Public Decisions

Appendix 247

which can be seen as a form ofdirect democracy,can be found throughout the budget process.The mechanisms deployed represent different intensities ofparticipation,because governments have discretion over the degree ofaccess to traditional state-controlled action spaces they provide in setting up or taking over participatory mechanisms.

McGee (2003) distinguishes four types ofparticipation:

information sharing (the state puts budget and public policy information into the public domain); consultation (the state sets up mechanisms such as forums,councils,and referendums or surveys to gather information on citizen preferences); joint decision making (citizens not only provide information on their needs and preferences but are active in real decision making); initiation and control by stakeholders (citizens have direct control over the full process ofdeveloping,raising funds for,and implementing projects or policy,as in social fund and community-driven development projects).

As participatory practices move up this ladder,the argument goes,they become more effective instruments ofparticipation:direct initiation and control by stakeholders is more powerful than joint decision making,which in turn is more effective than consultation and information sharing.

Preconditions and Enabling Factors for Citizen Engagement with Public Decisions

The capacity ofcitizens to engage the state on the allocation and use ofpublic resources—and the likelihood oftheir actually doing so—depend on several factors.These include the openness and democratic depth ofpolitical and governance systems;the existence ofenabling legal frameworks, including guarantees ofbasic freedoms;the capacity for participation both inside and outside ofgovernment;the existence offunctional and free media institutions;and the willingness and capacity ofthe state to make budget information available.

Formal and Informal Political Systems Paul (2005) contends that initiatives that encourage citizen participation in public decision making are more successful in societies that adhere to democratic governance,are open to public debate and criticism ofthose in authority,have relatively free media,and allow independent CSOs to take

248 Alta Fölscher

root.Goetz and Gaventa (2001) emphasize the importance ofthe nature and organization ofthe political system in determining the level and quality ofparticipation.The argument is that even ifa civil society group is well equipped with expertise and resources to initiate participation,its efforts will not yield significant benefits unless election to power is contestable. Contestability refers not only to the existence ofreal competition in the election ofcandidates but also to the requirement that the attractiveness of one candidate over another should be driven less by the politics ofidentity, personality,and patronage and more by issues ofpublic policy.When issues ofpublic policy and service delivery get more play in voter preferences, politicians have less leeway to ignore events or behave in ways that invite voter dissatisfaction.

Spahn (1998,p.2) emphasizes that while good governance needs to be rooted in local norms and values,the legitimacy ofgovernments remains an important element.Legitimate government “is essential to form consensus within a society and thus to foster political stability and social cohesion.” Governments are legitimate when they are representative and their political and bureaucratic power is limited.A free media and effective opposition parties are important elements ofa legitimate system ofgovernment.

Bringing a concept oflegitimacy to good governance in the context of participatory budgeting is important in two ways.First,meaningful space for participation in government processes contributes to legitimacy and trust in government.Second,some degree oflegitimacy is necessary before citizens will engage with government,particularly directly.Goetz and Gaventa (2001) emphasize the role ofa mature political party system in legitimizing government and enabling participation.

Fawaz (2002,p.11) refers to these aspects as an “environment ofpolitical pluralism and inclusiveness”and notes that notions ofempowerment of local authorities,good governance,partnership,and accountable and transparent management carry implicit assumptions about the existence of media freedom,high levels ofdevolution ofauthority,equal power relations among actors,and civil society with sufficient capacity to participate.When these features are not in place,they act as “silent barriers”to change.

While participatory budgeting initiatives can build trust and social capital,they also depend on some already existing degree oftrust (between citizens and the state as well as among citizens).Some ofthe most successful case studies in Asia have occurred in Thailand:within a nationally set policy and legal framework,several local area authorities have initiated sophisticated participatory budget processes in which hierarchies ofcivil committees make the tradeoffs between different interests within a

Appendix 249

community and between communities.The existence oftrust that over time resources will be distributed equitably across interest groups has enabled the groups to agree on funding.The high level oftrust may in part be supported by underlying social cohesiveness:Thai society is relatively homogeneous. Fawaz (2002) argues that the promotion ofgood governance based on notions ofrepresentivity,transparency,accountability,and participation often fails to take account ofthe reality ofethnic and religious divisions insome states.

The type ofsociety,the type ofpolitical system,the legitimacy ofthe government,and attitudes toward governance also determine which types of participatory initiatives can be introduced successfully.The effectiveness of initiatives ofall kinds depends on the likelihood ofstate actors experiencing “public accountability discomfort”when initiatives and their outcomes are ignored.The more vibrant a country’s democratic governance and the more real the contest for political power,the more options are open for effective civil society participation.Ifthe media are not free,access to information is repressed,societies do not allow public debate on issues ofpublic interest, and freedom ofassociation is constrained,civil society cannot conduct public policy and advocacy work.

The attitude ofstate actors to citizen voice is related in principle to systems ofaccountability,which in turn is related to contestability and representivity,as set out in the World Bank framework for governance discussed above.The importance ofthe relation between these issues correlates well with the case study evidence presented in this volume that participatory initiatives bringing citizens into the public sphere to make decisions about resource use are critically dependent on the willingness oflocal government representatives to pay attention to citizens’expressed preferences.This in turn is dependent on the nature ofthe political system.Where local civil society or third parties,such as development partners,initiate a direct participation initiative without having first secured real commitment from public officials,the impact remains questionable.

Figure A.1 provides a schematic representation ofthese relationships. The shaded area denotes instances ofparticipatory mechanisms that are unlikely to yield results—mechanisms that bring citizens into the public sphere to make decisions within an environment in which local government officials have little interest in citizen participation and policy issues have low political currency.The risk ofparticipation being counterproductive in such cases is real,because citizens soon learn that participation has no or very few real benefits,making them less interested in initiatives under more favorable conditions later.