Capacity Building to Support Civic Participation

170 Alta Fölscher

The initial focus ofPROOF’s interventions was on the budget as a whole;this focus later narrowed to specific expenditure or revenue issues.It also moved from an analysis ofinput and expenditure trends to looking atwhat is achieved with funds.PROOF is now in the process ofdeveloping performance indicators.

In addition,it uses the citizen report card surveys conducted by the Public Affairs Centre,a founding member,to inform its dialogue.These report cards use public opinion surveying techniques to generate robust information about citizens’satisfaction with core government services,such as provision ofelectricity.The cards thus represent an assessment ofthe city’s public services from the perspective ofits citizens.They provide useful feedback on the quality,efficiency,and adequacy ofthe services and problems citizens face in their interactions with service providers.Where multiple service providers exist,it is possible to compare their ratings across services.The cards also collect information about private expenses incurred as a result ofpoor services and analyze the economic costs to households and the city ofinefficient public services.The report cards have had a real impact on the level,quality,and efficiency ofpublic services.

With this analytical background,attendance at the quarterly PROOF meetings has grown over the three years since the initiative began,and citizens’awareness and understanding oflocal budgetary issues have increased.The city is more open to sharing budgetary information,and initial tensions between the city and civil society groups have eased,allowing a sense ofpartnership to develop.The mayor,the municipal commissioner,and senior officials participate in the meetings and respond to the PROOF analysis and citizens’questions.

Despite attempts to make participation more broad based,PROOF has been criticized as being dominated by professionals.Critics charge that the concerns raised in the public forum are elitist and that meetings have failed to address certain key issues,such as corruption.Another frequent criticism is that the budget discussions are so technical that ordinary citizens can follow only up to a point.Some critics believe the process would be more worthwhile ifward-level budgets were examined (Paul 2005b;Vijayalakshmi 2004).

Concerned Citizens ofAbra for Good Governance (CCAGG) in the Philippines The Concerned Citizens ofAbra for Good Governance (CCAGG) was founded in 1986,when new opportunities were created for NGOs to participate in development programs in the Philippines.CCAGG members signed a

Participatory Budgeting in Asia 171

memorandum ofunderstanding with the National Economic Development Authority and received training from the agency in project monitoring.

When the Ministry ofPublic Works and Highways falsely declared in a public advertisement that it had successfully completed 27 projects in Abra province,CCAGG members decided to take action.CCAGG gathered evidence ofthe actual state ofthe projects,including photographs and statements by residents in the project areas,which it submitted to the national government.An official audit followed,and several officials were charged with corruption.When there was danger that punishment would be minimal, with officials receiving mere reprimands,CCAGG mobilized public opinion. As a result,the officials were suspended.

Since then CCAGG members have developed a unique technique for monitoring road construction projects. Investigations look for a variety of types ofcorruption.The method is straightforward.Volunteers—primarily housewives,students,and other young people—observe work sites and report findings to specialist colleagues,such as engineers and accountants, who conduct detailed investigations on the project sites.

Common malfeasance includes the use ofsubstandard materials (cement mixtures),substandard construction techniques,and fraudulent contracting procedures (rigged contracts).In one project CCAGG members found that contractors had embezzled project funds.In response to CCAGG’s findings,the government forced the contractor to pay for a road expansion. A sign ofthe group’s effectiveness is that the supreme audit institution ofthe Philippines has entered into a partnership with CCAGG to provide audit information on projects in the Abra region (Ramkumar and Krafchik 2005).

Initiatives that Involve Citizens in Consultation and Joint Decision Making Paul (2005a) argues that programmatic shifts in budget allocations are far less likely to result from arm’s length participation than they are from direct citizen involvement in funding decisions.The next set ofcase studies investigates what happens when civil society—both organized civil society and citizens at large—steps into what was traditionally the state’s action space to join hands with government in making public resource decisions.

Indirect participation in the budgeting process Citizens are indirectly involved in the budgeting processes in three cases, where participation is limited to consultation.The local government decides

172 Alta Fölscher

ifand when consultation will take place,sets the agenda for consultation, and,to a degree,determines who will be consulted.It is unclear from these case studies that any ofthe benefits expected from participation—improved policy decisiveness and public accountability,better quality democracy, social consensus and trust in government––are better served through public consultation than through civil society–led activities aimed at improving transparency and accountability.In fact,several risks attach to consultation ofthis nature,particularly ifinitiated and controlled by the state.In particular,citizens may be consulted only on “safe”public policy issues that are not sensitive or resource consuming.

The demarcation ofthe public policy participatory space in the three case studies is simultaneously too vague and too precise to be meaningful. Consultation may actually be divisive:governments may use it as a way to manage the government–civil society interface.Reuben (2003) describes such strategies as developing harmonious relationships with some civil society groups and organizations while confronting others,thereby creating factions in civil society.Participation may also be elitist:citizens selected to participate may be people who are already influential and well resourced. Participation may be meaningless and therefore shunned by citizens,as it was in Rayong City,Thailand,where the participatory commissions operated outside ofpolicy and budget processes and soon were dormant.Overall,consultation may detract from civil society’s ability to be critical ofthe stateand hold it to account,without much benefit in terms ofpolicy appropriateness or increased trust in government.

This is not to say that consultation is always an ineffective participatory mechanism.Whether it is effective depends largely on the intention ofthe local government and the institutional arrangements—the rules,structures, processes,and information management—ofthe consultative process.Local governments that are sincere about soliciting citizens’views can form focus groups and pay attention to the views that participants express.This typeof consultation can enhance the quality ofdemocracy,improve policy decisiveness,and build trust in government.

Allowing citizens the right to initiate consultation—as they can in some Eastern European countries,where citizens can call meetings or initiate referendums on public policy issues oftheir choice—would mitigate the riskofempty processes.The provision by the local government of good,accessible information in a timely manner also enhances citizen participation.Transparent and impartial selection ofparticipants helps ensure good representation.Ifcitizens’groups must be accredited by the government before they can participate,as is the case in Naga City,or the

Participatory Budgeting in Asia 173

government selects participants,the risk ofco-option,patronage,and elitism is high.

legal provisions for participation in naga city, the philippines. Local government officials in Naga City,the Philippines,complemented national enabling legislation with specific legal provisions for participation at the local level.Its 1995 Empowerment Ordinance attempts to translate the participatory spirit of national legislation into a concrete reality.The ordinance states that the city government ofNaga should recognize that “the will ofthe people shall always reign supreme”and that the primary duty ofthe government is to ensure thatthis will is carried out.The people should therefore organize themselves to address common or sectoral concerns.Recognizing that governance is best carried out when responsibilities are shared with the people,the ordinance proposes a partnership between the local government and citizens such that sovereignty effectively resides with the people.The ordinance proposes a partnership with NGOs and people’s organizations forthe conception,implementation,and evaluation ofall government activities and functions.

In addition to having local civil society and citizen representation onseveral city bodies (as required by national legislation),Naga City introduced two specific mechanisms to create an enabling environment for participation ofcitizens and NGOs in local decision making.First,the city created the Naga City People’s Council,made up ofbusinesspeople,citizens, and NGOs.Members ofthe council have to be accredited by the city.The People’s Council has representation on other bodies,such as the local legislation council and the local decision board.It also has the right to observe,vote,and participate in local planning;propose legislation;and act as the people’s representative on governance issues,such as access to official records and documents.

Second,the city conducts multilevel consultations on priorities for development and holds citywide referendums on local issues.These issues have included concerns about the development ofa golfcourse,the creation ofa shelter program,the establishment ofa bus terminal,and the color coding ofthree-wheel vehicles (Brillantes 2005;McGee 2003).

focus groups and town hall meetings in khon kan city, thailand. Khon Kan City,with a population of 130,000,is the rapidly growing,dynamic center ofnortheastern Thailand. The municipality provides city infrastructure,primary education,community

174 Alta Fölscher

health and sanitation,social welfare,law and order,and disaster management and prevention services.

Local demand for civic participation grew out ofthe active participation oflocal residents in the constitution-drafting process in the late 1990s.The city first contracted the local university to conduct a series of focus groups at the community level;the sessions provided valuable information concerning problems,needs,and priorities.The activity also generated suggestions for policy directions and strategic projects for development planning.Thirty-eight new development programs were put into the city development plan as a result ofthe meetings.The city has now extended the focus group meeting program to include specific meetings to discuss education,health and sanitation,income promotion, social welfare,and other important concerns.More than 50 meetings were held in 2003.

In 1998,a year after the focus group meetings began,the city introduced town hall meetings,which are held every three months,with additional special purpose meetings held as necessary.A new practice evolved:town hall meetings,with full discussion,are now required whenever a policy issue has potential significance for the general public.Public consent is needed before any such policy can be implemented.Local experts are invited to make presentations,after which the mayor,officials,the general public,and the experts debate the policy.In 2003 more than 140 civic organizations and as many as 150 public participants were active in these meetings.

Before a meeting is held,the event is widely announced.The city sets the meeting agenda.Town hall meetings are conducted in the evenings to allow most citizens to attend.The chair is an experienced person,such as the governor ofthe province.The mayor’s leadership was a major factor in making the meetings successful.Surveys show that citizens are satisfied with the civic participation measures (Suwanmala 2004).

civic commissions and focus groups in rayong city,thailand. Rayong is a metropolitan municipality in Rayong Province,in eastern Thailand.Its population ofmore than 60,000 is growing due to high migration into the area.

The city identified increased tax collection efficiency as a priority.To counter negative feelings about the tax collection program,it introduced citizen participation in budgetary processes.In initial efforts Rayong City twinned with the city ofPortland,Oregon,and used international expertise to develop a program centered on establishing civic commissions,one for development planning and another for fiscal policy.The commissions included

Participatory Budgeting in Asia 175

representatives ofcivic organizations,business leaders,and trade leaders.The city also conducted focus groups to monitor project implementation.

Ofthe two interventions,only the project-level focus groups were successful,with citizens providing input into the design and feedback on the implementation ofa city park.The civic commissions were never fully functional:only the fiscal policy commission ever produced policy proposals.Both commissions stopped meeting in 2003.Rayong City then fine-tuned focus group mechanisms,tested earlier with the construction ofthe city park,to develop its local development plan.A local NGO was contracted to manage the consultation process.At the time ofthiswriting, the project was under way,and the first round had been completed (Suwanmala 2004).

Direct participation in the budgeting process Citizens are directly involved in the budget process in Bangladesh and Thailand,where initiatives have achieved significant success.Local development projects are better aligned with citizen preferences;accountability has been enhanced through oversight ofimplementation;infrastructure development is more sustainable,with citizens taking an interest in maintaining village assets;trust in government has been enhanced;revenue collection is up;and villagers have a direct say in local development expenditure.

capacity building of union parishads in srajganj district, bangladesh. In 2000 the government of Bangladesh,the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),and the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) jointly initiated the Srajganj local government development project,aimed at developing capacity for participatory processes at the lowest tier oflocal government,the union parishads.The project consists oftwo interventions:provision ofannual block grants ofabout $6,000 to each union for allocation to projects in wards and the institutionalization ofopen budget sessions to establish citizen engagement with the local budget.

For the block grants,each union forms development committees at the ward and union levels.Scheme supervision committees oversee the implementation ofprojects.The ward development committees conduct participatory planning sessions.One oftheir critical responsibilities is to ensure broad participation in the planning sessions.Sessions are chaired by the ward union parishad member and facilitated by the union facilitation team.

At the outset a tour ofthe ward is undertaken to identify problems. The ward-level process that follows can take up to three days and involve