Resources

This document is the summary for a 36 country-wide study evaluating public access to budget information from the perspective of civil society organisations. The International Budget Project (IBP) developed an open budget questionnaire as a measurement tool that was then completed by civil society researchers in different countries in 2004. The main results include that documents relating to the executive's budget proposed expenditure are routinely released to the public and typically contain significant amounts of information; fewer countries report positive practices in reports that monitor the budget while it is being implemented and/or completed; and very few of the countries surveyed had efforts to facilitate public discourse and understanding of the budget. Likewise, the study found that official avenues for legislative and public input into the budget process tend to be lacking. The study goes on to identify a number of concrete steps that countries can take to improve their budget systems, such as encouraging public and legislative involvement, as well as providing non-technical summaries of the budget to make it accessible to a wider audience. Overall, the information in the report aims to contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance budget transparency and help countries assess and improve their budget systems.

This collection of case studies was prepared for the LogoLink International workshop on Participatory Planning Approaches for Local Governance, held in Bandung, Indonesia, January 2002. The workshop brought together 34 participants from 18 countries to discuss lessons and insights from a wide range of experiences in participatory local governance. The case studies are divided by region (Latin America, Africa, Asia and others) and include the following presentations: La participación ciudadana en Estelí*, by Pérez Acuña (in Spanish); Write-ups on Estelí’s participatory planning initiative*, by Howard; Situational strategic planning and citizen participation processes in Tlalpan, Mexico, by Rodriguez; The participation of social actors traditionally excluded in the planning of the municipal development in Eastern Bolivia*, by Linzer; Transformation and empowerment through the Participatory Budget*, Brazil, by Baierle; Case study on participatory planning initiatives presented by the urban trust of Namibia*, by Haufiku; Public participation in the Western Cape, South Africa*, by Achmat; Combined Harare residents’ association’s participatory planning approaches, by Mangodza; Participatory planning, the case of the Bunda District, Tanzania, by Hosea; Various innovation fact sheets – Uganda, by Bazaara; Poblacion North, adopting  participatory governance in the Barangay*, Philippines, by Tiongson; Building empowered sustainable committee through effective people’s participation in governance, the Caret experience in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan*, Philippines, by Ramos; BATMAN Philippines presentation*, by Ramos; The making of democratic local governance in Indonesia*, by Antlöv; Encouraging citizen participation through partnership approach, the experience of Indonesian partnership on local governance initiatives- IPGI , Indonesia by Sjaifudian; Enhancing civic engagement in local governance: the case of Majalaya Town, Bandung municipality, West Java Province, Indonesia, by Sjaifudian; From centralistic to participatory planning: lessons learned in social safety net program, Indonesia, by Firman; Participatory planning in decentralised governance for building sustainable models of development in rural areas of Madhya Pradesh, India, by Nagar; Participatory planning exercises: two cases from India (Kerala and Lakshadweep), by Chatukulam; The Road to Success: Women Showed the Way. Experience On Participatory Planning & Local Self-Governance*, India, by Jamuar; Participatory planning process: IUCN Pakistan experience with environmental rehabilitation in NWFP and Punjab, by Malik; Participation in budget process in Russian cities: St.Petersburg, Murmansk, Petrozavodsk, Pskov, Velikije Luki, Samara, Novosibirsk, Yuzno-Sakhalinsk, St. Petersburg Humanities and political Studies Centre “Strategy” Participatory Planning Initiative*, Russia, by Vinogradova; The Community needs survey: research as a participatory planning tool- Cipher- LOGO*, United States, by Gupta; and Access denied: the fight for full enrolment-NWFCO*, United States by Hall.

This paper gives account of a study that was made as part of Mabalauta Workshop, held in south-eastern Zimbabwe. The study makes a comparison of PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) methods and a household sample survey for eliciting economic data on the use of the Ilala palm (Hyphaene petersiana), an important resource for livelihoods in this area of Zimbabwe. The paper considers whether PRA and traditional economic tools produce similar results for a range of quantitative economic data; if there are differences then how big are they, and which technique is more reliable for which type of data; and whether PRA techniques really are more cost effective, especially in terms of the time requirements of the æbeneficiariesÆ. Field work was carried out in the Xini-Maoze Ward, in Sengwe Communal Land, Chiredzi district, Zimbabwe. The comparability of the two approaches was assessed by looking at the data sets for a range of variables, including the population proportions of different stakeholder groups, household cash income shares, and the production, marketing and economic returns of palm products. While quite similar results were obtained for some of the variables, the PRA findings appeared less reliable for most quantitative information. Production and economic data were also collected from informal discussions with key informants. It was concluded that this method produced the most reliable quantitative data, although this reliability is subject to representativeness. Single visit random household surveys were most useful for differentiating between households, and fro aggregating stakeholder group data in a project area. This type of survey was also more revealing in terms of gender differentiation. In conclusion, this study indicates how these three tools can be used in combination to develop a reasonable data set for project design purposes. Appendices include the household survey questionnaire used in the study and economic calculations made using the PRA and survey data.