cusp_110108_participatory gov.pdf

7/29/2019 CUSP_110108_Participatory Gov.pdf

1/49

Does ParticipatoryGovernance MatterExploring the Nature and Impact of Participatory Reforms

Brian Wampler

Stephanie L. McNulty

?


2/49

Does PriiprGernne Matter?Epring e Nre n Imp Priipr Rerms

Brian Wampler

Stephanie L. McNulty


3/49

Available rom :

Comparative Urban Studies Project

Woodrow Wilson International Center or ScholarsOne Woodrow Wilson Plaza

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004-3027

.isnener.rg/sp

ISBN 1-933549-58-0


4/49

Does Participatory Governance Matter? iii

The Woodow Wilso Itetiol Cete o Schols is thenational, living memorial honoring President Woodrow Wilson. In providing

an essential link between the worlds o ideas and public policy, the Center ad-

dresses current and emerging challenges conronting the United States and theworld. Te Center promotes policy-relevant research and dialogue to increase un-

derstanding and enhance the capabilities and knowledge o leaders, citizens, and

institutions worldwide. Created by an Act o Congress in 1968, the Center is a

nonpartisan institution headquartered in Washington, D.C., and supported by

both public and private unds.

Je H, Diecto, Pesidet, d CEO

Bod o Tustees

Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chair; Sander R. Gerber, Vice ChairPublic members:James H. Billington, Librarian o Congress; Hillary R.Clinton, Secretary, U.S. Department o State; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary,

Smithsonian Institution; Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department o

Education; David Ferriero, Archivist o the United States National Archives and

Records Administration; James Leach, Chairman, National Endowment or

the Humanities; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department o Health and

Human Services

Private Citizen Members:imothy Broas, John . Casteen, III, Charles Cobb,

Jr., Telma Duggin, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Susan Hutchison, Barry S. Jackson

Boise Stte Uiesit is Idahos metropolitan research university, locatedin the states population center and capital city, a hub o government, business,

the arts, health care, industry and technology. Te campus is home o 11 Idaho

Proessor o the Year honorees since 1990 and the 2011 national champion stu-

dent debate and speech team. Boise State is the largest university in Idaho with an

enrollment record o over 19,000 students. Te College o Science Sciences and

Public Aairs is home to ve Carnegie Proessors o the Year and several Fulbright

Scholars and works to promote research to advance scholarly debates as well as toaid practitioners eorts to reorm and innovate. Dean Melissa Lavitt supported

this collaboration between Boise State University and the Wilson Center as a

means to better to connect Boise State aculty and students to timely debates on

citizen participation, democratization, and decentralization.

Boise Stte LedeshipBob Kustra, President

Martin Schimp, Provost

Melissa Lavitt, Dean, College o Social Sciences and Public Aairs


5/49


6/49

Does Participatory Governance Matter?

Contents

ExECUTIvE SUmmary 1

InTrODUCTIOn 3

WHaT IS ParTICIPaTOry GOvErnanCE? 6

STaTE Of THE DEBaTE 9

THE UnfOLDInG aGEnDa 11

ImPaCT 26

rESEarCH DIrECTIOnS anD POLICyrECOmmEnDaTIOnS 33

WOrkSHOP ParTICIPanTS 37

BIBLIOGraPHy 39


7/49


8/49

Does Participatory Governance Matter? 1

Executive Summary

On May 9-10, 2011, twenty scholars and practitioners rom seven coun-

tries gathered at the Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholarsto assess what scholars and policymakers have learned ater nearly three

decades o the widespread adoption o participatory governance institutions. Te

third wave o democracy was accompanied by decentralization, not just in new

democracies but also in older, better-established democracies. Tis decentraliza-

tion provided government reormers, civil society activists, and ordinary citizens

with the opportunity to establish new institutional arrangements that alter how

citizens engage each other and government ocials.

Te purpose o this workshop was to establish the conceptual and method-

ological approaches that will allow us to assess the impact o participatory gov-ernance on the lives o citizens, the organization o civil society, the contours o

state reorm, and, most broadly, the quality o democracy. Workshop participants

expressed cautious optimism about the potential or the new institutional ormats

to make meaningul changes to their environments. However, properly managing

expectations o what participatory institutions can accomplish is important, given

that these institutions are inserted into incremental policymaking processes where

the rate and intensity o change is likely to be slow. In the context o high demand

or scarce public resources, it is vital that scholars and policymakers develop a

solid base o evidence that shows how and i participatory institutions are produc-ing the intended benets.

During the two days o discussion, it became clear that our understanding

o impact should be grounded in our areas: 1) the structural context; 2) modali-

ties o adoption; 3) rules, orms, and design; and 4) the nature o participation.

Policymakers contemplating the adoption o participatory institutions would do

well to ocus on adapting existing programs to create a better t between the rules

and local needs.

Te next stage o this project will be to undertake a comprehensive and

broadly comparative research project. o develop a rigorous methodology that


9/49

Does Participatory Governance Matter?2

can be applied rom the urban centers o India and Brazil to the rural highlands

o Peru and Indonesia to suburbs o the United States and Germany, our research

project will gather data on the impact o participatory governance in ve areas:

citizen capabilities, civil society publics, state reorms, representative democracy,

and public policy outcomes.

Tis workshop sets out an ambitious agenda that will reshape how scholars

and policymakers understand the role that participatory institutions can play in

improving our democracies and public lie.

In addition to thanking the workshop participants, the authors would like to

thank Blair Ruble o the Wilson Center and Dean Melissa Levitt or their support

o this project. Teir generous support has been vital to our establishing a new

research agenda. We also wish to thank Allison Garland or her excellent organi-

zational skills not only as we prepared or the workshop but also as we wrote this

current publication.

Brian Wampler

Stephanie McNulty


10/49


Introduction

Asignicant innovation during democratizations third wave has been the

widespread incorporation o citizens voices into complex policymaking

processes. Participatory governance brings new actors into incrementaldecision-making processes; citizens deliberate over and vote on the allocation o

public resources and the use o state authority. Te adoption o participatory gov-

ernance is oten based on the perception that representative democracy is unable,

on its own, to improve the quality o state perormance, educate and empower

citizens, and make reasonably good use o scarce public resources (Santos 2005;

Barber 1984; Fung and Wright 2001 and 2003; Pateman 1970). Te adoption o

participatory governance is not a rejection o representative democracy, rather it

represents an eort to redesign institutions and improve the quality o democracy,

social well-being, and the state.Many academic elds, especially political science, have long concerned them-

selves with democracy, ocusing on issues such as democratic consolidation, presi-

dentialism, party systems, and electoral systems (e. g. Diamond 1999; Przeworski

and Stokes 1999; Mainwaring and Scully 1995; Shugart and Carey 1992). While

political elites and scholars oten rely on a Schumputarian model o electoral de-

mocracy, civil society activists and political reormers around the world have led

parallel eorts to change how citizens and government ocials engage each other.

Many new participatory institutions are located in developing countries with

weak states, broad and intense poverty levels, nascent civil societies, and low in-tensity democracies, which means that these institutions are being inserted into

high stakes political environments in which the misallocation o resources, time,

and authority can have devastating impacts on the lives o ordinary citizens.

As scholars turn their attention to questions about the role and nature o par-

ticipatory governance, there is a growing body o evidence that co-governance

processes are producing some o the desired outcomes (Abers 2000; Goldrank

2011; McNulty 2011; Wampler 2007). Decisions about the allocation o public

resources are being made by citizens in public venues; implementation processes


11/49


are more transparent; citizens are learning about how the state unctions and how

to leverage some o its authority to meet their goals; citizens are orging ties to

each other that help them to expand their ability to mobilize. Although there is

a growing body o evidence indicating positive outcomes, we still do not have a

systematic account o how participatory governance aects public policies, rights,

deliberation, democracy, citizen learning, and improvements in social well-being.

In May 2011, the Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars

Comparative Urban Studies Project, in partnership with Boise State University,

hosted twenty scholars and practitioners to assess how participatory governance

institutions aect diverse social, institutional, and policymaking environments.

Te goal o this workshop was to advance both scholarly and policy agendas to

gain a better understanding o the potential or participatory institutions to trans-

orm the environment in which they are embedded. Workshop participants repre-

sented a wide-range o expertise across sector and disciplinepolitical scientists,

economists, sociologists, and urban plannerswhich allowed the group to move

beyond current debates and initiate new lines o thinking.

Te workshop had two primary purposes: rst, it served to provide a orum or

discussion o anticipated impacts produced by participatory institutions. Tese in-

stitutions are, or some, this decades magic bullet, with the potential to inculcate

new values, distribute public resources more equitably, and oster accountability.

Tese possibilities have generated extremely high expectations or outcomes. For

others, participatory institutions are much ado about nothing as the level o re-sources and authority granted to citizens is suciently low that it is impossible to

have much, i any, real impact. Tis debate plays out in domestic political arenas

around the world as well as in the decision-making environs o the World Bank,

USAID, the United Nations, and EU development agencies. Te seminar thus

encouraged a wide-ranging discussion regarding how these new venues should be

conceptualized.

Second, what type o research agenda do we need to adopt and implement

to improve scholars and policymakers understandings o the varied eects? We

now have excellent single-case studies and a growing body o research that com-pares similar institutions within countries and across countries, but we continue

to lack a comparative analysis o participatory institutions. Tus, the May 2011

conerence laid the groundwork or a multi-region, multi-country study o dier-

ent types o participatory institutions.

Tis report serves to summarize the main cases, concepts, policy recom-

mendations, and research agenda that emerged rom two days o stimulating

discussion. State ormation, civil society and participatory publics, economic

development, and citizen capabilities are at the core o the debate. Te workshop

and this report contribute on several dierent levelsto the academic debates


12/49


on participatory governance, to policy debates on which types o programs can

be eectively adopted, and to political discussions on the merits o adoptingnew institutions.

Tis paper also represents a call or cautious optimism about this wave o

innovation sweeping the world. What makes participatory institutions a rich as

well as complex topic or analysis is that the range o potential impact is vast. Te

changes that are generated can be quite proound because citizens and govern-

ment ocials are interacting with each other in new ways. New orms o political

engagement are being generated, new networks and relationships are being orged.

Further, participatory institutions can act as generatorsthey link citizens to each

other, thus bridging social capital and bonds o solidarity; they insert citizensinto policy networks, expanding the contacts available to poor citizens (Alexander

2006). However, participatory institutions produce change that is incremental

in naturethey are specically designed to incorporate citizens into local-level

decision-making processes, which signicantly constrains their potential impact.

Revolutionary changes that will dramatically alter the political or social environ-

ment in a short period o time are not likely to be produced. Many o the scholars

and policymakers present at the workshop argued that these institutions are an

important part o contemporary democratic governance, but there was an explicit

understanding that we must do a better job o showing how these institutions arereshaping the state, civil society, democratic lie and social well-being.

We now have excellent single-case studies

and a growing body o research that compares

similar institutions within countries and acrosscountries, but we continue to lack a comparative

analysis o participatory institutions.


13/49


What is Participatory

Governance?

Participatory governance consists o state-sanctioned institutional processesthat allow citizens to exercise voiceand vote, which then results in the im-

plementation o public policies that produce some sort o changes in citi-

zens lives. Citizens are engaged in public venues at a variety o times throughout

the year, thus allowing them to be involved in policy ormation, selection, and

oversight. Te inclusion o citizens in state-sanctioned venues means that they

are now in constant contact with government ocials. Tese institutions thus

generate new orms o interactions among citizens as well as between citizens and

government ocials.

How does participatory governance dier rom more well-known alternativeso direct democracy or deliberative democracy? Direct democracy in the context

o the United States has long been associated with state-level recalls and reeren-

dums, which allow citizens to express only a binary choice with very little op-

portunity to engage their voice (Bowler and Donovan 2002); modern orms o

direct democracy commonly deployed in the United States were crated to limit

the power o party elites and to increase access o excluded groups. Tey were

not designed to allow people to be involved in ongoing policymaking processes.

Deliberative institutions, with Deliberative Polling being the most well known,

oten allow citizens to exercise voice but do not link participants vote to bindingdecisions that require government ocials to act in specic ways (Fishkin 1991).

Participatory governance institutions do not divorce participants rom their local

political environment; rather, these programs are specically designed to give in-

terested citizens the right to reshape local policy outcomes.

Ater more than two decades o experimentation, it has become clear that

there are a broad number o experiences that all under the rubric o participatory

governancerom the Right to Inormation campaigns initiated in Northern

India to Indonesias World Bank-sponsored Community Driven Development


14/49


program to Ugandas participatory constitution-making process to Brazils partici-

patory budgeting and to ederally-mandated citizen participation programs in the

United States. A common thread among these orums is that citizens and/or civil

society organizations (CSOs) are actively engaged in state-sanctioned policymak-ing arenas in which actual decisions regarding authority and resources are made.

Why have these experiments become so prevalent around the world? As Paul

Smoke argued in his presentation, this trend has taken place concurrently with

the movement toward more decentralized governmental structures. Both decen-

tralization and the emphasis on participation became an integral part o the third

wave o democratization, as countries around Latin America, Asia, Arica, and

Eastern Europe began to hold regular and ree elections. Over time, however,

many began to note that institutions associated with representative democracy

were not working as well as initially hoped. For example, many Central Asiancountries seemed to backslide, or become less democratic. Others countries such

as Nigeria, Bolivia, and Honduras seemed stuck in the same patterns o corrup-

tion, clientelism, and elite rule that had dominated politics or decades.

As a result, political philosophers, politicians, and activists began to promote

the idea o participatory democracy to help to cure the ills acing some represen-

tative democracies. Many hoped that institutions that allowed or more direct

citizen or civil society participation could solve a myriad o problems. Andrew

Nickson sums up the situation in Latin America:

Te newly-established democratic governments o the region regarded citi-

zen participation as a means o containing social tensions and strengthen-

ing the long-term prospects o democracy through dialogue and consen-

sus-building at the municipal level. Citizen participation was also seen as

a way o improving perormance in service delivery by introducing greater

transparency into municipal resource allocation as to better refect the broad

interests o the population. (Nickson 2011, 12)

Advocates thus look to participatory governance as a means to improve com-plex democratization processes.


15/49


Box 1. Brzi

Participatory budgeting has its roots in Brazil during

the countrys political opening in the 1980s that led to

the return o democratic rule. Social movement activists

and oppositional political parties created and then

institutionalized new ways o incorporating citizens directly

into public lie and state institutions. In 1989, a letistgovernment and its civil society allies in the city o Porto

Alegre initiated the rules and process now associated

with participatory budgeting. Participatory budgeting is a

year-long decision-making process through which citizens

negotiate amongst themselves and with government

ocials in organized meetings over the allocation o

new capital spending on public work projects and socialservices. Citizens are mobilized to attend meetings during

which they deliberate over policy allocation, vote or

public policies, and elect community representatives. Ater

specic policies are selected, the government implements

them under the watchul eye o a citizen-based oversight

committee. Many participatory budgeting programs have a

social justice component whereby poorer neighborhoods

receive a greater per capita share o public resources than

middle and upper class neighborhoods. By 2011, hundreds

o municipalities across Brazil adopted participatory

budgeting and adapted the basic rules associated with the

program to meet local needs (Wampler 2007).


16/49


State o the Debate

he best documented and most well-known experience o participatory gov-

ernance is Porto Alegre, Brazils participatory budget process (see box 1).

Tis case has generated the most research on the impacts associated withparticipatory governance, ranging rom participants improved sense o ecacy

and improved skills in deliberation to an increase in associationalism (Abers 2000

Baiocchi 2005; Wampler 2007). All scholars present at the May workshop agreed

that we need to move beyond this paradigmatic case and expand our knowledge

regarding a broader number o studies and orms o participatory institutions, as

well as continue to document impact in a much more systematic way.

We also know that people are responding to these initiatives. When measured

in quantitative terms, the research that exists shows that participation is signicant

and oten increases over time (World Bank 2008, 2010; Wampler and Avritzer2004; Wampler 2007). Tis is especially compelling as scholars o participatory

institutions have identied several costs o participation, including transportation

costs, time commitment, and absence o work during these periods. Many agree

that, given these costs, when people do participate in these institutions, we should

take note (Abers 2000; Van Cott 2008).

Ater more than two decades o academic research on participatory gover-

nance institutions during the third wave o democratization, there is now a

general consensus in the literature regarding the key explanatory variables that

account or why they emerged, how these institutions unction, and why they varyin implementation. Te principal variables employed by researchers to explain

how these institutions unction include: 1) the political interests o government

ocials; 2) the conguration o civil society; 3) institutional rules; 4) resources

available; 5) the local party system; and, 6) interactions between executive and

legislative branches (Abers 2000; Biaocchi 2005; Wampler 2007; Heller 2000).

Tus, the academic debate has advanced our understanding o what accounts

or the variation in how these programs work. Te challenge is to determine the

degree to which we can assess impact. It is also generally understood, although


17/49


sometimes overlooked in the literature, that these are dynamic and ongoing pro-

cesses that are rooted in very specic and complex historical processes.

Te two-day conerence made a conscious eort to push this debate orward,

specically calling or a more systematic way o thinking about impact. During

the two days o discussion, it became clear that our understanding o any type oimpact should be grounded in our areas: 1) the structural context; 2) modalities

o adoption; 3) rules, orms, and design; and 4) the nature o participation. Te

next section discusses them in turn.

Ater more than two decades o academic

research on participatory governance

institutions during the third wave odemocratization, there is now a general

consensus in the literature regarding the key

explanatory variables that account or why

they emerged, how these institutions unction,

and why they vary in implementation.


18/49


The Unolding

Agenda

1. StRuctuRal coNtExt of PaRtIcIPatoRyGovERNaNcE

We should begin our analyses o these institutions by studying their broader en-

vironment. oo oten they are ring-enced, as Paul Smoke noted, meaning they

are studied in isolation rom the context into which they are embedded. Tere are

at least three macro-structural areas that must be analyzed: state ormation; civil

society conguration; and, the economic environment.

State formation

From a broad macro-level historical perspective, state ormation, including ac-

tors such as the role o ederalism, decentralization, legal tradition, and political

parties, helps establish the parameters within which participatory institutions

will have an impact. When states are highly eective, we would not expect as

much interest in participatory institutions because governments are more likely

to adopt public policies that meet their citizens needs. As states become less

eective, there is a growing need or participatory institutions to address basicpolicy problems. When states are extremely ineective, oten categorized as

ailed or absent, there is a greater likelihood that participatory institutions

will not have an impact. Tus, state capacity should help researchers establish

the parameters or expected outcomes.

As the degree o local governments capacity increases, so too should our ex-

pectations o what outputs should be associated with the new institutions. For

example, the three countries that are commonly cited as having more success-

ul participatory experiencesBrazil, Indonesia, and Indiaare middle-income


19/49


developing countries that have ar more robust

and eective states than many o their neighbors.

Conversely, when local governments are weak, it

would be prudent to lower our expectations regard-

ing the outcomes that can be produced.

Tus, researchers and policymakers must be

adept at analyzing the conguration o the state and

then they must be able use dierent criteria to as-

sess impact. In some environments, merely holding

meetings and explaining state policies to citizens

may be a critical rst step to engage citizens. Tis is

likely true or post-confict areas or extremely poor

regions. In other environments, a airly well-unc-

tioning state means that they have a much greater

capacity to implement public policies, which means

in turn that we should have greater expectations or

what can be achieved.

Te level o state ragmentation must also be

considered to better understand participatory gov-

ernance outcomes. States can experience varying

degrees o ragmentation along vertical, horizon-

tal, regional, and longitudinal axes. State authorityshits across vertical lines not just over time but also rom agency to agency as

well as within regions o the same state. For example, a participatory institution

in the state o So Paulo may work airly well, but a similar institution in a dier-

ent Brazilian state may founder. Or, i a rival political party wins an election, the

same participatory institution may then have undamentally dierent impacts.

A nal point is that there is oten considerable distance between the ormal,

legal codication o law and the way that laws are used and experienced on a

day-to-day basis. A well-known eature o many countries with weak institutions

and rule o law is the disconnect between what happens in practice and orm.Participatory institutions are not exempt rom this. For example, in Guatemala,

members o the constituent assembly codied a system o development councils

in the countrys 1985 Constitution and in several subsequent generations o laws

and accords regarding decentralization and citizen participation. Te law calls or

a system o participatory democracy that collects and responds to the demands

o the population to put orth a vision or the development o the country. Yet,

in practice, these councils do not meet in the manner called or by law and when

they do meet, they are oten dominated by the local politicians agendas. Tus,

this system has ailed to address serious problems such as poverty, violence, and

there is no simple

checklist that can

be lled out by aresearcher or policy

analyst to ascertain

impact; Rather, in-

depth research

is necessary to

understand thedistance between the

ormal rules and the

day-to-day exercising

o state authority.


20/49


Box 2. Ini

In 1993, Indias national government passed two

constitutional amendments that set up a decentralized

state structure and instituted rural participatory governance

eorts. Most states ignored the call or more citizen

participation in rural settings until very recently. One

exception to this is the state o Kerala, where the letistcoalition o political parties, the Let Democratic Front,

led by the Communist Party o India, came to power

in 1996. Part o their party platorm included launching

a participatory development planning process, called

the Peoples Campaign or Decentralized Planning.

T.M. Thomas Isaac and Patrick Heller write that local

governments in Kerala now create their own developmentplan through a multi-stage process o iterated deliberation

between elected representatives, local and higher-level

government ocials, civil society experts and activists and

ordinary citizens. To many, this is a very successul example

o participatory governance in the developing world (Isaac

and Heller 2003, 79).


21/49


corruption. Tis example suggests that an even greater disconnect might exist

when adoption is top-down. Tis observation means that there is no simple check-

list that can be lled out by a researcher or policy analyst to ascertain impact;

Rather, in-depth research is necessary to understand the distance between the

ormal rules and the day-to-day exercising o state authority.

Civil society

Te conguration o civil society, as part o the broader structural context, is a

vital part o any evaluation process. Civil society provides the citizen-based mo-

bilization necessary to create vibrant public deliberations as well as to engage in

incremental policymaking processes. Conceptually, the line between where the

state ends and where civil society begins is increasingly blurred. Is there space

or public deliberation? Is there a history o organization or the state attempting

to incorporate marginalized actors? What sectors are more organized than oth-

ers? Is there a history o rights-based demands originating rom CSOs?

Much o the research on civil society relies on typologies and quantita-

tive snapshots o the many organizations working within the participatory

governance context. Although the density o social capital does contribute to

how the participatory institution is embedded in civil society, it is increas-

ingly evident that whatCSOs do and how they act is more important. When

organizations have a history o contestation, when they demand rights, and

when they have strong links to letist political parties, then there is a greater

likelihood that citizens will shape how the participatory institutions are used.

Conversely, when there is very limited organizational or contestation capacity

within civil society, the participatory institution is more likely to be domi-

nated by government ocials.

Participatory institutions allow existing CSOs and participatory publics to

enter into the ormal policy making process. Participatory publics consist o citi-

zens and CSOs who mobilize themselves around democratic values and then pro-

mote the adoption o state institutions that mirror these new practices (Wampler

and Avritzer 2004). When participatory programs are institutionalized, we begin

to see the creation o participatory governance publics. Tese new publics in-

duce civil society activists and government ocials to engage each other in pub-

lic venues whereby they exchange desperately needed inormation. Government

ocials gain access to the demands and needs o citizens, oten poor residents.

Citizens gain access to basic inormation about state authority, resources, and de-

cision-making processes. Te conguration o civil society prior to the adoption o

participatory institutions has a signicant impact on the shape o these participa-

tory governance publics.


22/49


Economic environment

Te economic environment in which participatory governance is ormed and im-

plemented infuences the internal workings o the participatory institutions and

also sets the parameters or the potential impact o the institution. At the core omany participatory institutions is determining how to use scarce public resources

to solve public goods provision problems, oten in poor or underdeveloped com-

munities. When a large percentage o the population is living in deep poverty, it

becomes much more dicult to manage the number o demands. Te challenge

is compounded by a very low tax base due to the high numbers o people who are

unable to contribute to generating revenue streams.

Is there an economic threshold at which participatory governance experiences

emerge and/or unction better? While most o these experiments are taking place

in the developing world, we see many more examples, especially in the areas oparticipatory budgeting and planning, starting to take hold in Europe, Canada,

and the United States. Te variety o economic environments that are now host-

ing and infuencing participatory governance around the world suggests an im-

portant area or uture research.

Are some participatory ormats better suited or specic economic contexts?

Tis is a question o paramount concern to policymakers, activists, and reormers

but we continue to lack systematic knowledge about which types o institutions

are best suited or dierent economic environments. Given the limited resources

available to most countries or institution-building, it is vital to know i thereare certain types o programs that are more likely to produce positive eects in

specic contexts. For example, there has been considerable world-wide diusion

o participatory budgeting based on successul programs located in Brazil, Porto

Alegre and Belo Horizonte. However, these cities are not necessarily representative

o most urban areas in the developing world. Te problem is that we do not know

i their unusual characteristics (e.g., wealth, union organizations, social move-

ments, strong letist parties) would make it dicult to replicate in other cities.

While analytically distinguishable, these three structural actors are closely in-

tertwined. For example, the economic environment is intimately related to state ca-pacity. Countries with lower levels o education and economic resources are going

to ace greater challenges to strengthening state capacity. Likewise, the nature o the

civil society sector is linked to economics as these organizations need resources to

unction and might even become active agents in participatory institutions in order

to urther their own economic agenda. For example, in Peru, some proessional or-

ganizations, such as the Association o Engineers, report that they attend participa-

tory budget meetings not only to promote the public good but also to stay inormed

about upcoming development projects they might later bid on.

By studying the broader structural context o participatory governance pro-


23/49


grams we can generate hypotheses or uture research. We would expect, or ex-

ample, that communities with more capable or stronger governments, with denser

and more active civil societies, and with a stronger tax base would be much more

able to support participatory governance than those societies with weaker states,

less active civil societies, and weaker tax bases. Future research will need to de-

velop additional hypotheses and then test them systematically in order to better

understand how these structural actors interact with the various orms o partici-

patory governance.

2. ModalItIES of adoPtIoN

As noted, in many countries, participatory institutions are viewed as potential

xes to illiberal, poorly perorming democratic systems (Baiocchi et al 2011; Smith

2009). Workshop participant Archon Fung reerred to these participatory experi-

ments as aspirational, where reormers aspire to x the democratic decits that

occur in electoral democracies. Participatory mechanisms are valued because they

are viewed as a part o the solution to other institutional ailures.

In many cases, as Paul Smoke pointed out, participatory institutions are ad-

opted in response to some sort o economic or political crisis, such as civil war, a

nationwide corruption scandal, a transition to a democratic regime, or a nancial

crisis. A critical juncture leads CSOs and political elites to redraw democratic and

policymaking institutions (Collier and Collier 1991). In Peru, Uganda, Brazil, and

Kenya, just to cite our examples, the redrating o the national constitution in-

cluded explicit articles and language that eitherpermittedor requiredcitizen partici-

pation in local decision-making venues (Ostrom 1990). Tus, in the middle o a cri-

sis, participatory institutions were adopted as part o broad constitutional reorms.

Embedded in these participatory institutions are political agendas that re-

fect the designers public and private interests. Leaders mold institutions and then

new institutions mold the leaders (Putnam 1993). Tus, the rule structure embed-

ded in the new participatory institutions refects the interests o their designers.

For example, the stated objectives o Bolivias Popular Participation Law are to:

(i)mprove the quality o lie or Bolivian men and women through the just distri-

bution and improved administration o public resources; strengthen the political

and economic instruments necessary to perect democracy; acilitate citizen par-

ticipation; and guarantee equal opportunities in all levels o representation.1

But we must be cognizant, as Kathleen ONeill (2005) notes, that the national-

level designers o the Popular Participation Law produced a process that strength-

ened municipal governments and weakened potentially rivaling regional gover-

nors powers. Tis system empowered new actors and in some ways helped Evo


24/49


Morales, the countrys rst indigenous president, to win the presidency in 2005.

Similarly, Brazils participatory budgeting program includes a social justice com-

ponent that helped the Workers Party to develop better political and social con-

nections to shantytown residents.

Given the diversity o programs, scholars now need to consider more sys-

tematically the dynamics o their adoption. An increasingly common way to de-

scribe these eorts is to think about them as either top-down, i.e. designed and

implemented by national governments or international development agencies, or

bottom-up, i.e. innovative processes where participatory institutions emerge or-

ganically in response to local demands. Another way o describing these processes,

is induced and organic as argued by Vijayendra Rao.

A paradigmatic case o the bottom-up variety is participatory budgeting in

Porto Alegre, Brazil, which began as part o the Workers Party political project

in 1989 (see Box 1). A top-down case is exemplied in Perus 2002 decentraliza-

tion reorm where national-level political elites simultaneously decentralized and

institutionalized participatory institutions in regions and municipalities around

the country (see Box 2).

As Jennier Bussell pointed out, one problem with these categories, o course, is

that many cases are mixed, including elements o both bottom-up and top-down.

For example, in India, the national government mandated participatory decision-

making bodies in rural areas in the early 1990s. However, until very recently states

had a lot o fexibility in their decisions regarding whether to implement them ornot. At the same time, in Kerala, the Let Democratic Front began to set up new

orms o citizen participation as part o its political platorm. Tus, India has expe-

rienced both top-down and bottom-up eorts to promote participatory governance.

Tis and other examples push us to think about a more fexible way to categorize the

core impetus or adoption. One aim o the research project is to develop a typology

that allows us to more succinctly identiy a programs modality o adoption.

We lack systematic comparisons o the varying modes o adoption that

would help us understand the strengths and weaknesses o these modalities as

well as their impact. Preliminary evidence suggests a strong association betweenthe orm o adoption and the range o impacts. When local political parties are

the driving orce behind adoption, there is more likely to be a ocus on drawing

greater numbers o citizens into the process. When CSOs are the driving orce,

they are more likely to crat the rules to give themselves greater authority and

promote participation by organizations. When international unding agencies

drive adoption, there is a greater likelihood that they will push or rules seeking

to advance good governance. Tereore, one task o a comparative research

project is to gather inormation to assess the associations between the modality

o adoption and outcomes generated.


25/49


Box 3. Per

Facing a political crisis ater Alberto Fujimori fed the

country in disgrace, in 2002 Perus congress passed

a comprehensive decentralization reorm that both

transerred new powers to subnational governments and

ormalized civil society participation at the regional andlocal levels. A goal o the reorm, in addition to devolving

political power and resources, is to increase civil societys

participation at the local level in an eort to strengthen

Perus ragile democracy. The reorm calls or several

participatory institutions, such as Regional and Local

Coordination Councils, participatory budgets, and health

and education councils. Currently, Peruvian regions,provinces, and districts undertake mandatory participatory

budgeting processes on an annual basis. When successul,

these participatory budgeting processes have increased

accountability o local politicians and given civil society a

more active voice in development projects. In other cases,

they have been manipulated or ignored by local politicians.

This illustrates the diversity o outcomes in one country

as well as the disconnect between law and practice in the

developing world (McNulty 2011).


26/49


3. RulES, foRMS, aNd dESIGN

When we examine an ever increasing number o participatory institutions, it

becomes immediately clear that the rules, procedures, and processes are var-ied. Tis leads us to consider an additional aspect o participatory governance

that will aect eventual outcomes. Te new institutionalism school o scholars

such as Ostrom (1990), Bates (1984), and North (1990), oers useul tools to

show how institutional rules create incentives that induce dierent behaviors

and specic outcomes. Tus, as the specic rules change rom institution to

institution, we should expect dierent outcomes.

Given the wide variation in state ormation, civil society, and economic con-

ditions, does it make sense or governments to adopt participatory governance

rules rom other places? Rather than wholesale adoption, it is adaption that shouldbe emphasized. Conceptually, best practices should be transormed into best

guiding principles. Tis is not merely a semantic change. Rather, it is a change

that refects a real need or creativity and ingenuity rom government ocials and

civil society activists. Te authority and rules o new institutions are more likely

to have an impact when they are adapted to solve specic problems identied by

the program ounder.

During the workshop, Archon Fung discussed the concept o pragmatic de-

mocracy, meaning that we should promote the adoption o institutions whose

rules are tailored to address specic problems. Te type o rules governing par-ticipatory eorts should be created to match the policy problem. I corruption

and resource leakage is perceived to be the problem, then policymakers should

design programs that ocus on citizen involvement in transparency and project-

level oversight. On the other hand, i the intention is to empower citizens and to

incorporate their ideas into a project, then public ocials should ocus their atten-

tion on the earlier planning stages. Tere is no one-size-ts-all, best practices,

or silver bullet. Rather there are guiding principles that can orm the basis o

how citizens and government ocials interact.

Te distribution o these responsibilities and authority generates new incen-tives to shape these expectations and actions. What distinguishes participatory

governance institutions rom other types o demand making (e.g., demonstrations,

letter writing campaigns, etc) are that citizens and government ocials are each

allocated responsibilities and authority within the state-sanctioned institution. A

testable hypothesis is that the degree o authority provided to citizens is highly

correlated with the potential transormation o citizens attitudes and activities.

Te diversity o participatory governance programs illustrates the wide varia-

tion in the scope o the problem that needs to be addressed. What are these insti-

tutions designed to x or change? What is the range o problem? Small problems


27/49


Box 4. Germn

In an eort to address the ailure o political parties to

engage citizens, citizen apathy, and nancial pressures,

several municipal organizations decided to set up

participatory governance experiences. For example, in

1998 Hans Bckler Trade Union Foundation and the KGSt

Local Government Research Institute set up pilot programsin six cities. The city o Mnchweiler was one o the rst to

implement this process, and according to Dr. Anja Rcke,

the ocus o this participatory budgeting lay in inormation

about the public budget. Services and investments were

also o interest. It was about user eedback, not the

strengthening o social justice (InWEnt gGmbH Capacity

Building International 2010, 17). Analysts in Germanyreport that these experiences have both strengths and

weaknesses. Many have argued that the experiences have

led to rapprochement o citizens and state actors. On the

other hand, evaluators worry that the process has not been

inclusive enough to engage diverse actors. This example

shows that new orms o participatory governance are

not solely located in developing regions (Allegretti and

Herzberg 2007).


28/49


may permit the program to produce quick wins but as the scope o the

problem increases, there is a greater likelihood that participatory governance

institutions will ace greater challenges in achieving the desired outcomes.

Tus, when we seek to evaluate input, we need to start by assessing what the

institutional architects intended to accomplish. For policymakers interested in

initiating participatory institutions, it makes strategic sense to set very modest

goals in countries with weak local states and weak civil societies. By lowering

expectations, it becomes more plausible to produce the necessary empower-

ment and positive public policy outcomes needed to gain support rom gov-

ernment ocials and activists.

4. thE NatuRE of PaRtIcIPatIoN

Who participates? Participatory institutions are open to the general public but

it is oten a small minority o the population that is willing and able to attend

these oten long, boring, and requent meetings. In addition, there is a time cost

as well as a nancial cost, as many o the participants are very poor. With regard

to the nature o participation, three issues merit attention: 1) who convenes

participants? 2) who participates? 3) and, what environment is supportive o

promoting participation?

Who convenes participants to deliberate and make policy decisions? Tis

question relates directly to the issue o modalities o adoption. In bottom-up

or mixed cases o adoption, local government ocials are interested in creating

new institutions as a means to address political or policy problems. During the

current wave o participatory institutions, it was originally letist political parties

that promoted the use o these institutions as a way to expand their ties to citizens

and improve their governing. Tese experiments became more mainstream and

currently centrist politicians promote their adoption as well. Tus, we are now

witnessing a broader array o actors calling or increased citizen participation as

they emerge in dierent contexts and countries around the world.

Some o the top-down experiences are led by international donors that re-

quire governments to adopt participatory institutions to receive aid. Te incen-

tives or government ocials to set up participatory institutions under these cir-

cumstances are quite dierent than those or government ocials who initiate

the programs on their own. Within the top-down programs, there is oten a

disconnect between the rules established and the needs o and demands on local

government ocials. Local leaders may adopt these programs to secure a loan or

grant but they do not have suciently strong incentives to support the establish-

ment o robust participation.


29/49


Te ocus on government ocials incentives is crucial because their com-

mitment is strongly related to program output. Some programs have high levels

o support and commitment rom government ocials, generating enthusiasm

among participants, which has a positive eect on the recruitment o other par-

ticipants. Other programs are implemented and administered in apro orma

way, whereby the basic minimal requirements are met but the programs lack

any sort o vitality. Te lacko committed leaders helps explain why these in-

stitutions do not work in some environments. In India, as Jennier Bussell ob-

served, many leaders ear that granting citizens power in decision-making will

reduce their own power, thereore they ignore the legal ramework that calls or

increased participation in urban areas. In other cases, leaders may capture the

process or their own political gain.

Given the important role o public ocials, we also need to ask how well

leaders understand participatory governance and why some leaders embrace these

institutions. One o very ew studies that explores this is Nabatchis research on

U.S. legislators understanding and use o public deliberation as a means to en-

gage constituents (Nabatchi and Farrar, 2011). While most o the interviewees did

not understand public deliberation, once it was explained to them, they expressed

some interest in the concept. However, most o the respondents noted that public

deliberation seems logistically complicated, politically uneasible, and demands

more resources than they have.

Next, who participates in these institutions? Do a diverse set o actors come to

meetings to discuss programs and policies? Or, are the events captured by a narrow

set o actors who promote their own agenda? Related to this, who does notpartici-

pate in meetings, workshops, and planning sessions that ultimately dictate the u-

ture o cities and states around the world? Although many participatory institutions

have successully engaged poor residents, it is clear that basic structural and moti-

we need to start by assessing what the

institutional architects intended to accomplish.

For policymakers interested in initiatingparticipatory institutions, it makes strategic

sense to set very modest goals in countries

with weak local states and weak civil societies.


30/49


vational problems continue to constrain participation. Tus, we should avoid seeing

these institutions as a panacea that helps us to solve basic participation problems;

rather, we should think o them as improving how citizens participate.

Research on Brazils participatory budgeting shows that a signicant percent-

age o the population does attend participatory budget meetings, and that the

poor are relatively well represented (Abers 2000; Wampler and Avritzer 2004).

A World Bank (2010) evaluation o the participatory budget experience in Peru

deemed that a majority o participants are members o grassroots organizations

that promote a pro-poor social agenda.

Although research rom Brazil shows that the poor participate, Abers (2000)

suggests that the extremely poor do not. Little reliable data are available, but we

suspect that indigenous and other ethnic minority groups are less represented as

well. Finally, ndings are mixed in terms o gender equality. A World Bank (2008)

study o Porto Alegres participatory budgeting nds gender equity in both par-

ticipants and leaders ten years ater it began. On the other hand, in the regional

participatory budgeting meetings in Peru rom 2008 to 2010, a mere 3 percent o

the organizations represented womens groups. Womens organizations have not

had the opportunity to promote their projects as oten as other kinds o civil soci-

ety organizations in this particular country.

Tus, it would appear that the most marginalized groups in communities,

such as women, extremely poor, and ethnic minorities, are not always well rep-

resented in these new kinds o participatory governance programs. Tis can leadto policies and projects that privilege the groups that do attend, suggesting that

participatory governance has only partially overcome the biases associated with

representative democracy and participation. Participatory institutions oer some

o the steps orward but continued experimentation should be expected.

In some cases o participatory governance, many o the same leadersthe

same peopleshow up at all the events. Tis can be conceptualized as elite cap-

ture, whereby a small group o organized individuals gain control o participa-

tory institutions. Conversely, this can be viewed as network building, whereby

community leaders are attempting to occupy multiple participatory venues inorder to represent the interests o their community. Further, this might illumi-

nate that poor participants are engaging in behaviors that have long been associ-

ated with successul strategies employed by middle and upper income citizens in

representative democracy.

A nal aspect regarding the nature o participation is the supporting en-

vironment. Is there a rights-based political culture? Are organizations willing

to work with government ocials? When there is a more dynamic and conten-

tious civil society, there is an increased possibility o creating more vibrant in-

stitutions. Tere may be CSOs and other institutions that provide meaningul


31/49


support to help citizens organize themselves and work through conusing pol-

icymaking processes. For example, when studying co-governance o Brazils

watershed management, Margaret Keck nds that local universities play a key

role in providing the technical leadership needed to keep these institutional

venues active.

Conversely, citizens may choose not to participate due to low levels o trust.

Or citizens may be unable to sustain mobilization due to unamiliarity with the

new process. Other citizens may seek to use their access to government ocials

to push or clientelistic exchanges. As Rao argued, weak and scattered CSOs may

limit participatory governance because government ocials and international

unding agencies do not have capable partners.

Insights rom the workshop ocused on areas that structure new orms o

participatory governance and aect their potential impact. Tis brings us to the

central questions driving the two-day debate: do participatory institutions mat-

ter? I so, how do they matter? What criteria should be employed by scholars and

policymakers to assess their overall impact?

NotE

1. See Law 1551, located at www.legislacionmunicipal.am.bo


32/49


Box 5. ugn

Ater decades o increasingly centralized rule under

Idi Amin and Milton Obotes dictatorial regimes, the

National Resistance Movement (NRM) implemented

a decentralization reorm aimed at institutionalizing

participatory democracy at the local level. Led by

President Museveni, the NRM set up a tiered systemmoving progressively toward the central government

rom village councils, parish councils, subcounty councils,

county councils, and district councils. When describing

this structure, Gina Lambright writes that it is designed

to aggregate, systematize, and present citizen priorities to

district councils in order to ensure that all citizen demands

are eectively addressed. All persons eighteen years andolder residing in a village are automatically members o

the village council. This is an example o top-down design

emerging ater decades o dictatorial and centralized rule

(Lambright 2011, 26).


33/49


Impact

Ater more than twenty years o increased implementation o these pro-

grams during the third wave o democratization, we continue to have

only a very preliminary understanding o the range and intensity o theireects. Tis line o inquiry is o vital importance because billions o dollars are

being spent on these projects. People are investing their precious time, energy, and

resources in the hopes that participatory institutions will improve the quality o

ordinary peoples lives.

When thinking about impact, an important place to start is identiying the

expectations or what these institutions can accomplish. Te hopes o the public

are oten quite high as new programs are announced, because people assume,

quite reasonably, that the implementation o a new program with their participa-

tion will lead to improvements. Managing expectations or the outcomes associ-ated with the participatory experiences is crucial. We need to be aware o what

expectations exist and what outcomes are reasonable.

We must remember to not hold participatory institutions to a higher standard

than we hold representative democratic institutions or non-democratic state reorm

eorts. Rather, we should recognize that these institutions have the potential to in-

fuence a broad range o interactions but they are not some sort o magic bullet that

will overcome the limitations o representative democracy. Tese institutions disrupt

the normal, everyday working o the state and representative democracy because

they insert citizens directly into state-sanctioned spaces. Citizens are attempting toexercise rights and be involved in ways not possible under authoritarian or exclusion-

ary democratic regimes. Tese interactive processes generate new repertories o

action, not just in civil society but also in how CSOs engage the state.

When assessing impact, there is an inherent normative positioning. Ater all,

we are suggesting that some programs and policies have positive or benecial out-

puts whereas other programs have a more limited, or even a negative, impact. We

need to careully think about the meaning o success and ailure. How should we

handle the act that many participatory governance programs will produce very


34/49


limited results or that they might actually ail? By ailure, we mean that they were

unable to produce tangible and measurable outputs, over a period o time, which

may generate negative political allout or the programs advocates. It might be

hard or government ocials to demonstrate concrete achievements to constitu-

ents and unding agencies. However, we need to remember that ailure is to be

expected and is part o a broader learning process.

An important distinction to be made in terms o impact is that o process

and outcome. Some argue that the process itsel can lead to important changes.

For example, regardless o the outcome, i a person emerges rom a participatory

orum more interested in politics and condent in his or her opinions, this is an

important procedural impact. On the other hand, others might argue that what

matters is the outcome as dened by the projects designers, measured by changes

in how the government acts. Are better policies and more inclusive democracies

emerging as a result o the stress on participation?

Given the complexities and normative mineelds inherent in attempting to

measure the quality and impact o participatory governance, it is best to start with

six key analytical areas:

1) Individual-level capabilities

2) Civil society publics

3) State reorm

4) Democracy

a) Interest mediation

b) Representation

c) Deliberation

5) Public policy outcomes

6) Social well-being

Analytically, each area can be studied in a stand-alone ashion but it is more

ruitul to understand the interactions across the dierent sectors. As Stephanie

McNulty argues, or example, there is oten a virtuous cycle between state activity

and civil society engagement within and parallel to participatory institutions that

produces a more positive series o outcomes.

1. INdIvIdual-lEvEl caPaBIlItIES

In the pioneering work o Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, he demonstrates

that the capabilities o individuals to engage the market, the state, and society

must be part o how we measure development. At the core, Sen was writing about


35/49


the empowerment o citizens. As Giovanni Allegretti noted, participatory institu-

tions can produce the types o empowerment that are central to building citizen

capabilities. Te exchange o inormation, the public deliberation sessions, and

lessons learned about how government works are key components that help citi-

zens develop the necessary skills to expand the opportunities in their lives.

How should we measure individual-level impact? Oten, we document the

number o participants and other demographic aspects. Yet, Frank Fischer ob-

served that the number o participants matters less than what people are learning

in these processes. People gain access to new ways o discussing problems and new

ways o thinking about what can and should be done. Tere is great potential or

transormation and empowerment. In some communities, the simple act o par-

ticipation is crucial because it is empowering. Luis Gilberto Murillo-Urrutia, the

ormer governor o the state o Choco in Colombia, discussed his communitys ex-

perience, where merely being invited to participate in statelevel decisions or the

rst time had notable ramications. Individuals who never had any opportunities

to participate or engage the state in a public ormat are given the chance to do so,

and become empowered in the process.

2. cIvIl SocIEty

Tere are a series o well-documented collective action problems that make it di-

cult or citizens, especially those living in poor communities, to organize them-

selves. Tere is an emerging body o evidence that the presence o participatory

institutions has a positive eect on the ability o CSOs to mobilize their commu-

nity, gain access to constituency service, develop access to new policy networks,

and orm alliances with other CSOs.

Participatory institutions build upon and contribute to the growth o existing

publics, as well as oster the emergence o new publics. We do not know, or ex-

ample, i certain aspects o civil societies might lend themselves to specic modali-

ties o adoption (discussed above). Or, conversely, could the modality o adoption

induce new types o civil society organizations? We must study urther how this

might play out in practice.

Between individuals and the state, there is a layer o activists and commu-

nity organizations that mediates demands and interests. Jonathan Fox argued

that we need to be cognizant o the role that community leaders play in linking

state and society. Tese local leaders may not necessarily be involved in social

movements but they can provide a crucial link between state and society. Tis

alerts us to the importance o networks that activists and government ocials

rely upon; it also hints at the inormal governing arrangements that are used.


36/49


A key point emphasized by Jonathan Fox and Paul Smoke is that the inormal

processes that are already used in exercising authority will be present in new

participatory institutions.

We must also be aware o civil society ailure, as discussed by Vijayendra

Rao. Te conguration o civil society may be too ragile, thin, and weak

to support the development o new participatory institutions. Te absence o

strong civil society actors, willing to work or their own interests in a public

arena but also to work with other CSOs and government ocials, may un-

dermine the potential impact o participatory institutions. Te state or an

international donor may be willing to hand over increased authority but social

divisions, confict, and mistrust may make it dicult or the participatory

institutions to gain traction.

3. StatE REfoRM

In order or governments to allow citizens to make choices that have a meaning-

ul impact on public policy outcomes, it is necessary or ocials to modiy the

administrative structure o the state. Te internal administrative processes that

are ar rom the public eye must be reengineered to provide participants with in-

ormation, to link policy experts to ordinary citizens as well as to help approved

projects work their way through the bureaucratic maze prior to implementation.

As Keck noted, states can be activated by new coalitionscivil society activists,

citizens, and civil servants may orge alliances that reorient the processes through

which state authority is exercised.

Another area o impact that we must explore is change in government eective-

ness, especially in municipal and regional level governments. Oten these reorms

are developed because these governments are not responding to the basic needs o

its citizens. Tis may be due to weak capacity to operate and execute projects, cor-

ruption, lack o resources at the local level, and several other challenges. We can

gauge the impact o participatory governance reorms by exploring several areas o

governmental eectiveness. Robert Putnam (1993) and Merilee Grindles (2007)

works, among others, oer several concrete and instructive indicators o changes in

government in dimensions such as eciency, eectiveness, and responsiveness.

Resources are a vital actor that condition the extent o reorm because

they can create the necessary state capacity to administer the participatory

institutions and to implement selected public policies, argued Vijayendra Rao

and Brian Wampler. Wampler has ound that availability o resources to local

governments in middle-income countries partially accounts or why these

governments are able to deliver goods (Boulding and Wampler 2010). Rao


37/49


added that resources are a necessary component

to these programs because states need resources

to implement public works.

Finally, local government reorms address low

levels o state legitimacy and authority ound in

many states o the developing world. Growing

and expanding state authority and legitimacy can

be a positive-sum gain; citizens and government

ocials learn to trust each other through their

repeated interactions, which then increases state

legitimacy and trust not just vis--vis the partici-

patory institution but also in relationship to other

state tasks.

4. dEMocRacy

At their core, participatory institutions are designed to address basic problems

with representative democracies. During the workshop, participants argued that it

would be ruitul or scholars to draw on three specic debates within the broader

democracy canoninterest mediation, representation, and deliberation. Each o

these provides a wealth o insight and draws attention to how citizens voices are

being incorporated into politics.

Interest mediation

Enrique Peruzzotti argued that participatory institutions represent a new orm o

interest mediation, replacing earlier systems o clientelism and corporatism. What

makes participatory institutions dierent rom these other systems is that the in-

stitutionalization o public venues allows or interests, demands, and needs to be

publicly discussed, debated, and negotiated. Tis, in turn, generates new ideas, co-

alitions, understandings, and public policies. Tere is a ormal, institutionalized

give-and-take process whereby citizens and government ocials adapt their atti-

tudes and strategies in order to secure outcomes. In much o the developing world,

these citizen-based ormal venues provide new ways o connecting state and society.

During the incremental policymaking processes, there is a real possibility o

activating publics, which is how new groups and interests are inserted into the

public sphere. I we consider that the ormation o preerences is driven by con-

text, then these new venues provide the means to orm democratic and participa-

tory public values.

At their core,

participatory

institutions aredesigned to address

basic problems

with representative

democracies.


38/49


Representation

Debates about representation provide another way to examine participatory gover-

nance. Enrique Peruzzotti raised the question o whether representation should be

the raming principle or the overall debate about participatory governance. Mostpeople attend as members o a group and have leaders who represent their inter-

ests; most o the day-to-day activities associated with participatory governance are

carried out by community leaders and social movement activists. In some cases,

the members that comprise the participatory institutions are a mix between vol-

unteer and elected ocials. As Brian Wampler and Jonathan Fox observed, we

need to be attentive to the inormal networks that surround these institutions.

Encompassing other orms o representation overcomes the narrowness o the

debate in political science, which has ocused on the vote as the principal instru-

ment used by citizens to exercise voice. By thinking about representation morebroadly, and participatory institutions as one venue among many to exercise voice,

this debate returns to the classic work o Hanna Pitkin (1967) on representation.

Deliberation

Do these orums expand the public sphere? Do they help citizens understand the

demands o others? Archon Fung argued that deliberation should be geared toward

nding solutions to problems. When the process is too technical or politicized,

there is a decreasing likelihood that the participatory institution will develop the

deliberative spaces necessary to improve democratic governance. Frank Fischer

argued that what people learn during the deliberative processes can be considered

an outcome in its own right. Te deliberative process creates the opportunity or

citizen engagement and learning.

Deliberation thus contributes to the expansion o political and policy debates

as well as that o the broader public sphere. New orms o speaking, listening,

and engaging are created, aecting citizens as well as government ocials. Rather

than having politicians rely on reading the tea leaves o elections, new delibera-

tive ormats reorient how citizens and government ocials exchange inormation,

learn, and present their arguments in public.

5. PuBlIc PolIcy

Te impact o participatory institutions can also be measured in the specic pub-

lic works, social service programs, and public goods produced by governments or

unding agencies. What this approach might allow us to do is to see how and i

citizens participation and voice is translated into specic government outputs.

Tese outputs generally all into several overlapping categories, including educa-


39/49


tion, health, transportation and/or communication, and the environment. One

criticism o these experiments is that citizens end up using their voice to approve

inrastructure or public work projects, like bridges and roads, and not those kinds

o policies that are needed to improve the overall quality o lie o citizens.

Another important consideration in this area o impact is the way that these

policies address equity and distribution issues in the spaces or which they are

designed. We might see improved sanitation systems emerge as a policy output

rom a participatory institution, but we need to delve into this outcome to explore

who is receiving the benets o this system. Where is it located and who will use

it? Tis question is closely linked the ollowing area o potential impact, social

well-being.

In the work on participatory budgeting in Brazil, researchers have used map-

ping sotware to identiy the location o specic public work projects. Tis is then

used with other data to examine whether the programs outputs are being directed

to the intended targets.

6. SocIal wEll-BEING

Te nal area o potential impact is the social well-being o citizens, especially the

poor. Tese individuals are motivated by the belie that their participation will

have some sort o tangible impact on their lives. Tis lends itsel to a perormance-

based evaluation o the participatory institutions. Are peoples lives getting better?

I so, how would we know?

However, one o the key points raised in the workshop is that it is very di-

cult to measure the impact o these institutions on social well-being or two basic

methodological reasons: establishing causality and establishing an appropriate

timerame. Improvements in social well-being may result directly rom participa-

tory governance but other actors such as economic growth, drop in employment,

an inusion o ederal or international support, make it very dicult to know with

certainty. In the short term, researchers might ocus their energies on identiying

associations between the adoption o participatory institutions and improvements

in well-being. With regard to time, improvements in social well-being oten take

years to identiy, rustrating the eorts o many policymakers and scholars to

document these outcomes.

When this workshop was proposed, measuring social well-being was con-

ceived as a undamentally important part o understanding the impact on out-

comes. Over the course o the two-day conerence, it became clear that this ap-

proach may need to be treated as a separate research project given the diculty in

measuring social well-being.


40/49


Research Directions

and PolicyRecommendations

Where do we go rom here? o date, there have not been any cross-

regional, cross-national studies that include multiple types o partici-

patory governance institutions. Tis workshop highlighted the need

or just such a research project while also illuminating the diculties in accom-

plishing this task. Te purpose o a more expansive research agenda is to move

beyond our reliance on the best cases or variation across similar programs types

(e.g. participatory budgeting) to a more comprehensive understanding based on a

larger and more diverse set o cases.In addition to providing a orum or thinking more systematically about im-

pact, the workshop also made clear that we have a wealth o experience that can

guide policy experiments and scholarship. Based on already existing research,

nine recommendations emerged that should improve current and uture eorts to

implement orms o participatory governance. While these recommendations are

broad, reormers and policymakers should consider and adapt them in light o the

specic context in which they are working.

1. Be pragmatic. When thinking about designing a participatory governanceprogram, it is important to lean more towards the pragmatic and less toward

the aspirational. In other words, we should not expect these institutions

to rectiy all problems acing a country or locality. We should design and

adopt these programs when they can solve a concrete problem, such as poor

management o programs, lack o transparency, or policy outcomes that do

not refect the needs o traditionally excluded sectors. Te rules governing

the process should also match the policy problems, which means that poli-

cymakers should adaptthe rules to refect local demands and needs.


41/49


2. When attempting to develop top-down or induced participatory gov-

ernance programs, never underestimate the importance o government o-

cials real commitment (i.e., political will) to these programs. What are the

policy and political incentives or government ocials to invest their scarceresources and limited authority into these new governing arrangements? A

participatory institution that is induced rom above will also depend di-

rectly on the political will o ocials working in lower levels o government

to implement and support these institutions on a day-to-day basis.

3. When participatory governance programs emerge rom the bottom-up

as organic experiences, reormers will need to take into account the issue

o sustainability. Generally, these experiences emerge under committed

leaders and or political parties. Yet, what happens when these leadersand/or parties are deeated at the polls? One strategy to ensure sustain-

ability is to codiy them in law, although there is an enormous problem

o the disjuncture between ormal law and actual governing practices.

Policymakers should think about promoting coalitions o political re-

ormers and civil society activists who share common interests in the mo-

bilization o ordinary citizens. Clear and strong political incentives can

motivate government ocials to promote vibrant institutions.

4. When designing and analyzing these institutions, always think aboutthe broader environmental actors that aect their implementation.

Structural issues such as state ormation, the nature o civil society, and

the economic environment must be understood so that expectations and

rules can be tailored accordingly.

5. Avoid cutting and pasting programs. Precisely because each context is

unique, it is impossible to import participatory governance design and

rules. While we can oer best guiding principles, we also need to en-

courage creativity and ingenuity rom all actors involved in the experience.

6. Ensure inclusive institutions. o enhance the legitimacy o participatory in-

stitutions, it is important to engage a diverse group o organizations as well

as participants. Participation must move beyond the small circles o elite

organizations (e.g., parties, NGOs) and historically empowered citizens.

Governments must reach out to organizations and citizens who are tradi-

tionally marginalized rom decision-making venues. Issues such as child-

care, the time o the day that meetings are held, and location can increase

the likelihood that women, the disabled, and youth will attend events.


42/49


7. Educate all involved. o work, all actors involved must know about and

understand why these programs are needed and the way that they unc-

tion. Many o the processes can be complicated and address complex

problems such as budget-making and development planning. Citizens

need to gain basic understandings o the policy process as well as the new

programs rules. Bureaucrats and policy experts need to be retrained so

that they understand how to work with the public.

8. ake confict into account. Confict is always present in participatory

governance programs because citizens are helping to determine how

scarce resources will be allocated as well as how local state authority is ex-

ercised. We should not expect participants to reach consensus, although

the rules can be structured to bridge conficts between organizations.

Countries that are acing social unrest, war, or are in a post-confict situ-

ation may look toward these new orms o participatory governance be-

cause their representative institutions cannot deal with these problems. In

these cases, reormers must think about the role that these existing and

potentially new conficts will play as new institutions are implemented.

Understanding the roots o these conficts will help avoid potential prob-

lems down the road. Participatory governance channels demands and

manages interests in an institutionalized environment, which has the po-

tential to draw actions into positive-sum rather than zero-sum interac-

tions. Reormers oten praise consensus-based models, but they need to

nd ways to allow or and mitigate the naturally occurring conficts that

emerge during any policy decision-making process.

9. Failure is part o the learning process. Oten, when participatory institu-

tions alter or ail to x the myriad problems acing a political system, we

These programs do not, o course, solve all

participation problems or the classical faws

o all kinds o democracies, but they do takeinitial steps in improving access or some

citizens to decision-making venues.


43/49


rush to declare it ailed and do not think about the implications o this

experience. As we experiment and innovate, some programs will clearly

not meet our expectations. And yet, there can be residual eects let by

the pioneering eortcitizens and policymakers learn about what did

and did not work well, which will help them in the uture. However, we

must keep in mind that poorly perorming programs can undercut the

legitimacy o the government ocials who organized them as well as the

community leaders who mobilized their ollowers to attend meetings.

Participatory governance provides an innovative way to address some o the

basic democratic decits associated with representative democracy, especially

those in the developing world. In places as diverse as Brazil, Indonesia, India, and

Peru we see participatory institutions that incorporate the poor and other mar-

ginalized groups into historically exclusive political systems. Tese programs do

not, o course, solve all participation problems or the classical faws o all kind

cusp_110108_participatory gov.pdf

Documents