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.

Town Meetings in Peru

First off, I've added a few (bad) pictures to the Cusco album in the sidebar. Check it out if you like painted campaign signs.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Got a chance to go out to one of the Anta participatory budgeting fora today. Interesting. Anta is the province which implemented the participatory budgeting process in Peru, which, in theory, is supposed to be universal nowadays. Indeed, the institutions of participatory budgeting seem to be widespread, but the way the budgeting process is carried out, and whether or not the budget is carried through is an open question. I've met several people (in other places) who have said things like, "we were supposed to receive X soles in last year's budget, but the money was never provided."

In Anta, however, the process seems to be fairly well implemented, in a democratic way, and indeed, there seems to be some follow-through. Not only does the government seem to carry out the things the budget prioritizes, they have developed a simple but consistent way of prioritizing projects, which doesn't permit the districts to select projects which are contrary to the municipality's strategic development plan. In other places, such contradictions (between development plans and participatory budgets) have been a major complaint of municipal officials about the participatory budgeting processes.

The actual meeting took place outside the church in one of the rural villages in Anta, which chickens and stray dogs at our feet, and with a beautiful view out onto the valley which makes up most of the province.

Probably half the meeting was conducted in Quechua (some of which I understood fairly well), and the community was generally in reasonably strong agreement about their priorities in the budget--completion of an irrigation project which has already been started, and the introduction of clean drinking water and sewage/drainage to the community. Apparently, this sort of agreement is fairly unusual, and there are usually conflicts within communities, including between different factions, and conflict whipped up by individuals with political ambitions.

My take on the participatory budgeting process is thus:
1. It promotes transparency. The communities know what projects have been selected for completion, and therefore, know when things haven't been completed.
2. It promoted better decision-making. Although the prioritization of projects is ultimately performed by the mayor's office, the process feeds information to the mayor about the needs of the communities. Without such an extensive institutionalized process of interest articulation, local executives simply don't know as well what voters need and want.
3. It promotes a participatory culture. Repeatedly, interviewees have told me that the participatory budgeting process has changed citizens' ideas about government from "Kiss the hand" of the mayor (as one interviewee described it), to the expectation that the municipality has a duty to carry out projects for the citizen. This sort of culture makes it more likely that politicians will be punished for following their own personal agendas, and not the agenda of the communities.