Advocacy and representation:

Throughout the conference there was one recurrent theme: that the core of applied budget work is the marriage of budget analysis with people-centered advocacy.  Knowledge of the budget gives us access to the language and data of the powerful, which will give force to our advocacy arguments.  These arguments often arise from an understanding of issues at grassroots level. 

A plenary session explored this relationship further, with examples of how grassroots activists used budget analysis to advance the cause of bonded laborers in India and how civil society participation in the local government budget process in Brazil has enhanced capacity, confidence and budget outcomes.  

The session was followed by four workshops, exploring methods and techniques for strengthening the effectiveness of people-centered advocacy through budget analysis, and vice-versa.  Two workshops explored the general meanings, values and techniques of people-centered advocacy and strategies for communicating findings of research.  A further two highlighted examples and techniques of encouraging popular and civil society participation in the budget debate, through public forums and by using client surveys as the basis of research. 

Using the budget to substantiate advocacy demands in India
“A struggle going on at the grassroots can be powerfully substantiated by budget documents.” 

Bonded labor is slavery, and this is prohibited by the Indian constitution.  Although there are laws providing for the identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded laborers in India, these have not been sufficient to eradicate the practice without the funds and enforcement efforts to back them up.  

Vivek Pandit gave a presentation of the work of Vidhayak Sansad, an organization of small farmers, laborers and agricultural workers, to identify and release a small number of bonded laborers, and the efforts to enforce the law rather than rely on voluntary and charitable actions.  This has led the organization to analyze the state budget and press for allocation of sufficient funds for the enforcement of law and policy.  This activity supports, rather than replaces, efforts to organize the bonded laborers themselves and raise their awareness of their rights.

As Vivek noted, “the government has a habit of lying in the budget.”  This is clear as some budget documents, including the performance budget which is supposed to report on the performance of different departments, change only in name and cover from year to year while the data inside remains exactly the same.  A recent performance budget for Maharashtra claims that there have been no bonded laborers in the state since 1992, while in one year during that period over 300 bonded laborers have been rehabilitated in one single district of the state.  This contradiction was shared with the press and became a big news story,  forcing the minister responsible to apologize and present the true statistics to the House. 

In another case, budget documentation was used to strengthen a campaign for reforms to the police act in Maharashtra.  The Act was brought in by the British in 1861 and has not been reformed to reflect the needs of the population since independence.  The police force is designed to work against the people, they are not friendly or helpful.  Proof that the priority for protection by police is against the people, and for the politicians, can be found in the budget. This shows that for every 9500 ordinary people one policeman is employed, whereas one prominent politician has 261 policemen working solely to protect him, his family and property.  Groups presented this analysis to parliament to demand that the use of people's money be more representative of their needs.

The participatory budget in Porto Alegre, Brazil 
“Participatory Budgeting programs confront Brazilian political legacies of clientelism, social exclusion and corruption by making the budgetary process transparent, open and public.”

The Participatory Budget was initiated in the city of Porto Alegre in 1989 by the left-wing coalition elected after the end of the dictatorship.   Today in Porto Alegre the budget is decided with broad debate throughout the year, where local priorities for investment are voiced, resources allocated and delivery monitored. After a history of slavery and dictatorship, this has been the first opportunity for poor people to actively participate in public life.  What started as an experiment in one city has now spread to 100 cities in 5 states in Brazil, and is an internationally renowned study of best practice in public administration.  

The example of Porto Alegre demonstrates a possibility for the construction of an active citizenry qualified in the management of public resources and capable of formulating propositions to overcome social exclusion, corruption and nepotism. The process is not a paradise with agreement all round, but is rife with conflict.  But this is the essence of democracy, unveiling conflict and constructing roles and systems to resolve it in a democratic way.  The forums act as citizenship schools, as engagement empowers citizens to better understand their rights and duties as citizens as well as the responsibilities of government.  

Sergio Baierle from CIDADE, and  Brian Wampler from the University of Texas gave a presentation examining the system, and its successful reputation, to explore: 

1. Whether participatory budgeting is an applied mechanism to deepen democracy;

2. What is the value of delegating decision-making authority to citizens; and 

3. Whether it is an instrument to link social and economic rights to budgets?

… the process in brief:   Participatory budgeting involves year-round mobilization of citizens, with two rounds of regional meetings before the budget is made.  In the first round community leaders are chosen, issues are discussed and information is shared about the resources available.  Resources (for discretionary spending only) are distributed to districts on the basis of their standing in the quality of life index, with poorer districts receiving higher shares of resources.  The amount received is also dependent on the size of the turnout at meetings, meaning that participation is usually high.  

Once funds have been allocated to municipalities, neighborhood meetings within districts debate how these resources will be allocated within the areas.  People make the rules for their engagement in the process, and these are renegotiated every year.  Sometimes it is a struggle for people to get their priorities accepted and into the budget. After policies have been decided, committees are established to monitor the drafting and implementation process.  Plans are revised, discussed and approved at public forums and construction is overseen by the committees to eradicate opportunities for official corruption.  

… challenges and limitations:  Brain noted two major limitations to the process:

•  The public meetings focus on spending on specific public works, and this can result in a lack of wider perspective.  

• The process is dependent on political will from the executive, which makes it insecure and difficult to implement contentious policy change. 

… results:  The process is aimed in part at more equitable allocation of resources, but is also designed to enhance the capacity, self-confidence and inclusion of marginalized communities.  The existence of the fora for interaction between officials and the traditionally excluded poor has seen some of these objectives realized. Social justice has been advanced, with an inversion of regressive policies and allocations.  Policies are more efficient, with less corruption at implementation stage, and improved collection of taxes.  Furthermore, the yearlong mobilization required from the system has resulted in an enhanced understanding of issues of governance and responsibility, as well as learning of technical issues, across the city. 

The changes and learning have not only been taking place among the participating communities, but also in the administration itself.  The process of making information available for debate and challenge has had an impact on the way the administration works, with a lot more freedom of information in other realms.  

Returning to the three framing questions of the presentation, Brian concluded that the process:

1. deepens democracy through expansion of public debate, giving traditionally excluded communities a formal place at the table;

2.  has a material value giving communities direct control over development of their neighborhoods and money to do that, and an educational value as people learn about government, access information and practice making decisions and reaching consensus over their lives;

3. can link rights to budgets where it allows social justice to be achieved and citizens to be creative.  

Questions and comments: 

… conditions for participation:  the presentation on participatory budgeting generated rich discussion about the applicability of the concepts and processes to different political and social contexts.  In Indonesia, for example, the budget process is highly centralized and secretive. Would the best line of action in this case be to raise people’s awareness of their rights and responsibilities in relation to the budget?  What are the criteria for acceptance and success of participatory budgeting processes?

The process has been successfully introduced in 100 cities, and seems to depend on the existence of strong civil society networks, a progressive government with a base in social movements and voluntary organizations.  It also depends on a budget with a proportion of discretionary expenditure and works best in medium to large sized cities with revenue sources and infrastructure to work with.   It is a long process and needs to experience continuity between elections to take root.  

… the role of political parties:  More information was requested about the role of political parties in the process, and its impact on their functioning.  

The participatory budget process is open to people from all political parties, as well as neighborhood associations and religious organizations. This means that the parties have to relate to people directly in order to influence the process.  They must also make concrete proposals for social problems if they seek support.  

Vivek Pandit added that political parties are the decision-makers and it is impossible to avoid working with them, but that there are always accessible people within the parties who are ready to listen despite ideological differences.  It is important to identify these people and understand the informal power structures within the parties in order to make progress. 

Parliament has an important role to play in representing the voice of the people in the budget process, but often there is lack of understanding and capacity which weakens this role.  Pro-poor activists and budget analysts have played an important role in many countries building awareness and capacity among parliamentarians to fulfill this role. 

… whose participation?  The presentation of the participatory budget process did not specify which people do, and which are able to, participate.  Are they the literate elite?  What is the gender balance?  How does the structure of participation impact on who benefits directly and indirectly from allocation of resources?  

The participatory budget process takes place at district level, and once those boundaries were drawn the communities within decide how to represent themselves.  Although it is true that the traditionally marginalized poor and working class have more difficulty mobilizing themselves their participation has increased through the process. The process does not automatically correct social inequalities but it tends to force discussion about it, including race and gender issues.

The actual participation in the forums is only 5% of the total community, although a lot more people are represented through networks and social groups.  Statistics show that 50% of participants have only primary education, and 16% have higher education.  These latter are mostly those working in poor neighborhoods as doctors, nurses, teachers etc.  It is a process of partnership between all members of the community.  In many cases women are in the majority at the forum level, although only a third of committee members are women.    

… monitoring learning:  It is not clear whether participants are gaining information to be policy advocates or just to legitimize other political processes.  How can public learning be monitored for outcome?  

Survey results are inconclusive about the extent and value of public learning from the process.  People have different opinions about the quality of debate and it is not clear the extent to which learning penetrates the local community.  As Vivek noted, it is important that the process is by the poor, not on their behalf, to ensure legitimacy, ownership, sustainability and learning.

Networking and
Collaborative Research