Participatory Budgeting Framework

58 Donald P. Moynihan

“representative bureaucracy,”advocates ofparticipation support the development of“strong democracy,”characterized by increased citizen participation (Barber 1986).Local governments are particularly suited to this model.As Peters (1996,p.58) notes,“Local governments,by their very size,make participation more meaningful.Moreover,local governments tend to use more mechanisms that permit direct citizen involvement than do national or regional governments ...in ways that would probably be impractical for national governments.”

The search for the democratic ideal The idealistic nature ofthe goals ofparticipation,particularly the yearning for the democratic ideal,explains much ofits appeal.Minimalist treatments ofparticipation (for example,Easton 1990) emphasize the importance ofparticipation in preventing popular alienation from government and maintaining the stability ofthe political system.A more active approach, typical ofnormative theory,shows greater concern for participation that produces benefits to citizens and offers them the chance to fulfill the “democratic wish”to exert real influence on the governing process (Morone 1998). These ideals are closely associated with the fulfillment ofcitizen rights in a democratic society.

Support for democratic ideals appears to have grown with the rise of postmodern values.Such ideals are often considered in abstract terms and tend to evoke affective rather than cognitive responses from individuals. Any form ofcitizenship beyond simple legal status requires active citizen involvement in public matters and the community (Cooper 1984).Participation serves to establish the worth ofindividual citizens,allowing them to feel a sense ofownership and take an active part in controlling their surroundings and developing their capacity to act as citizens (King and Stivers 1998;Kweit and Kweit 1981).The process ofpublic deliberation is expected to generate benefits not only to individuals but also to society, in terms ofdemocratic legitimacy and a deliberative political culture (Habermas 1996).

The needs ofdeveloping countries Many ofthe arguments presented so far are abstract.But in developing countries the need for participation is very real.Participation is particularly important because it fosters good governance,promotes transparency, increases social justice by involving the poor and excluded,and helps individuals become better citizens.

Citizen Participation in Budgeting: Prospects for Developing Countries 59

participation fosters good governance. Poorer countries desperately need accountability and competent performance; participation is one way to achieve these goals.Proponents ofparticipation in richer countries share a disappointment with representative government.In poorer countries criticism ofthe status quo is more pertinent. Proponents ofparticipation in poorer countries point to corruption, opaque resource allocation,the failure to deliver basic services,and a power structure that offers nonelites little opportunity to have their views heard.The criticism ofrepresentative government in many poor countries is not so much that it has failed to promote citizen involvement but that it has failed to meet its basic responsibilities.A failure to govern in anopen,competent,and predictable fashion has also stymied economic development.

Some scholars (such as Lynn 2002) argue that participation undermines institutions ofrepresentative government.Such claims are less convincing in the developing-country context,where citizen involvement can force comparison between clientelist or corrupt representatives and participatory forums (Heimans 2002).Political systems that have a record ofpoor governance may decide to foster participatory forums in order to increase the government’s legitimacy (Moynihan 2003;Olivo 1998).The more representative the budget process appears to be,the more credible it will be in the eyes ofcitizens and external stakeholders.

In addition,some forms ofparticipation can strengthen the ability of the legislative branch and external parties,such as the media and interest groups,to check the centralization ofpower in the executive branch.Where legislators have little experience,little understanding ofthe budget process, or inadequate information upon which to make judgments,NGOs that provide budget analysis can strengthen the ability ofone branch ofgovernment to require accountability ofthe other.

Another argument for participation in a developing-country context is that it is a desired and natural outgrowth oftrends toward fiscal decentralization (Robinson 2004).Fiscal decentralization is intended to reduce central control in favor oflocal preferences that foster allocative efficiency.The promise offiscal decentralization is therefore also a promise ofparticipation,and the success ofone depends on the other.The good governance argument also links directly to overarching economic development concerns.Top-down investment strategies and public policies that fail to incorporate the preferences and oversight ofthose they serve will struggle.

60 Donald P. Moynihan

participation promotes transparency. Related to the good governance argument is the view that participation provides additional sources ofinformation not available through traditional political institutions.Participation is particularly useful in developing countries because it not only provides information to the government on citizen preferences but can also provide an alternative guide to external stakeholders who normally deal directly with government.

Participation and transparency may go hand in hand in developingcountry governments.Fölscher,Krafchik,and Shapiro (2000,p.43) note that in South Africa “a closed budget drafting process and lack oflegislature amendment powers severely restrict legislature and civil society participation in the budget process.Whereas some legislatures have carved a space for themselves in monitoring the implementation ofthe budget,they are also largely unable to effectively scrutinize budget plans before passing the budget.In turn this restricts civil society input into the budget.”

participation increases social justice. Many of the arguments for participation rest on the normative claim that citizens have a right to a say in decisions that affect their future in any democratic system. The exclusion ofthe poor has been so extreme in developing countries that some deliberate form ofempowerment is needed.

participation helps individuals become better citizens. Participation can benefit citizens and society more broadly by providing “citizenship schools”for people who have had limited involvement in civic life (Wampler 2000).Participation helps citizens learn about their rights,express their views to representatives,and see these views affect policy and action.Through participation citizens learn the basic language and practices ofgovernance.NGOs and governments can play a vital role in offering advice to citizens on how to understand what government policies mean for them,how to present their views,and how to assess government services.As citizens become skilled in the art ofdemocracy and social capital builds,their ability to hold their governments accountable and to foster high performance should increase (Putnam 1993).

The Need for Real Participation The arguments for participation overlap and complement one another to some degree.The literature on participation also suggests that not all modes of

Citizen Participation in Budgeting: Prospects for Developing Countries 61

participation are created equal.Some are better able to foster accountability and represent the views ofthe public than others.A typology ofthe goals of participation must be developed to evaluate its different forms.

Pro-participation arguments portray participation as a channel for direct democratic voice in decision making.These arguments call for direct and open involvement ofcitizens in decisions that affect them.A primary goal ofthis approach is to increase the direct representation ofall citizens. All citizens,not just those who are qualified by election,position,expertise, influence,or money,should be able to provide input.

According to Habermas (1989),participation processes must include all affected by a decision and disregard the social status ofthe participants.The first element ofthe typology,therefore,is the range ofcitizen involvement (the extent ofrepresentative participation).The range of involvement is narrow when only a handful ofcitizens or a particular socioeconomic group dominates decision making.The range becomes broader with the involvement ofinterest groups.It is broadest when large numbers ofcitizens representing different socioeconomic groups are directly involved.The involvement ofmore citizens helps reduce the uncertainty inherent in any effort to make decisions about the future (Hellström 1997).

A second primary goal ofparticipation is that government provides for genuine discourse with its citizens and takes their input seriously,which Pateman (1989) labels full participation.Participation should be authentic and have a genuine impact on public decisions (Fox and Miller 1996);the use ofparticipatory budgeting forums is oflittle benefit ifthe government does not listen.Such forums may be attractive to government for the symbolic value they provide.As Wampler (2000,p.3) notes,among local governments in Brazil that have adopted Porto Alegre’s model ofparticipatory budgeting, “there is wide variation in the success,as some administrations only play lip service to the programs.”

Under full participation each member ofa decision-making body has an equal say in the outcome ofdecisions.The second aspect ofthe typology is, therefore,the level ofcitizen involvement,measuring the extent to which full participation occurs (Arnstein 1969;Pateman 1989).Three levels ofparticipation can be distinguished (table 2.1).Pseudo participation suggests a token effort at fostering public involvement.Partial participation suggests that citizens are consulted but have limited impact on public policy.Full participation indicates that citizens have an authentic discourse with government, and their views are taken into account.