![Life Cycle of Open Budget Meetings People irrespective of concern (Gender, religion, ethnicity, caste, creed) invited to OBM twice a year (January and April) [Union Parishad organize sessions]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md-Uddin-172/publication/385495190/figure/fig1/AS:11431281288151480@1730577542514/Life-Cycle-of-Open-Budget-Meetings-People-irrespective-of-concern-Gender-religion_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Md Nasir Uddin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Md Nasir Uddin on Nov 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023 ISSN 2958-1664
A Journal of the Faculty of Social Science, BSMRSTU
107
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting:
A Study on Joypurhat and Dhaka District
Anas Al Masud
1
Md Nasir Uddin
2
Abstract
Participatory Budgeting in local government is considered very significant
for establishing good governance, enhancing social accountability, and
legitimizing ruling power. The budgeting process promises quality service
against the popular demand at the local level as well. The local government
structure of Bangladesh is also actively establishing different avenues of
public participation in the governance for initiating democratic
decentralization. Among them, the Open Budget Meeting (OBM) is
considered significant to connect the popular demand and local-level
resource allocation at once. However, this study aims to measure the level of
public participation in the local government (Union Parishad) budgeting
process, to identify the major obstacles, and assess the spaces of
participation left untouched. Following a cross-sectional quantitative
approach, Arnstein’s ladder of public participation has been used in this
study to fulfill the research objectives. A total of 392 samples were collected
using the survey method from Joypurhat and Dhaka district of Bangladesh
following a semi-structured questionnaire. Major findings of the study
showed that the public participation quality in the local government
budgeting context is at the “therapy level”. Results represent that the
existing public participatory mechanism in the local government budgeting
contexts (OBM) is merely eye-washing rather than ensuring actual citizen
participation. People cannot influence budgeting decisions through the
existing open budget meetings at all. The therapy level of public
participation indicates that the OBM is set only for projecting to the people
that they have an opportunity to participate and attain public trust,
legitimacy, and support for the government rather than using OBM to
enhance actual public participation indeed. However, the government of
Bangladesh must re-examine and bring contextual amendments to the legal
backgrounds of OBM- the Local Government Act (Union Parishad)-2009 as
well as the operational manual for OBM at large. Furthermore, other
respective authorities and related bodies must need to make necessary
initiatives for ensuring effective public participation in the local government
budgeting of Bangladesh.
Keywords: Public Participation, Participatory Budgeting, Local
Government, Bangladesh.
1
Post-graduate student, Department of Public Administration, Bangladesh University of
Professionals, Dhaka, Bangladesh. E-mail: anasalmasud2@gmail.com.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Bangladesh University of
Professionals, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
108
Introduction
In recent decades, Bangladesh’s unprecedented economic growth created by
modernization and adaptation of digital technologies following the agenda of
“Digital Bangladesh” enhanced the living standards of the Bangladeshi people.
However, the political and administrative system is yet to be transformed. The
essence of direct democracy through public participation bears the potential for
filling this gap. In making similar inputs, since 1989 contemporary world
started utilizing an innovative approach of direct democracy and social
inclusion in the name of Participatory Budgeting or PB. Several types of
research have shown that contemporary representative democracies have
absolute deficiencies in promoting public voice and interests, a major portion of
the population gets excluded by the fewer engagement points. Here, the PB not
only provides an opportunity for the public to take part in contextual budgeting
and influence the allocation of resources but also in strengthening good
governance as well (Shah, 2007). Guthrie (2003) coined this context of
engaged governance as to be the latest version of “Good Governance” where
the practices of PB acts as one of the core agenda indeed, connecting citizens to
the policy-making process and promoting social equity, reducing- clientelism,
social exclusion, and corruption (Wampler, 2000). Thus, public participation in
local government budgeting stands as an important step toward social
accountability, development, and protection of fundamental rights. Such
participatory avenues not only enable the public to participate in the process but
also stand for active democracy and public-oriented bureaucracy (Arnstein,
1969). Public participation in the local government budgeting in Bangladesh
shares an experience from 2000- the Sirajganj Local Government Development
Fund Project (SLGDFP) with “UP Operational Manual-2012” and the “Local
Government (UP) Act 2009” following the prescribed Open Budget Meeting
(OBM). The OBM at the union parishad level stands by a combination of two
sessions per year- One open pre-budget meeting session and the final budget
meeting with at least 5% participation of the total voter’s count. However, it is
still unclear whether the OBM at the local government (union parishad) public
participation is genuinely public representative or simply a tool of bureaucracy
for its own ends. Unless the participatory power is redistributed and the public
is empowered precisely, the OBM may build a frustrating one indeed.
Therefore, efforts have been made in this research paper to measure the quality
of public participation in the local government (UP) budgeting preferences and
identify the challenges while running OBM by the local representatives;
allowing the policymakers to grasp the actual scenario of people's participation
in budgeting in Bangladesh.
Literature Review
“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in
democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
109
government to the utmost‟ [Quoted from the “Politics” (350 BC) by
Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher (384BC-322BC)]
Public participation, the accelerating concept of democracy is an inclusive
process of exercising the marginal public voice- notably significant in terms of
local government institutions, owning the opportunity to serve citizens directly.
Public participation turns more viable at the local level than the national ones
of the scope of small-scale limited institutions having better participatory
opportunities and greater capacity for making appropriate responses (Beetham,
1996). However, for effective public participation, it requires decentralization
with the induction of devolution in practice. Public participation includes the
public in the influencing node and the public bargaining power followed by a
distribution of decision-making power and a sense of ownership (Khan et al.,
2009). Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency, (GIFT, 2016) defines the
concept through 10 principles-Accessibility, Openness, Inclusiveness, Respect
for self-expression, Timeliness, Depth, Proportionality, Sustainability,
Complementarity, and Reciprocity. However, public participation in the local-
level budgeting contexts has evolved as the latest thought of democracy. It is an
innovative policy-making process with direct public involvement in the called
meetings throughout the year to attain diversified priorities over broad social
policies and holds social accountability. The practice is gaining populistic
support in governance, a “New Governance” indeed (Bingham et al., 2005).
Public participation in Budgeting turned into a paradigm shift in public
governance as well (Wampler, 2000).
The theory of public participation in public administration is narrative by
nature that is about to grow as participation must increase (Shybalkina, 2021;
Bryson et al., 2013). Public participation in the budget-making process is often
treated as a voice-giving process to the citizens (Van Speier, 2009).
Participatory Budgeting is basically a direct democratic procedure around the
allocation of public resources (Shah, 2007). The initiatives of public
participation in the budget-making process empower the citizenry in core
aspects of organizing and implementing the concern with chances of making
influence over the entire procedure; from budget making to implementation and
evaluating decisions indeed. Public participation in budgeting poses the
potential of enriching public leadership capabilities by making further demands
of accountability and most importantly- transparency in procedural systems too
(Cheema and Rondinelli, 2007). Public participation in the budgeting works
further introduces advanced democratic accountability, favoring pro-poor
politics (Bassett, 2016). As the most practical tool for transparency and
drawing citizenry connection- participatory budgeting acts as a strong change
agent of enriched social accountability- bringing citizens closer to the public
budget issues, gaining access to central government resources, and creating a
social bond among the officials and taxpayers with enhanced transparency,
accountability of financial and administrative management systems and
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
110
increased public trust on local government bodies (Wijesundara, 2015). The
practice turned influential in determining priorities for public spending and
monitoring public expenditure, leading the local government towards
sustainable, impact-oriented innovations and development in the country,
satisfying the demand for good governance and reducing social inequality,
clientelism, and corruption (Hossain, 2019), (Hao et al., 2022). Public
participation in the budget-making process further poses a positive relationship
with the quality of the budget. So as the planning and resources distribution
(Kandie, 2020); improving the local government legitimacy (Wu and Wang,
2012); enhancing mutual trust between the stakeholders of the state, and
fostering transparency in public administration (Gatto & Sadik-Zada, 2021) so
as the development work performance by the local bodies (Makwela 2012).
Participatory budgeting, the newest form of participatory mechanism in the
field of political science optimizes the fullest benefit only after the availability
of both systems and structures at a time (Brinkerhoff, et al., 2007).
Participatory mechanisms for the participatory budgeting process include- town
hall meetings, and public hearings for direct public engagement in budgetary
(Esonu & Kavanamur, 2011). In the case of Bangladesh, Open Budget
Meetings (OBM) performs as true a replica of participatory budgeting in
practice (Uddin, 2009). The local government (UP) act-2009 (section 57)
speaks in following the light of constitutional provision; Article 60 of the
constitution of 1972 combinedly empowers the local government bodies into
preparing budgets upon necessity and seeking local-level financial autonomy.
The major responsibility of OBM is to discuss and debate local demands, set
their perspective budgetary priorities, and prepare a new and approve the last
Budget (Uddin, 2019).
Figure 1: Life Cycle of Open Budget Meetings
People irrespective of concern (Gender, religion, ethnicity, caste,
creed) invited to OBM twice a year (January and April)
[Union Parishad organize sessions]
Recommended requirements (income- expenditure) of WARD
SAVA are compiled into a “Proposed Budget” and feedback is
sought from the invited participants.
Participants discuss on budget and provide their comments and
recommendations to be incorporated into the final budget document
First OBM inherited feedback incorporated the final budget and its
approval in the final meeting
After approval, the final budget is hung on the notice board of
Union Parishad for public exposure.
Source: Article 57 of UP Act-2009.
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
111
However, in 2021 Bangladesh scored 13 out of 100 in the public participation
parameter in the Open Budget Survey (OBS) where the global average was 14.
The report sought vulnerable and underrepresented population inclusion as well
as assisting the public in audit as a probable way-out case for Bangladesh. It
was observed that, owing to a gap in the reviews of the existing laws of
participatory budgeting, the legal validities were found less influential for
overall effective participatory budget process activation.
Tagging the process as a potential gangplank between politicians and the
public- efficient but not effective from experiences, Uddin (2019) explored that
the OBM is not functioning properly. These are being made only by the local
elites and political leaders in an in-house setting, ignoring the democratic
perspective and bearing a different administrative motive indeed. The “Surplus
Budget” making tendency in each annum represents the knowledge and
expertise gap among the policy makers too (Chowdhury, 2018; Ahmed et al.,
2016; Siddique, K. 2013; Biswas, 2016; Pandey, 2011; Rahman et al., 2004).
The legally established framework for enhancing public participation through
the inclusion mechanism of Bangladesh seems great but the practices are not.
Tokenistic public participation is frequent in the local government contexts in
Bangladesh (Hossain, 2019; Ahmed et al., 2016). The conflict of power-politics
restricted by the “unchanged power structure”, imperious central-local
relationship, little citizenry involvement to check and monitoring stages,
political malfunction- unwillingness, and bureaucratic inertia turned a culture
of the participation process (Wahed, 2010). Absolute absence of development
funding, the existence of religion and patriarchal dimensions a subsidiary with
issues like lack of fiscal decentralization, and participation nodes without
capacity building led the process as meaningless in most cases. The public
perception of local government institutions as discriminatory, oppressive, and
biased with the rent-seeking attitude among the officials and the fear of getting
indulged into the complexities people in general refrain from participatory
process (Siddique, 2013). Apart from this, the roles of the informal local actors
i.e., civil societies, interest/pressure groups, and local elites are also often seen
as ineffective. In short, they are in no way aware of this mass budget
formulation. Budgeting, thus, is still considered administrative procedure
based, not the mandated public one (Uddin, 2019; Chowdhury, 2020; (Holdo,
2016; Rahman & Ahmed, 2015; He, B., 2011).
The core motive of this research is to measure the degree of public participation
in local government budgeting preferences in Bangladesh, which is being
treated as an administrative procedure, let alone the citizen-centric one to date.
It is still a hazy area whether public participation in rural local government
budgeting in Bangladesh is genuinely representative or just a tool of tokenism
by the state for its own ends.
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
112
Theoretical Framework
The public partnership typology of the government of Sherry R. Arnstein
(1969) was followed in this study following the trend of similar studies in the
field of participation, the public engagement in the government (Yani et al.,
2017), (Yasmin & Kamal, 2021), (Makhdum et al., 2022).
Figure 2: Eight Layers of public participation quality
Citizen Power
Citizen Control
Delegated Power
Partnership
Tokenism
Placation
Consultation
Informing
Nonparticipation
Therapy
Manipulation
Source: (Arnstein, 1969).
The eight (8) rung public participation layers represented the degree of public
engagement and policy influence (Gershman, 2013). These are- Citizen
Control, Delegated Power, Partnership (Citizen Power); Placation,
Consultation, Informing (Tokenism); Therapy, and Manipulation
(Nonparticipation). Citizen control, the top tier of the ladder states a context
where the public as participants of any system or residents under any authority
can run and govern any program, an institution in full charge of managing
policies and managerial aspects, able to negotiate decisions. Subsequently, the
lowest form of participation, the manipulation denotes the context where the
public hardly poses any interest in participation and their decisions rarely get
acceptance. Arnstein perceived that this ladder of participation could determine
the quality of public participation in local-level planning especially in
budgeting (Arnstein, 1969). Thus, the results of this study were analyzed
following Arnstein's ladder of public participation to quantify the quality of
public participation in the local government budgeting in reference to
Bangladesh with an adopted framework from Yani et al. (2017). The study
further addressed the four components, namely- access, awareness, benefit, and
citizen control for addressing the destinated public participation quality. Access
is associated with the meaning of encouraging citizens, channeling their
involvement into the core actions alike- participation in policy discussions,
planning, monitoring, negotiating priorities, and reflecting demands. If the
access space is high, the quality of citizen participation will be greater.
Awareness refers to a state where the citizens understand their position as a part
of the state’s democratic framework. If the citizens’ understanding is lower,
that means the people are pessimistic and they will not engage at all. But the
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
113
higher range of awareness promotes active participation indeed. Control is
associated with the platform for negotiating the respective needs-demands of
the public and making a way for them, to take part in local-level decision-
making.
If the citizenry responses show that the level of control is in the comparatively
less category then it can be said that- citizens are tending to limit their
engagement, and they’re having less authority to change decisions as well. But
if the controlling mechanism is high- citizens may actively participate in the
procedure indeed. The component of “Benefit” relates to the citizen’s
perception of their participation. If the citizens observe that their participation
is admired and their decisions are considered while making the final direction,
they will feel positive about the benefits of participation and will be encouraged
to engage in the process actively (Gershman, 2013).
Methodology
The study maintained a cross-sectional research design. Therefore, a
quantitative research approach was followed to attain a meaningful valuation of
public participation quality following the adopted theoretical framework.
Thereby, for attaining a quick snapshot of the study problem and results that
portray the contexts, a semi-structured questionnaire was deployed through a
social survey initiative based on the related literature and research works in this
area of interest. The primary data is collected from six union parishad chosen
conveniently from the Dhaka and Joypurhat district of Bangladesh. The study
attempted to explore the actual public participation scenario in the local
government budgeting by the inclusion of diversity; the presence of both the
privileged region- Dhaka and the rest- Joypurhat at a single study. Along with a
socio-demographic information section, the survey questionnaire presented four
subsections following the theoretical framework of the study (Access,
Awareness, Control, and Benefit). Each of these subsections comprised five
close-ended questions. The sample size from the infinite population is
measured through Godden’s sample size formula (Godden, 2004). With a 95%
confidence level, the sample size was found 384. However, to attain more data
validity and credibility 400 samples were chosen following the convenience
sampling technique for presenting higher population representation with varied
preferences (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, the reviewed and collected
secondary data were analyzed in this study for supporting the primary data and
evidence.
Data Analysis and Results
The survey questionnaire covered 4 sections; namely- Access, Awareness,
Control, and Benefit aspects had 5 questions each with 5 answer options
ranging from 1-5. They were meant as- 1=very low, 2=low, 3=moderate,
4=high & 5=very high. In each of the 4 sections, individually one respondent’s
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
114
minimum score of response was 5 (Score 1*5 Questions) and the maximum
score was 25 (Score 5*5 questions). The distance of the interval score in
between the ladder was determined by the distance of minimum and the
maximum score, which was {(maximum, 25 – minimum 5)/ladder count, 8} =
2.5. In each of the 4 sections of this study- the total score of the respondent was
divided by the sample number (n= 392) to reach the average score of that
section. The sum of the minimum score of the 4 sections was 20 and the sum of
the maximum number of the 4 sections was 100. The interval score in the
ladder of participation typology was 10. The typology of public participation in
the local government budgeting was determined by the sum average of all
sections.
Table 1: Data Analysis Table
Scores
Typology scores
Ladder Participation
22.5 - 25
90 - 100
Citizen Control
20 - 22.5
80 - 90
Delegated Power
17.5 -20
70 - 80
Partnership
15 - 17.5
60 - 70
Placation
12.5 -15
50 - 60
Consultation
10 -12.5
40 - 50
Informing
7.5 - 10
30 - 40
Therapy
5 -7.5
20 - 30
Manipulation
(Source: Author of the Study)
Table 2: General characteristics of participants (N = 392)
Demographics
Variables
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Joypurhat
District
Bhadsha
66
16.8%
Mohammadabad
65
16.6%
Jamalpur
65
16.6%
Dhaka
District
Birulia
65
16.6%
Savar
65
16.6%
Amin Bazar
66
16.8%
Sex
Male
278
70.9%
Female
114
20%
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
115
Demographics
Variables
Frequency (n)
Percentage (%)
Age
18- 28
49
12.5%
28-38
67
17%
38-48
145
37%
48-58
74
19%
58+
57
14.5%
Level of
Education
Illiterate
46
11.7%
Primary school
78
19.9%
Secondary school
91
23.2%
Higher Secondary
129
32.9%
Graduate,
Postgraduate &
above
48
12.2%
Respondents
Profession
Student
51
13%
Farmer
137
35%
Public Service
82
21%
Businessman &
others
122
31%
(Source: Field Survey)
A total of 392 complete surveys were included in the final analysis. Of them,
70.92% were males and 29.08% were females, indicating the gender-based
participation dynamics of Bangladesh. Most of the responses (36.99%) were
recorded from the 38-48 age group and the lowest portion of responses were
recorded by the youth- including the first-time voters (12.5%). Most had higher
secondary levels of education (49.6%). The study traced; illiteracy (11.7%) is
still prevailing in the context of the study. The majority (35%) were involved in
farming and another (21%) in public services with (13%) responses by students
as well. This section of the study expresses the descriptive statistics in
accordance with the 4 dimensions, determining the quality of public
participation in local government in Bangladesh.
Access to the Local Government’s Budgeting
The core of the participatory initiative is the access opportunities that refer to
the concept where the legally entitled people can avail or get engaged in
different tiers of budgeting mechanisms in-person. Results show that- in this
study, the access parameter falls into the “Therapy” level of public participation
(Score 7.54) presented in Table 3. The quality represents a context where the
mass population does not have any clear demonstration of access to the
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
116
respective budgeting process or, traces of engagement and influence in the
decision-making procedures indeed. A score of 1.43 ranging between poor and
very poor at the parameter of voices keeping in budget decisions indicate that
people rarely get the chance to participate. Scores of 1.66 on whether the
citizenry is being informed about joining Open Budget Meetings or not reflect
the same poor stances. A very poor rate of invitation is a practice to the study
area too which can be understood in its parameters through the score of 1.44.
Those, who are participating are also less informed on budget issues (1.50)
which is in between the very low to a low category, resulting in a breakdown in
the public opportunity to negotiate, determine or decide on priorities (1.51).
The overall performance of this “Access” parameter represents that, the
mentioned OBM is merely for eye-washing. Only favored, selected few
personals are invited into the process keeping mass people avoided. However,
As the participants do not have any clear idea about participatory budgeting at
all, ultimately OBM brings no success in public representative participation
indeed.
Table 3: Access to Local Government Budgeting
Statement
Score
Informed about Open Budget Meetings
1.66
Invited to join at Open Budget Meetings
1.44
Informed on key Information of Budget issues
1.50
Opportunity to negotiate, determine and decide on budget
priorities
1.51
The voice kept at the final budget
1.43
Total value =
7.54
(Source: Field Survey)
Awareness of Local Government Budgeting
The concept of awareness covers that element of participation that seeks
individuals into the process itself. That means, grabbing people into
participation for budgeting purposes is thoroughly covered under this aspect.
The total value of awareness is 12.20, which means the awareness is at the
Informing level presented in Table 4. The result represents that- the context
turned into a vehicle of one-way information sharing instead of public
participation through maintaining dual ends. The public is selectively addressed
and called to just listen. A low score of 2.44 which is almost in the moderate
category represents a dual-contextual dilemma. Firstly, the rise of educated
awareness in the study area and then the rival political elitism, legalistic jargon,
and the prestige of officials - restricting the practice of citizenship as
prescribed. The people hardly experienced any practices but heard of a few
participatory budgeting practices by any other authorities indeed (score 2.44).
Pubic are less interested in the political, economic, social & budgetary issues at
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
117
the union parishad (score 2.43) as by experience they learned that their advice
will not be considered for final budgeting at all.
Table 4: Awareness of Local Government Budgeting
Statement
Score
Care about Political/ economic/ social/ budget issues of UP
2.43
Open Budget Meetings of Participatory Budgeting at UP fit my
interest
2.59
I know about my basic rights as a citizen to involve and
determine budgetary priorities
2.44
I know about other public body that has developed the budget
through participation
2.44
Active involvement and participation at Open Budget Meetings
2.30
Total value =
12.20
(Source: Field Survey)
Control over Local Government Budgeting
The control aspect covers the position on which citizens have authority to rule
over or, complete power to influence over the decision-making mechanisms
while connecting public interest into the process. Table 5 presents that, the total
score of control is 7.82 which belongs to the range of “Therapy”. Such a result
represents the context of no trace of public control over budgetary decisions
indeed. Instead, the political leaders and the interest group deal with every
aspect of the budgeting alone. Hardly any public responded positively after the
issues of public consultation existence or other settings of public involvement,
framing the budget and the spending priorities (score 1.76 & 1.44). though the
government created space but is not clear at all (Score 1.68). Amidst this hazy
area, the public rarely had any chance of budgetary decision determination
(score 1.43). Though the Government of Bangladesh has created the OBM
mechanism for total inclusion and representation, people have no such
experience at all (score 1.51). There is a vast gap between concepts,
prescriptions, and practices indeed.
Table 5: Control over Local Government Budgeting
Statement
Score
UP consulted the public on setting broad budget priorities
1.76
The public could involve in putting spending priorities
1.44
Government-created budget priorities defining discussion
platform
1.68
People determined all budget decisions
1.43
UP ever formatted participatory budget
1.51
Total value =
7.82
(Source: Field Survey)
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
118
Perceived Benefits from Local Government Budgeting
Benefit refers to the public’s perception of benefits from the initiatives being
adopted. Here, the score of 12.21, representing the Informing level of public
participation covers the issues of benefit perception by the public from the
OBM mechanism. As presented in Table 6, With the contextual experience of
elitists domination, a bite of the public agreed only in the aspect that the OBM
reflects the public needs and demands (Score 1.76), creating a path for social
inclusion of underrepresented with the mandate of improved democracy (Score
2.59) considering their experienced preferences. The informing level scoring
projects that the benefits are informed to the public rather than experienced by
them in actual means.
Table 6: Perceived Benefits from Local Government Budgeting
Statement
Score
Reflection of public needs and demands in the Budget
1.76
Improves accountability: local resources mobilization and
utilization
2.59
Social inclusion of underrepresents and vulnerable &
improvement of Democracy by participatory budgeting
2.59
Only a few people or small groups benefitted from
participatory budgeting
2.83
Satisfaction on PB/ expectations met by community
empowerment
2.44
Total value =
12.21
(Source: Field Survey)
Key Findings and Summary
The total score of 4 aspects (Access, Awareness, Benefit, and Control)
following the typology presented in Table 7 is 39.77 which indicates that the
level of public participation in the local government budgeting preferences is of
the therapy category. This therapy level means that the participatory budgeting
mechanism through OBM is a failed attempt of the government to empower the
citizenry, reflecting respective desires and demands specifically. Therefore, it
can be stated that though the govt. took this initiative for satisfying the purpose
of social inclusion and improve democracy, the esteemed Open Budget
Meetings (OBM) are not serving the purpose of public participation as
expected at all.
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
119
Table 7: Degree of Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting
Variable
Score
Degree of Participation
Access
7.54
Therapy
Awareness
12.20
Informing
Control
7.82
Therapy
Benefit
12.21
Informing
Typological score =
39.77
Therapy
The Local Government (UP) Act of 2009 pronounces 5% population inclusion
into OBM, but their selection process is hardly maintained in the contexts. With
the vague law and no directory rules, OBM became a sacred tool for practicing
political controversies and elitism. The public is found missing in the public
participation itself, which the results also speak the access concerns. Through
OBM, the government of Bangladesh supports the legalities but ignores
democracy indeed (Siddique, 2012). With the contextual lack of political
commitment, experiences of treating the public as the problem of participation
itself support the theme (Hasan et al.,2014), (Pandey, 2009), (Uddin, 2009).
Following the statements of (Rahman, 2015) and the poor level of the public
participatory mechanism through eye-washing OMB structure as found in this
study, the union parishad is surely missing some advantages which might be
possible if adaptation was institutionalized properly. To begin with- chances of
quick, responsive, and concerned estimation of local-level development project
expenditure are missing surely. Furthermore, the transparent allocation,
mobilization, and utilization of local resources might be possible with OBM,
found missing in the study. Not just this, in Bangladesh, the Local government
missed chances of attaining more extensive government legitimacy, public
trust, balanced politics, and advanced democracies with enhanced
accountability (He, 2011; Wu and Wang, 2012; Gatto and Sadik-Zada, 2021;
Bassett, 2016) on the way like Korea reached the peak in the open budget
survey (Kang and Min, 2013). Here in Bangladesh, the Union Parishad has got
huge potential though, just needs to act properly and precisely in accordance
with the existing laws, acts, and regulations of participatory budgeting in the
local government contexts of Bangladesh.
Conclusion
Budgeting is among the core functions of local governments in Bangladesh,
especially at the Union Parishads. It is an undeniable fact that to ensure
democracy and social inclusion, there is barely any alternative to public
participation. Turning the process is very crucial for the interests of good
governance and public accountability too. Though, the government of
Bangladesh is putting its best to invite public participation in the UP-level
budget-making process with reference to the Local Government (UP) Act-2009
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
120
and “UP Operational Manual-2012”; the typology score of 37.74 (Therapy
Level) advocates OBM as nothing but eye-washing and of tokenistic public
participation oriented. The public can hardly participate in the process, engage
freely, and contribute properly. OBM turned out as set just for projecting the
public participation opportunity and perceived benefits, not initiating
participation in actual means at all. Although OBM is entirely effective in
encouraging decentralization for governance, it has not been fully implemented
or extensively adapted in Bangladesh. The study suggested that- the hinders of
public participation in OBM must be removed by facilitating citizens, and
public awareness and providing information. The limited study area and
induction of quantitative techniques only are the weakness of this study. Where
the time-visit-cost was the major obstacle ahead to conducting the study on a
broader scale. However, the findings of this study will help the government and
its concerns by portraying the real public participation scenario of the
budgeting works from the local governments in Bangladesh. The study will
assist in policy-making activities as well.
Recommendations
Public participation through OBM in local government budgeting is very
crucial in respect of governance, social accountability, transparency, and
efficiency of local resources planning and allocation. Despite having legal and
institutional support, the study explored that the OBM is not making way for
public inclusion at all. It became an alternative tool of elitist domination
indeed. Some measures need to be taken for effective OBM activation and
efficient service delivery. Thereby, a few contextual recommendations are
proposed for initiating the growth in the quality of public participation in the
local government (UP) budgeting preferences indeed. Those are as follows-
• Strategic plans, clearly directing the OBM activation and performance-
based grant allocation system could be adopted. Initiation of participation
appraisals for the public might enhance public motivation indeed.
• Political leadership could be provided with absolute authority and control
in the budgetary decisions with the initiation of political openness,
bureaucratic neutrality, and democratic practices.
• The Local government act (UP)-2009 could be revised and thoroughly
reexamined. Initiatives could be taken to increase for increasing public
trust and accountability through other avenues (Ward Sava and Village
Court) of participation)
• Building political awareness through quality civic education might be an
asset. Initiation of village-to-village peer education practices and NGO
activation could be proposed. Pieces of training could be provided to the
local government budgeting concerned officials (UP councilors, Secretary
and Chairman) as well.
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
121
• A separate, independent “Local Government Commission” could be re-
established for collaboration and budget performance review purposes. A
computerized database system could be established to improve efficiency
and integrity in the budgeting contexts of UP. Electronic Participatory
Budgeting (e-PB) could be adopted as well.
References
Ahmed, T., Rashid, M., Or, H., Ahmmed, K. N., & Razzaque, F. (2016). Social
Accountability Mechanisms: A Study on the Union Parishads in Bangladesh.
Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners (Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 216–224). Informa UK Limited.
Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Bassett, C. (2016). An alternative to democratic exclusion? The case for participatory
local budgeting in South Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies,
34(2), 282-299.
Beetham, D. (1996). Theorizing democracy and local government. In Rethinking local
democracy (pp. 28-49). Palgrave, London.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The New Governance: Practices
and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of
Government. Public Administration Review (Vol. 65, Issue 5, pp. 547–558).
Wiley. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.
Biswas, B. (2016). Budget Making Process in Urban Local Government: A Study of
Savar Pourashava. Public Policy and Administration Research, 6, 18-30.
Brinkerhoff, D., Brinkerhoff, J., & Mcnulty, S. (2007). Decentralization and
Participatory Local Governance: A Decision Space Analysis and Decision Space
Analysis and Application in Peru. Decentralizing Governance: Emerging
Concepts and Practices. (G. Cheema, & D. Rondinelli, Eds.) Washington:
Brookings Institution Press.
Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2012). Designing
Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review (Vol. 73, Issue 1,
pp. 23–34). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02678.x
Cheema, G., & Rondinelli, D. (2007). From Government Decentralization to
Decentralized Governance. (G. Cheema, & D. Rondinelli, Eds.) Washington:
Brookings Institution Press.
Chowdhury, S. (2020). Resistances to Gender Mainstreaming: An Analysis of the
Trend of Women Engagement in Participatory Gender-Responsive Budgeting in
Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 1(2), 53-
66.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed
Method Research. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Esonu, B., & Kavanamur, D. (2011). Exploring the Relationship between the Level of
Stakeholder Participation and Local-Level Government Performance in Papua
Social Science Review, No. 01, January 2023
122
New Guinea: The Case of Wampar Local-Level Government in Morobe
Province. International Public Management Review, 12(1), 98-111.
Gatto, A., & Sadik‐Zada, E. R. (2021). Governance matters. Fieldwork on participatory
budgeting, voting, and development from Campania, Italy. Journal of Public
Affairs (Vol. 22, Issue S1). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2769
Gershman, S. D. (2013). An evaluation of public participation techniques using
Arnstein's Ladder: The Portland Plan (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida).
Godden, B. (2004). Sample size formulas. Journal of Statistics, 3(66).
Guthrie, D. M. (2003). Engaged Governance: An Institutional Approach to
Government Community Engagement, A Background Paper. Prepared for and
presented at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Interregional Workshop on “Engaged Governance”. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
December 9-11, 2003.
Hao, C., Nyaranga, M. S., & Hongo, D. O. (2022). Enhancing Public Participation in
Governance for Sustainable Development: Evidence from Bungoma County,
Kenya. SAGE Open (Vol. 12, Issue 1, p. 215824402210888). SAGE
Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221088855
Hasan, B., Sultana, M., & Hasan, M. N. (2014). Good governance in Bangladesh:
Problems and prospects. University of Information Technology & Sciences
(UITS) Journal, 3(2), 22-44.
He, B. (2011). Civic engagement through participatory budgeting in China: Three
different logics at work. Public Administration and Development (Vol. 31, Issue
2, pp. 122–133). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.598
Holdo, M. (2016). Reasons of Power: Explaining Non-cooptation in Participatory
Budgeting. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (Vol. 40,
Issue 2, pp. 378–394). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12378
Hossain, S. M. J. (2019). Participatory Budgeting in Local Governance: Global Lessons
for Bangladesh. Journal of Governance and Innovation, 5(1).
Kandie, B. K. (2020). The effect of public participation on the budgeting process in
Kenya: A case of Mombasa county government (Doctoral dissertation, Africa
Nazarene University).
Khan, S., Rehman, R., Shah, A., & Khan, H. (2009). Public perceptions of local
government in Pakistan: a survey. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 2(2), 232-240.
Makhdum, N., Rumi, M. H., & Islam, N. (2022). Measuring Quality of Public
Participation in the Local Government of Bangladesh. Journal of Public
Administration and Governance, 12(1), 114-114.
Makwela, Mike. 2012. “A Case for Participatory Budgeting in South Africa.” In
Putting Participation at the Heart of Development, 82–95. Cape Town: Good
Governance Learning Network.
Panday, P. K. (2011). The local government system in Bangladesh: How far is it
decentralized? Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government, 9(3).
Picchio, M., & Santolini, R. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on voter
turnout. European Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 73, p. 102161). Elsevier
BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102161
Public Participation in Local Government Budgeting
123
Rahman, A., Kabir, M. and Razzaque, A. (2004), Civic Participation in Sub-national
Budgeting in Bangladesh, The World Bank Institute, Washington, DC.
Rahman, H. Z., & Ahmed, T. (2015). Strategy on local government strengthening. A
background paper for 7th five-year plan. Dhaka: Planning Commission.
Accessible at http://www.plancomm.gov.bd/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/13_Strategy-on-Local-Government-Strengthening.pdf
Shah, A. (2007). Participatory Budgeting. Washington, DC: IBRD World Bank.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6923-4
Shybalkina, I. (2021). Toward a positive theory of public participation in government:
Variations in New York City's participatory budgeting. Public Administration.
Siddique, K. (2013). A case study of gender-responsive budgeting in Bangladesh. The
Commonwealth, 11, 19.
Uddin, N. (2019). Empowerment through participation in local governance: the case of
Union Parishad in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Policy (Vol. 22, Issue
1, pp. 40–54). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/pap-10-2018-0002
Van Speier, J. (2009). Citizen Participation Influencing Public Decision Making: Brazil
and the United States. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 156-159.
Waheduzzaman, Wahid (2010) People's Participation for Good Governance:
Conceptualization In Bangladesh Context. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference: Managing
for Unknowable Futures. Gurd, Bruce, ed. ANZAM, Sydney.
Wampler, B. (2000). A Guide to Participatory Budgeting. IBP. And in Anwar Shah
(Ed.) Participatory budgeting. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Wijesundara, S. (2015, July 17). Rooting participatory budget practices for transparent
and accountable local governance. Centre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved
September 6, 2022, from https://www.cpalanka.org/rooting-participatory-
budget-practices-for-transparent-and-accountable-local-governance.
Wu, Y., & Wang, W. (2012). Does Participatory Budgeting Improve the Legitimacy of
the Local Government? A Comparative Case Study of Two Cities in China.
Australian Journal of Public Administration (Vol. 71, Issue 2, pp. 122–135).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00771.
Yani, A. A., Hidayat, A. R., Hans, A., Yunus, A. Y., Tadjang, S., & Agam, A. N.
(2017). Measuring Quality of Citizens' Participation in Local Development. In
International Conference on Administrative Science (ICAS 2017). Atlantis Press.
Yasmin, S., & Kamal, M. M. (2021). Achieving sustainable development goals at local
levels: A study on participatory budget making at local government bodies in
Sylhet district of Bangladesh. International Journal of Information and
Knowledge Studies, 1(1).
