Brian Wampler December 1, 2015 “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

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 non- state 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 World Ranking 2015 World Ranking 2012 Regional Ranking 2015 Regional Ranking Brazil Croatia Kenya Mexico Philippi nes South Africa South Korea

Open Budget Survey Participation/Oversight Scores 7 Participation/ove rsight 2012 Participation 2015 Oversight 2015 Participation/Ov ersight 2015 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 participantsKey innovations: Policy Stage Medium-term Planning BrazilMulti-tieredCitizens/CBOsFormulationYes CanadaNationalCitizensFormulationNo CroatiaNationalCBOs No KoreaNationalPolicy expertsApprovalYes KenyaMulti-tieredCBO/CSOsFormulationYes MexicoNationalNGOs/policy expertsOversightNo PhilippinesMulti-tieredCitizens/CBOsOversightNo South AfricaNationalCitizens/CBOsOversightNo

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