Annex 1:Government System Levels

176 Alta Fölscher

up to 500 people.Participants are divided into groups;separate women’s groups prioritize gender-sensitive schemes.After the participatory process, members ofthe ward development committee visit proposed schemes to assess feasibility and make preliminary cost estimates.

Deciding between competing projects ultimately rests with the union development committee.In the final stages ofselection,the committee uses a screening matrix to assess criteria such as poverty alleviation,environmental impact,and gender impact.The union development committee then recommends which projects should be implemented.However,the ultimate decision rests with the union parishad.

The scheme supervision committees monitor the pace and quality of work during project implementation.They hold the power to stop payments to contractors.Communities are highly involved in project implementation, often providing additional resources,such as labor and money.

The second project intervention seeks to establish open budget sessions aimed at improving budget literacy at the ward level.The union budget proposal is posted on a notice board before the session.During the session, participants review the budget against the investment plan that was produced from the ward-level participatory exercises.Community representatives ask for clarification ofrevenues and expenditure,and they provide comments for inclusion in the final document.After these discussions, changes may be made to the budget proposals before the entire budget is approved by the union parishad.The final budget is made public when it is posted on the notice board.

According to Rahman,Kabir,and Razzaque (2004),the open sessions create an opportunity for real needs to be addressed.The sessions also create scope for the union parishads to raise resources,as citizens are motivated to pay their local taxes.The sessions tend to encourage more local support for implementing projects.

The quality ofparticipation remains a challenge.Despite several design interventions (colored cards to identify women’s issues,womenonly groups in planning meetings,and women’s representation on committees),the voices ofwomen are still not being heard,and men dominate most meetings.

Another weakness is the quality ofdeliberation in the open budget sessions,which is determined by the local government leaders’relationships to the ruling party.Iflocal leaders are in opposition,the meetings tend to be highly critical ofproposals in the budget.Ifthe local leader is from the ruling party,the session is overly supportive ofthe budget (Rahman,Kabir,and Razzaque 2004).