“Citizens and non-state actors should have the right and effective
opportunities to participate directly in public debate and discussion
over the design and implementation of fiscal policies.”
GIFT High Level Principle 10,
Endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, December 2012
Brian Wampler
December 1, 2015
GIFT’s Definition: Public Participation
2
 Public participation in government fiscal
policy and budget processes refers to the
variety of ways in which citizens, civil society
organizations, businesses and other nonstate actors interact directly with public
authorities on issues relating to government
taxation and revenue collection, resource
allocation, spending and the management of
public assets and liabilities.
Why Public Participation
3
Governments, citizens, civil society organizations
and non-state actors use public participation to:
 Improve the allocation of scarce public resources
 Better target public policies to meet citizens’ needs





empower citizens
Broaden public dialogue
Reduce corruption
Improve service delivery
Reform state agencies
Increase government legitimacy
Talk Outline
4
 Case Selection: 8 cases
 Window of Opportunity for reform
Constitutional reform, new regime
 Change of party system

 Variation in policy type
Centralized vs. multi-tiered integration
 Broad inclusion vs. policy experts/NGOs
 Formulation, approval implementation, oversight

 What explains variation
Party system
 Roots of reform—local-led vs. national led
 International actors

 Identifiable Impacts

Institutional redesign
Case Selection: Regional leaders
5
 First wave: Philippines, South Korea, Brazil
 Second wave: Canada, Croatia, Kenya, Mexico, South
Africa
Open Budget Survey
6
2012
2012
2015
2015
World
World Regional Regional
2006 2008 2010 2012 2015 Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
Brazil
74
74
71
73
77
12
6
1
1
Croatia
42
59
57
61
53
22
36
6
7
Kenya
48
58
49
49
48
46
46
7
6
Mexico
50
55
52
61
66
23
17
3
3
Philippi
nes
51
48
55
48
64
48
23
6
3
South
Africa
83
75
85
73
86
5
3
1
1
South
Korea
73
66
71
75
65
9
19
2
3
Open Budget Survey
Participation/Oversight Scores
7
Participation/ove
rsight 2012
56
Participation
2015
71
Oversight
2015
79
Participation/Ov
ersight 2015
75
54
38
45
41
56
33
53
43
46
44
58
51
60
67
51
59
85
65
89
76
75
83
67
75
Brazil
Croatia
Kenya
Mexico
Philippines
South Africa
South Korea
Windows of Opportunity
8
 Regime Change
 Constitutional change
 Shift in party system
 Growth of civil society
Institutional Variation
9
Centralized
vs. multi-tiered integration
Broad inclusion vs. policy experts/NGOs
Formulation, approval implementation,
oversight
Multi-tiered integration vs. Centralized
10
 Multi-tiered integration
 Vertical links between national and subnational units
 Great ties among national-level institutions
 Centralized in national-level
 Led by one or two ministries
 Focus on participation in national-level policies
Who participates?
11
 Ordinary citizens
 NGOs, professional CSOs
 CBOs
 Policy Experts
Policy Moment
12
 Formulation


Increased use with smaller distance between citizens and
government officials w/ budgetary authority
Greater resources present
 Approval

Stronger legislature; multi-party system; counter to bureaucracy
 Implementation
 Oversight


Local—Involve citizens to monitor far-flung agents
National—Involve CSOs and policy experts to monitor complex state
operations
Institutional Design Variation
13
National-focus or
Multi-tiered
Key participants
Key innovations:
Policy Stage
Medium-term
Planning
Brazil
Multi-tiered
Citizens/CBOs
Formulation
Yes
Canada
National
Citizens
Formulation
No
Croatia
National
CBOs
Korea
National
Policy experts
Approval
Yes
Kenya
Multi-tiered
CBO/CSOs
Formulation
Yes
Mexico
National
NGOs/policy experts
Oversight
No
Philippines
Multi-tiered
Citizens/CBOs
Oversight
No
South Africa
National
Citizens/CBOs
Oversight
No
No
Explaining adoption
14
 Local to national vs. National-led
 Renewal type
 Regime change + New Constitution
 Party system expansion
 Configuration of civil society
 Party system
 From one-party to multi-party
 # of parties
 International actors
 World Bank
 Open Government Partnership
Identifiable impacts to date
15
 Institutional adoption and adaptation
Considerable experimentation across 8 countries
 Changes in spending patterns

South Korea
 Changes in policy directives

Brazil
 Changes in Service delivery
Philippines
South Africa
Where to from here?
16
 Making better use of OBS-- Cross-national comparison
 Better link results from Transparency to Participation scores
 Meta-Study of National-level Fiscal Participatory
Institutions (Like Mansuri and Rao 2014)
 Identify links between participatory institutions and
changes/shifts in policies adoption

And, eventually, impact on participation on outcomes
Concluding remarks
17
 Extensive policy adoption and adaptation
 Multi-tiered integration
 Wide range of actors across policy venues
 Different moments of policy cycle
 However……Limited evidence to demonstrate impact
of institutions