource allocation Decentralization to sub-municipal levels Meetings are organized and advertised by government
officials; relevant information is provided by administrators. Resources
Level of resources is decided by gov’t officials in consultation with CSOs
Public policy areas (e.g. infrastructure, housing, education) available for negotiation are decided by government officials
Implementation Government streamlines process through which PB projects are
implemented by integrating departments Establish transparent implementation schedules
BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL: PARTICIPANTS VOTING
DEMAND-SIDE METHODOLOGY: WHAT CITIZENS MUST DO
Mobilization CSOs leaders mobilize their communities to attend public
meetings; CSOs and CBOs typically hold their own meetings prior to and after PB meetings
Within PB Meetings CSO leaders lead deliberation and negotiations over their
groups’ priorities. All participants vote to select specific public work projects; they
also vote for elected “PB Delegates” Negotiations produce “bonds of solidarity” as well as
inter-group competition Ongoing
monitoring and oversight is carried out by “PB Delegates”
HOW TO DISTRIBUTE RESOURCES MORE EQUITABLY? QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX The lower degree of access to basic services
within a region on a per capita basis, the higher degree of per capita resources dedicated to the region Demographic and infrastructure data (i.e. # of
schools or distance to closest health care clinic Basic GIS mapping Regional and micro-region (to incorporate small
communities)
***More sophisticated PB programs are more likely to use the quality of life index.
Belo Horizonte:Quality of Life Index
PB CYCLE: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Source: Brian Wampler: A Guide to Participatory Budgeting
FIRST ROUND OF REGIONAL MEETINGSGovernment’s Role Participants’
Responsibilities Draws districts and sub-
districts boundaries Mobilization of citizens
Prepares Quality of Life Index
Capacity-building meetings
Distributes financial information
Analysis of financial information
Presents its own projects that it wants participants to approve for implementation
Preliminary discussions on available resources
FIRST ROUND OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGSGovernment’s Role Participants’
Responsibilities Provide detailed technical
information Discussion of priorities
for municipalities Support given by
bureaucrats to participants (i.e. photocopies, access to telephones)
Discussion of specific public works
Set up meeting spaces; contact citizens
Pre-selection of public works
SECOND ROUND OF REGIONAL MEETINGS
Government’s Role Participants’ Responsibilities
Initial estimates of cost for proposed projects
Debates on proposed policies or public works
Distributes information and arranges “priority trip” in each district
“Priorities Trip”—Site visits to proposed public works projects
Monitors vote Vote on policies or public works to be Implemented
Oversees Municipal Budget Council
Election of two representatives from each region to Municipal Budget Council
SECOND ROUND OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
Government’s Role Participants’ Responsibilities
Technical staff works closely with oversight committees
Continued mobilization on behalf of projects and policies
Drafting of technical plans
Election for oversight committees
Approval of technical plans
BELO HORIZONTE: PUBLIC WORK PROJECTBefore After
Complemento da Urbanização da Avenida Gandhi
WHEN SHOULD TASK TEAMS CONSIDER USING PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING? Local government has flexibility in how they can
allocate new capital spending or social services Resources are available to implement policies
selected—create a link resources available to types of public works that can be selected.
Citizens and CSOs are able to engage in public dialogue on governmental priorities—Involves willingness to listen/engage other citizens and critique government officials
CSOs have the capacity to engage in incremental policymaking processes
Government officials have incentives to work with CSOs (elections, national mandates)
MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION Governments seek to:
Build a base of political support Achieve a more equitable distribution of scarce
resources Foster public learning Promote transparency in government Brand themselves as “democratic and transparent”
Citizens seek to: Increase their access to decision-making venues Gain access to information Expand their policy networks Improve quality of services provided
Business community seeks to: Ensure taxes are used effectively and efficiently Changes types of projects being implemented
BENEFITS OF ADOPTION Government enhances policy and political
legitimacy by allowing citizens to influence specific project selection
Projects are better targeted to meet citizens’ key needs; pro-poor criteria reaches into shantytowns
Citizens are engaged and empowered through participatory processes
Project implementation—less corruption due to interested and engaged citizenry.
Small size of many projects provides contracts for small, local companies
ACCOUNTABILITY
Visting the Sites of Potential Public Works
LIMITATIONS
Deals with small portion of the budget and focuses on small public work projects
Participants are dependent on government officials for information
Limited policy knowledge among participants
Long-term planning has ambiguous role Policy learning among citizens unclear Engages leaders more than citizens Fine line between co-governance and
government control (co-optation)
RISKS OF ADOPTION Unrealistic expectations are often
generated Mismatch between type of demand and
level of resources generated Public forums may be used to attack
government officials Delays in project implementation Site of cooptation of CSO leaders by
government Potential for elite capture by CSOs/NGOs
ADDRESSING LIMITATIONS AND RISKS Low Resources--- When the lack of resources
are the key problem, Task Teams could provide additional resources if governments agree to initiate PB.
Weak commitment from Government officials—Offer greater resources to encourage support;
Weak Civil Society—Partner with NGOs to hold educational meetings; create incentives for CSOs by implementing small quick wins; provide transportation support
Lack of Trust—PB as a process that brings CSOs and governments together u to build trust.
VARIATION IN PB OUTCOMES Government
Degree of commitment to delegation of decision-making authority--
Capacity—level of RESOURCES & Administrative know-how)
Ability to reform internal decision-making processes
CSOs/CBOs Ability and willingness to mobilize communities
to attend; history of civil society mobilizing Capacity to deliberate and negotiate; Ability to maintain independence from Gov’t
officials Capacity of LEADERS to analyze technical
documents
PORTO ALEGRE, BRAZIL First case of PB; founded in 1989/1990 Workers’ Party governs from 1989-2004;
opposition party from 2005-present Less than 1,000 participants in 1989 Average of 30,000 participants from 2000-2004;
city of 1.3 million Program becomes much more complex over time Spent US $600 million on PB projects in PB—
Roughly 10% of all public spnding-- between 1994 and 2004—Housing projects, paving, sewage and water lines
Most PB spending is in low-income communities
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES IN PORTO ALEGRE
BELO HORIZONTE Adopts PB in 1993, PB Housing in 1996, and
PB Digital in 2006 Creates Quality of Life Index in 1994 Reformed bureaucracy to streamline
allocation of resources to PB projects Spent over US $500 million between 1994
and 2008—roughly 5% of all spending Now requires shantytowns to have “Global
development plan”—only public work projects in the plan can be included in PB
BELO HORIZONTE: RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN PB (1994-2008)
Social Vulnerability of region
# of Public Works
Population % of city Population
Resources spent**
% of total PB resources
Resources/Population
High 529 761,453
34 547 Million
57 1.68
Medium 350 849,611
38 315 Million
33 .87
Low 121 627,224
28 97 Million
10 .36
Total 1000
100 960 Million
CAN PB TRAVEL BEYOND BRAZIL? QUESTIONS TO ASK Is there sufficient discretionary funding to
allow citizens to select specific public works? Is the government prepared to delegate
authority to citizens? Will PB programs subvert traditional
patronage networks? Does the government want to subvert them?
Can PB help the government to establish new bases of political support?
Is the government willing to try to reform the local bureaucracy?
Are CSOs prepared and willing to participate?
WHERE HAS IT BEEN ESTABLISHED? Latin America
Peru, Mexico, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Uruguay.
Africa Uganda, Mozambique, South Africa, Madagascar,
Nigeria Asia
India Philippines Indonesia China (led by CSOs sponsored by ActionAid)
Europe Spain, Italy, England, Germany
PERU EXAMPLE
Context 2003 national Participatory Budgeting Law requires all municipal-level districts (1821) to use participatory budgeting processes
PB Intervention and Methodology National government spearheading PB well-positioned to innovate at local level All districts are required to form local coordination councils to
implement participatory budgeting programs—Effort to incorporate business/middle class groups into process
All Districts form Oversight Committees, which are geared toward enhancing social accountability over the implementation phrase
Ongoing Efforts A few districts (Villa El Salvador (pop. 344, 657), Santo Domingo
(pop. 10,200), Huaccana(pop. 11, 200) have been actively involved in the process, linking citizen participation to policy discussions.
The outcomes are best described as process-oriented, whereby there is an increase in the exchange of information, public discussions, and ongoing government-citizens dialogue.
Source: A New Social Contract for Peru: An Agenda for Improving Education, Health Care, and the Social Safety Net
PERU: PB PRIORITIES IN 2007Roads Local
Government Spending US$ Millions
%
Regional Government Spending US$ Millions
%
Roads 165.76 29.0% 268.78 30.2%
Sanitation 112.57 19.7% 75.56 8.5%Social and Economic Promotion
89.50 15.7% 68.22 7.7%
Education 67.37 11.8% 128.21 14.4%Irrigation 44.40 7.8% 163.33 18.3%Health 31.38 5.5% 65.19 7.3%Environment 20.89 3.7% -- --Electrification 19.38 3.4% 42.91 4.8%
Water 19.32 3.4% -- --Other 0.77 0.1% 79.05 8.9%Grand Total 571.31 100% 891.24 100%
UGANDA EXAMPLE
ContextDecentralization initiated in 1995
PB Intervention and Methodology National government initiates three levels of citizen
engagement Municipal officials meet with national government;
Municipal governments meet with citizens; Municipal governments meet again with national government
Projects must meet national development guidelines Ongoing efforts
Initial results are reported as minimal impact on specific policy outputs. Most important change is identified as the “opening budget to public scrutiny.”
Source: Africa Good Governance Programme on the Radio Waves
UGANDA: METHODOLOGY
MAPUTO, MOZAMBIQUE
PB Context Post-conflict decentralization process; LG expands service
provision PB Intervention and Methodology Municipal Government Launches PROMAPUTO—Comprehensive
municipal administrative reform with demand-side components Reform project includes multiple stakeholders due to complexity of
project; significant time investment to establish trust; Mayor launches citizen report card to assess citizens’ attitudes on
public issues; Solid waste management emerges from CRC as key issue
Multiple public meetings held with CSOs, CBOs, and NGOs to discuss results and reform efforts
Ongoing Discussions Initiated public debate about resource allocation prioritiesSource: ProMaputo Case Study Maputo Municipal Development Program, Mozambique
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS PB programs require Supply-side and
Demand-side reforms
Governments must be willing to initiate demand-side processes; They must also have the resources to implement selected projects
Citizens and CSOs must be willing to work closely with government officials; they must be willing to negotiate with their fellow citizens