Participatory Budgeting (PB)

1. Participatory Budgeting (PB) Brian Wampler January 18, 2011

2. 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

3. CLASS EXERCISE:Which are the following are true about PB? • Citizens are directly incorporated into incremental decision-making venues • Citizens elect representatives who engage in ongoing negotiations with government officials and exercise oversight of project implementation • Citizens’ vote is largely focused on a percentage of the government’s new capital outlays. • Only a small minority of participants speak during public meetings • Supply-side, administrative reforms are a vital part of making PB programs function well

4. Participatory Budgeting:Founding Principles • Reward citizen mobilization • Encourage pro-poor policy selection • Promote deliberation • Reform administrative procedures • Institutionalize transparency • Links Citizens and Activists to Government Officials

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Ecuador: Government Involvement

8. 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

9. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Participants Voting

10. 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”

11. 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.

12. Belo Horizonte:Quality of Life Index

13. PB Cycle: Sequence of Events Source: Brian Wampler: A Guide to Participatory Budgeting

14. First round of Regional Meetings

16. First Round of Neighborhood Meetings

17. Second round of Regional Meetings

18. Second Round of Neighborhood Meetings

19. Belo Horizonte: Public Work Project Before After Complemento da Urbanização da Avenida Gandhi

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. Accountability Visting the Sites of Potential Public Works

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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

29. Distribution of Resources in Porto Alegre

30. 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

31. Belo Horizonte: Resource Allocation in PB (1994-2008)

32. 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?

33. 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

34. 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

35. Peru: PB Priorities in 2007

36. Uganda Example • Context • Decentralization 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

37. Uganda: Methodology

38. 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 priorities Source: ProMaputo Case Study Maputo Municipal Development Program, Mozambique

39. 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