|
|
themes> |
What is PB?
If you are new to PB and are seeking basic information on the process go to Section 1.How to make PB work better?
If you are trying to implement a PB program or are looking for a way to improve a current PB program go to Section 2.What is Participatory Budgeting (PB)?
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is the process by which citizens deliberate and negotiate over the distribution of public resources. PB programs are implemented at the behest of governments, citizens, NGOs, and civil society organizations to give citizens a direct role in deciding how and where public resources should be spent. These programs create opportunities for engaging, educating, and empowering citizens, which can foster a more vibrant civil society. PB also helps to promote transparency, which has the potential to reduce government inefficiencies and corruption.
Most citizens who participate in PB are low-income and have low levels of formal education. Historically, these groups have been excluded from budget decisions, but PB programs enable them to make choices that affect how their government acts.
1985
- Brazil's democratic government is reestablished
- Numerous local-level democratic and participatory experiences initiated across Brazil
- Citizens organize themselves around democratic themes of direct participation, autonomy, and redistribution of resources to the poor.
- Political outsiders and reformers win elected offices at state and municipal levels. These political newcomers are willing to experiment with innovative policy programs in order to grapple with Brazil's intense social and political programs.
1988
- The Brazilian Constitution allows citizens to be involved in local policy-making processes. Decentralization of authority increases the authority and flexibility of mayors to adopt new policy-making programs.
1989
- Participatory Budgeting is implemented in Porto Alegre by the Workers' Party (PT)
1990-91
- Participatory Budgeting is implemented in ten additional Brazilian cities.
1993
- Porto Alegre's Participatory Budgeting consolidates and draws in ten of thousands of participants per year.
- 52 new cases of PB in Brazil.
1996
- The United Nations cites Participatory Budgeting as one of the 40 best policy program at the Istanbul Habitat Conference.
1997
- 130 new cases of PB in Brazil. Two-thirds adopted by governments other than the PT.
2001
- 6177 new cases of PB in Brazil. Nearly two-thirds adopted by governments other than the PT.
2005
- PB had spread to well over 300 municipalities in more than 40 countries, including China, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay.
Source: Brian Wampler and Leo Avritzer
How Does the Porto Alegre PB Model Work?
Citizens participate in a series of government-sponsored meetings over an eight-month period, during which they vote for specific and general policies. The minimum criterion for a program to be considered participatory budgeting is the direct involvement of citizens involved in making some budgetary decisions. Citizens are mainly focused on investment spending; 10-20% of Brazilian municipal budgets are available for spending on new public works. Citizens first vote for general policies, establishing the main priorities for this new spending on infrastructure, housing, or health care). Citizens then vote for specific projects, such as paving their street or opening a health care clinic in their neighborhood.
To distribute resources and to organize citizen participation, Porto Alegre was divided into 12 administrative districts. Citizens attend meetings in their local districts. Votes are held within the district in order to encourage competition and solidarity among individuals from similar socio-economic backgrounds. For example, low income residents compete against other low income residents rather than against middle and high income residents.
In order to promote social justice, resources are distributed among the 12 districts according to need - the more intense the poverty, the greater the level of resources that the district will receive. Therefore, the poorest district will automatically be allocated higher levels of resources than the wealthiest district.
Citizens also vote for delegates to represent their interests during final budget negotiations and policy implementation. The "PB Delegates" engage in oversight functions to ensure that corruption is limited and projects are completed. In addition, these "PB delegates" act as intermediaries between the government and their local communities.
For participatory budgeting to be most successful, the following conditions must be met:
- There must be strong government support for the delegation of authority directly to citizens.
- Mayors must allow citizens to make specific budget decisions.
- Mayors must be willing to implement the policy programs selected by citizens.
- Governments must prepare and distribute high-quality budget and policy planning documents to citizens.
- Government information must include resources available for implementation and must include sectors (e.g. education, health care) in which citizens can make choices.
- Governments must be willing to transform the way in which policy decisions are made at the local level.
- Internal administrative processes must be reformed to allow for decentralized decision-making venues as well as to orient the bureaucracy to implement the projects selected by participants.
- Governments must delegate authority directly to citizens, which decreases the authority and influence of government ministers and legislators.
- Governments must have sufficient resources to implement public infrastructure projects selected by citizens.
As for citizens and civil society organizations (CSOs):
- Citizens must be able to decide on what public projects they'd like money to be spent on.
- Citizens need to exercise their voice: Debates over types, location, and purpose of proposed projects.
- Citizens need to exercise their vote on policy preferences.
- CSOs and citizens must be willing to work closely with government officials. Cooperation is crucial to allow multiple parties to work towards viable policy solutions. Cooperation encourages government officials to continue to delegate authority. Cooperation encourages citizens to seek innovate state-society alliances to produce policy reform.
- CSOs and citizens must be willing to use PB's public format to pressure government officials and publicly denounce wrongdoing and/or inaction.
- Citizens need to act as rights-bearing members of their community. If PB participants act as clients or simply users of PB, then they will be unable to place pressure on the government to implement projects that citizens strongly support.
Participatory Budgeting is more likely to flourish when CSOs and citizens are able both to cooperate with government officials and, when necessary, to contest those officials' ideas and policies. If CSOs are unwilling to contest officials, there will be no pressure on officials to delegate authority; there is also an increased possibility of co-optation. Therefore, CSOs can play a vital role in monitoring existing Participatory Budgeting arrangements as well as in promoting the adoption of PB in new places.
PB has spread across the globe through networks of political and civil society activists. Porto Alegre's World Social Forums have been a crucial catalyst, enabling activists from across the world to receive information about Brazil's most successful PB experiences. More recently, institutional funding institutions such as the World Bank, World Bank Institute, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and United Nations Habitat Program have begun to promote PB as an innovative way to promote transparency, enhance accountability, and encourage more socially equitable forms of spending.
In South Africa, for example, PB has promoted community participation in the budget in the municipalities of Stellenbosch and Buffalo City. In Stellenbosch, the Municipal Finance Management Act of 2003 requires that immediately after the annual budget is tabled in a municipal council, the accounting officer must make public the budget and all supporting documentation and invite the local community to submit comments on the budget. However, a large proportion of the community has not had the opportunity to build financial literacy skills to understand and discuss budget issues.
In the case of Buffalo City, public participation in the budget began with the formation of ward committees in 2001, though they have largely concerned themselves with identifying issues that directly affect a particular community rather than questioning resource allocation per se. (See "Community Participation in the Municipal Budget Process: Two South African Case Studies".)
In contrast, Indonesian efforts towards participatory budgeting have been hampered by the government's authoritarian practices; NGOs like FITRA (Indonesian Forum for Transparency in Budget) have struggled to promote participatory practices as a manifestation and catalyst of democratization. To enhance budget awareness amongst local communities and local authorities, FITRA strives to attract media interest, in particular from local radio stations and newspapers. (See "Indonesian Participatory Budgeting Efforts" and "Civic Engagement in Local Government Renewal in Indonesia".)
In other countries, like India, participatory budgeting is the result of governmental initiative. Under the Kerala People's Campaign for Decentralized Planning, launched in 1996, the national government transferred certain budget functions that had been controlled by state-level ministries to municipalities (in urban areas) and village councils (in rural areas). Every village council is required to organize an open village assembly twice a year to give citizens an opportunity to express their priorities and plan projects. (See "The Plasticity of Participation: Evidence from a Participatory Governance Experiment," and the website of the Kerala government.)
In Serbia, the European Movement in Serbia (EMS) established in 1992, is an independent and voluntary social organization of Serbian citizens that started the project "Towards More Transparent Budgeting and Public Procurement in Municipalities in Serbia" in the localities of Cukarica, Kikinda, and Nis. After six months, 27 more municipalities were added. Amongst other achievements, the project increased citizens’ interest in local administration and established an effective communication system between public officials and citizens. This helped raise citizens’ trust in their civil servants, despite persistent problems in delivering government services.
The World Bank is planning to support regional PB efforts in Africa and Latin America. (See Participatory Budgeting Knowledge and Action Support Centre for Africa.) While this effort should be supported, it is important to note that it is largely focused on helping governments initiate and administer PB. PB depends on the active participation by citizens and CSOs, and it is more likely to flourish when government officials see that it is in their interest to delegate some decision-making authority to citizens.
In Ipatinga, Brazil, the government sought to created a web-based program in order to improve the communication and tracking of projects. Citizens enter their projects on computers that the governments places in public schools, public health care facilities, and a public shopping mall. Citizens can enter their own policy proposals for debate as well as gain information about what projects have been proposed by others. Once public works projects have been established, the government links a tracking number to each project, which a citizen can then monitor on-line. http://www.ipatinga.mg.gov.br
Section 2What Types of Different Experiments Have Governments Implemented?
Develop a closer connection between citizens-participants and policy outputs
- Governments can create a direct link between citizens efforts and policy outcomes.
- Citizens can demand that governments more clearly show how they will implement the policies selected via PB. Example: Governments provide a tracking number to each approved projects. Citizens learn how to follow the propose project as it developed and then implemented. Public learning can be emphasized as a means to promote a better understanding of what governments must do to develop a project.
Use of internet to report status of projects as well as to enter projects for consideration
Raise awareness about taxes
Encourage citizens to ask for receipts, which increases sales taxes in order to increase resources available to the government.
Representation based on individual’s social status (e.g. race, gender)
Allows under-represented and historically excluded groups to make decisions.
Theme-based discussions vs. territorial-based discussions
Encourage citizens to discuss broader themes instead of focusing on immediate issues.
Use citizen mobilization in PB to pressure legislative branches
Identify overarching problems that the government would then try to fix
Raise controversial issues and ideas
- Allow citizens to use public format to discuss social exclusion.
- Allow citizens to discuss broader strategies for promoting change.
Promote solidarity
Strategies to Increase the Likelihood that PB is Adopted
Did you know that
Ryedale District Council in North Yorkshire has developed a Budget Simulator that enables citizens to tell the council whether they think more or less should be spent on different issues.
Civil society activists should seek out political reformers who are willing to directly incorporate citizens into decentralized policy-making institutions. Forming alliances to induce government officials to work closely with citizens and activists is one clear strategy to increasing the likelihood that PB will be adopted. Government officials should be convinced that there are governing and electoral benefits associated with adopting this new model.
Government officials interested in adopting PB should seek out civil society partners who are willing to engage in policy debates. PB can be an educational and empowering experience for citizens to help them better understand how government works and how public policies are formed. PB has the potential to broaden and deepen 'social capital' by altering the basic incentive structure of governments.
Civil society activists should also seek out alliances with other civil society activists in order to generate broader support for the direct involvement of citizens in policy-making venues. Governments are not likely to support the delegation of authority if they perceive that the program is captured by a small group.
Strategies to Increase the Likelihood that PB Functions Well
Government officials should be convinced that there are tangible policy and political benefits through their adoption of PB. Policy benefits include targeted spending, less waste due to increased transparency, and a better understanding of citizens' principal demands. Political benefits include increased mobilization of citizens, a deliberative venue that allows the government to explain its programs, and a better understanding of citizens' main demands. Therefore, community and NGO activists should focus their attention on convincing government officials that increasing citizens' authority will actually benefit the government.
Government officials should encourage CSOs and citizens to develop specific strategies and detailed public policies that would allow the government to respond to their demands. The government should provide workshops that will better allows community activists to have a better understanding of how policy implementation occurs with a focus on the financial and legal limitations faced by the government.
Governments have the ability to set the tone for deliberation. They cannot and should not attempt to control the debate, but they can introduce topics and provide information as a means to improve the quality of the debate.
Civil society activists interested in improving PB should work with their fellow activists to more closely monitor how the government administered PB. Close attention should be paid to the quality and breadth of information provided by the government to PB participants. When the information is not sufficient, civil society activists should be willing to publicly pressure the government to fulfill their commitment.
Civil society activists and NGOs should be prepared to directly confront the government regarding how the program can be structured. This confrontation should first occur within the public forums provided by PB. Activists should use these spaces to highlight the problems and to alert the government to their main concerns. If the government doesn't respond, it would then be appropriate for civil society activists to hold public demonstrations in order to pressure the government to respond. An emphasis on PB's rules and the government's inability to fulfill its commitments would be an interesting focus. However, it is possible that the use of a public demonstration would embarrass the government, which might cause the government to lower their support for PB.
Focus on Participatory Budgeting. Participatory decision-making venues can be one reform effort among many, but it may be more fruitful to stimulate participation in one specific institution. By concentrating resources and the government's attention on one project, it becomes more likely there will be sufficient political energy to allow PB to flourish. PB is more viable if greater numbers of citizens are willing to participate and when government officials can be convinced that they will benefit from the system. When PB is one reform project among many, it will have weaker effects. For reform-oriented governments with many constituencies, "first among equals" may be the best way to promote PB.
Forming a coalition of NGOs, community organizations, and research think-tanks that supported the adoption of PB and working with them to channel demands and interests into PB. As more groups and individual believe that PB can be a mechanism to promote their interests, government officials will feel pressured to place more energy and resources into PB.
Governments must be willing to implement the policies selected by citizens. If the government is unable or unwilling to implement these programs, then there is a decreased likelihood that PB will be successful. Supporters of PB within the government should work closely with state bureaucrats to ensure that policies will be implemented. It may be necessary to have bureaucrats work directly with PB participants to work with them about the timing of public policies. For example, water and waste line should be requested prior to street paving for the obvious reason of having to repave the street to put in water and waste lines.
Governments must demonstrate to citizens that they are successfully implementing policies. Governments should be as transparent as possible in order to show citizens what is being accomplished. Local governments should develop clear and easy to follow "end of the year" reports in which they show what was accomplished during the year.
Governments and civil society activists should be willing to sit down at the end of each year to examine the rules to identify if they need to be modified. It might be advantageous to fine-tune the rules each year in order to shore up the weaker parts of the process. Major rules changes should not be carried out each year because it takes time for citizens to adjust their strategies to best accommodate the rule structure.
