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