Participatory Fora as Commitment Mechanisms

One of the most important (and maybe the most interesting) things that I'm working on down here in Peru is finding out why participatory fora--basically, citizen-based problem-solving roundables, have an effect on local agricultural policy outcomes. Why is it that they have an impact on policy, when many of the other (more typical) things we expect to impact policy don't really seem to work down here. In addition, how do these fora arise? And how do they work--that is, what is the mechanism through which they have an effect on policy?

First, let me hit a little background. One of the weird things about Peru is that many of the standard rational-choice factors that impact policy in other places don't have an impact here. For example, in Bolivia and Guatemala (among a great many other places), governments seem to pay more attention to agricultural policy or forestry policy when (a) they make money off of those policies, (b) the central government is pressuring them to do so, especially through the use of economic incentives, and (c) voters have in interest in those policies and will vote them out of office if they don't carry through on supporting agricultural policy, etc...

These seem like pretty common-sense things. They should have an effect on policy, at least in theory, right? Funny thing is, they don't really work here in Peru. When we run regressions, variables that represent those factors don't seem to be statistically significant (at least at the p < .95 level).

However, one of the things that does have an impact here are these "participatory problem solving fora." Basically, where people can get together with representatives of the municipality and try to figure out common solutions for their problems.

So, the first question is, why do these fora have an impact? Often, they have no formal powers--they're merely advisory. And even where they're legally empowered, anyone who has spent much time down here knows that having a written law is often a far cry from having that law carried out.

The second question is, why do they come about? Who creates them, and why? If they work at having an effect on policy, how we get more of them? Over the last week or so, I've had some real luck in getting some good, straight answers to these questions.

First off, "participatory fora" are a way for the mayor and other municipal actors to gain the trust and cooperation of the citizenry in a country where politicians are typically regarded as universally corrupt. For a corrupt politician, participatory fora might take away some (or much) of the discretion that can make being the mayor such a lucrative situation. For an honest politician, however, who with political (not economic) ambitions, who hopes to make a career in politics (long time horizons), participatory fora are a good way to convince the citizens that they're really doing what they say they're doing.

Also, participatory fora are a commitment mechanism. Although municipal administrations give up some control of policy when they allow it to be guided by these fora, having broad citizen participation in the creation of policy (a) makes citizens aware of policy, and (b) makes it more politically costly to change policies that citizens created. As such, participatory budgeting can be a mechanism to increase the odds that the policies created by one administration will be carried through by the following administration. This makes it easier for municipal governments to work with other actors who may have longer time horizons--entrepreneurs, investors, and citizens who only are willing to participate in a costly (though beneficial) policy if it is really carried through.