Brazil : Toward a More Inclusive and Effective Participatory Budget in Porto Alegre, Volume 1. Main Report
This report is about effective participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre. The process was initiated during the early years of re-democratization and decentralization in Brazil, following the end of the military dictatorship in 1985. The 1988 constitu...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Language: | English |
Published: |
Washington, DC
2012
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/01/9053955/brazil-toward-more-inclusive-effective-participatory-budget-porto-alegre-vol-1-2-main-report http://hdl.handle.net/10986/8042 |
Summary: | This report is about effective
participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre. The process was
initiated during the early years of re-democratization and
decentralization in Brazil, following the end of the
military dictatorship in 1985. The 1988 constitution
initiated a process of decentralization and tax reforms that
created the fiscal space for municipalities to make more
significant public investment decisions. A plethora of
participatory governance institutions have since
proliferated in Brazil, most importantly, municipal policy
councils and participatory budgeting bodies. The
Participatory Budget (OP) was formally introduced in Porto
Alegre under the leadership of the Workers' Party in
coalition with pro-democracy social movements. Although
initially fraught with difficulties due to fiscal
constraints, the OP in Porto Alegre became gradually more
systematic over time. Today, the OP has a complex
methodology for organizing participation in a city of over
1.4 million inhabitants, as well as for prioritizing public
investments based on three main criteria: unmet basic needs,
population, and citizen preferences. However, the OP
constitutes one element in a broader complex system of
participatory governance in Porto Alegre. Findings on the
poverty and fiscal impacts of OP in Brazil suggest that OP
is a participatory mechanism that has significant potential
for pro-poor distributive impacts that lead to poverty
reduction outcomes in the long run. Its ability to have a
positive impact on fiscal performance is less evident. |
---|