Guatemala,Nicaragua,and Peru

TABLE 3.1 Characteristics ofCase Study Municipalities in Bolivia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru

Level of financial Incumbent Opposition Level of Level ofsuccess/location Population Ethnicity resources party party social capital NGO presence

High level ofsuccess Curahuara de Carangas, Bolivia 5,937 Aymara High Indigenous None Strong Very stronga Huaccana, Peru 11,289 Quechua Low Indigenous None Weak+ Very stronga Ilo, Peru 60,053 Mixed High Left Weak Strong Weak Limatambo, Peru 9,264 Quechua Low Indigenous/left Medium+ Medium+ None Santo Domingo, Peru 10,209 Quechua/mixed Medium Peasant Union None Strong Strong Villa El Salvador, Peru 344,657 Mixed Very low Left Weak Strong Strong Moderate level ofsuccess El Alto, Bolivia 632,372 Aymara/mixed Medium? Center Medium Medium Weak Tarabuco, Bolivia 20,000 Quechua Medium Peasant Union Strong Medium+ Medium EstelÍ, Nicaragua 110,000 Mixed Low Left Weak Medium Strong Santo Tomás, Nicaragua 19,778 Mixed Low Right Weak? Weak Weak Independencia, Peru 210,807 Mixed Very low Center Weak? Medium Weak Low level ofsuccess La Union, Guatemala 24,213 Ladino Low Center Medium Weak Weak? Panajachel, Guatemala 10,919 Maya/mixed Medium Nonpartisan Medium Weak Weak? civic committee Nandaime, Nicaragua 38,800 Mixed Very low Right Weak Weak Strong

Source: Bolivia: WBI (2002, 2003, 2004b, 2004c, n.d.-b); Guatemala: Fundemos (2003), WBI (2004a, 2004d, 2004e); Nicaragua: Pineda Gadea (2003, 2004), WBI (2004f, 2004g); Peru: Ventura Egoávil (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f). a. Internationally and nationally based NGOs provided extensive funding and technical aid and encouraged the mayor to implement participatory budgeting. Lessons from Latin America’s Experience with Participatory Budgeting

113