Case Study 2:PROOF,a Citizen’s Forum for Monitoring City Budgets

38 Brian Wampler

level ofgovernment actually has.Participants learn to understand the division ofauthority,which should aid them in directing their demands to the appropriate level ofgovernment.This educates the population and benefits the government,as community leaders gain a better understanding ofthe government’s limited powers.In the municipality ofSanto Andre,Brazil, many participants initially raised concerns about violence and police corruption.The government,however,did not have jurisdiction over the police.As participants grew to understand this,they shifted their focus to issues on which the municipal government had the authority and resources to act.

Thematic Programs The purpose ofparticipatory budgeting thematics is to further democratize the policy-making process by letting citizens establish the general priorities ofthe municipal government.This encourages participants to analyze and understand the city as a whole rather than concentrate on problems specific to their neighborhood.This process is part ofthe larger empowerment or “citizenship school”component ofparticipatory budgeting,in which citizens are encouraged to envision and work for broader social change.

Participatory budgeting thematic meetings allow participants to set broad priorities for public policies.The first stage ofthis process requires that the government provide detailed information on current policies and spending priorities.The second stage is a series ofdiscussions in which participants evaluate the government’s priorities.The last stage is the ordering ofpriorities by participants.To date,participants do not propose and debate their own policies but focus on the government’s preexisting policies.For example,participants prioritize the level ofspending that should be dedicated to prenatal care or to the eradication ofinfectious diseases.They do not,for the most part,independently propose new policies.This suggests that citizens work closely with government officials to determine the best ways to spend resources.Governments bring their expertise,and participantssignal their policy preferences.When government officials believe strongly in a policy program,they strongly argue its merits to convince participants to support it.There is a fine line between providing information and coercing participants, which governments must tread carefully.Often they cross this line.Ifthere is complicity between government officials and citizens (especially leaders), participatory budgeting runs the risk that participants simplyrubberstamp the government’s policy positions.

The quality ofthe meetings and debates varies.Some participants are longtime advocates ofparticular issues.Their knowledge ofother policy