Tactic 06: Participatory Budgeting
.png)
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a democratic process that allows community members to directly influence how public funds are allocated. This approach aligns with broader governance goals such as equity, transparency, and inclusivity. By involving residents in decision-making, PB addresses long-standing challenges like inequitable resource distribution and weak community-government trust.
This tactic focuses on how to effectively implement PB in informal settlements, where budgetary decisions often exclude marginalized groups. PB processes empower communities to co-prioritize interventions based on their needs and available resources, ensuring equitable outcomes and sustainable urban development.
Rooted in global examples like Porto Alegre, Brazil, and local successes like Makueni County, Kenya, PB demonstrates how participatory governance can improve service delivery, strengthen civic engagement, and build community resilience. When adapted to the unique challenges of informal settlements, PB fosters a culture of shared decision-making and accountability.
The Challenge
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a proven mechanism to democratize decision-making and promote equity in public resource allocation, rooted in Kenya’s Constitution (Article 201(a)), which mandates openness and public participation in financial matters【1】【2】. Despite this alignment, PB has not been widely trialed, tested, or institutionalized across Kenya, even in the face of successful examples like Makueni County, where 32% of the development budget in 2016/2017 was allocated through participatory processes【3】.
Key challenges to its broader adoption include:
01. Insufficient Institutionalization
PB remains underutilized as it is often viewed as an “experiment” rather than an essential governance tool. While Makueni has showcased its potential, other counties lack the frameworks and political will to adopt PB sustainably【1】【3】.
Solution: Advocate for policy reforms that institutionalize PB within Kenya’s urban development strategies. Establish clear guidelines for adapting PB to different contexts, focusing on informal settlements.
02. Political Resistance and Power Dynamics
The reallocation of decision-making power from centralized authorities to communities threatens entrenched political interests. This resistance from policymakers and bureaucrats impedes efforts to mainstream PB into governance structures【2】【4】.
03. Low Awareness and Limited Advocacy
Many communities and local governments are unaware of PB’s benefits and processes. This lack of awareness, coupled with inadequate advocacy, reduces demand for its implementation and stymies capacity-building efforts【2】【4】.
04. Resource Constraints and Conflicts
Informal settlements often face chronic resource scarcity, which intensifies competition and tensions during prioritization. Without skilled facilitation, PB processes can exacerbate divisions rather than foster collaboration【3】【5】.
05. Complexity in Informal Settlement Contexts
Adapting PB frameworks to informal settlements is challenging due to insecure land tenure, fragmented governance, and the informal nature of economies. These factors complicate the integration of PB into urban upgrading projects【5】.
06. Transparency and Accountability Gaps
A lack of clear rules and accountability mechanisms erodes trust in PB processes. When decision-making is opaque, communities often perceive PB as tokenistic rather than meaningful【4】【5】.
07. Sustainability and Long-Term Engagement
Initial enthusiasm for PB can wane if long-term structures for capacity-building, monitoring, and feedback are not established. This results in isolated successes without systemic impact【3】.
08. Insufficient Demand and Political Will
Despite its strong alignment with Kenya’s constitutional values, PB lacks widespread demand from civil society and political support from local governments. Awareness campaigns and demonstrative projects, like those in Makueni, are critical to building momentum【1】【3】.
09. Exclusion of Marginalized Voices
Despite PB’s potential to empower communities, marginalized groups—such as women, youth, and persons with disabilities—are often excluded from the process. Structural inequalities and cultural norms can prevent these groups from participating fully, perpetuating inequities in resource distribution.
10. Limited Awareness and Capacity
Both residents and local governments may lack awareness or technical capacity to engage effectively in PB. Communities may distrust public finance processes, while officials may view PB as a threat to their control over resources. This lack of mutual understanding undermines collaboration.
11. Resource Scarcity and Prioritization Conflicts
Informal settlements often experience chronic resource shortages. Limited funding forces communities to make difficult trade-offs, leading to conflicts and dissatisfaction. Without robust facilitation, prioritization processes may exacerbate existing tensions rather than resolve them.
12. Complexity of Adapting PB to Informal Contexts
PB models are typically designed for formal governance structures, which may not align with the informal and fluid governance systems of many settlements. Challenges such as insecure land tenure, informal economies, and fragmented leadership complicate the integration of PB.
13. Transparency and Accountability Gaps
A lack of clear rules and accountability mechanisms can erode trust in PB processes. When decisions are not transparent, or when community inputs are ignored, PB risks being seen as tokenistic rather than transformative.
14. Sustaining Engagement Beyond the First Cycle
Initial enthusiasm for PB often wanes if long-term support structures are absent. Without sustained capacity-building, monitoring, and iterative feedback mechanisms, PB processes may fail to deliver lasting impacts.
15. Policy and Governance Constraints
While Kenya’s Constitution mandates public participation in financial matters, inconsistent implementation and weak enforcement of these requirements hinder PB’s success. Supportive political environments and robust policy frameworks are often lacking.
By addressing these challenges, PB can fulfill its potential to give informal settlement residents greater control over decisions that directly impact their lives, fostering inclusivity, resilience, and shared prosperity.
PB incorporates continuous feedback mechanisms, allowing for iterative assessment and adaptation of projects to meet evolving community needs and improve outcomes.
Through inclusive engagement, PB identifies and addresses vulnerabilities, enhancing community safety and resilience against social, economic, and environmental challenges.
By integrating community priorities, PB promotes sustainable development that balances social needs with ecological considerations, fostering harmonious urban environments.
PB facilitates collaborative planning between communities and authorities, enabling co-design of infrastructure projects that reflect collective aspirations and local knowledge.
PB empowers residents to actively participate in decision-making processes, ensuring their rights to influence urban development and access equitable services are upheld.
Key concepts
Participatory Budgeting (PB) is not just a tool for community engagement but a powerful driver of inclusive development, enabling communities to shape decisions that impact their lives, thought their expertise gained from living in the neighbourhood/city/ county. When implemented effectively, PB aligns governance processes with community priorities, builds trust, and strengthens social equity. The following concepts underpin the successful application of PB:
01. PB as an Instrument of Direct Democracy
PB empowers communities to directly influence how public funds are allocated, fostering transparency and accountability in governance. By transferring decision-making power from centralized authorities to residents, PB creates a space for democratic dialogue and collaborative problem-solving.
Key Principle: PB operationalizes constitutional rights to public participation in financial matters (Article 201(a) of Kenya’s Constitution)【1】【3】.
02. Community-Centered Planning
Engage local community leaders and members in the planning and implementation stages to promote a sense of ownership and increase the likelihood of success.
At its core, PB centres on understanding and responding to community needs. Through inclusive consultations, marginalized groups—such as women, youth, and persons with disabilities—can actively participate, ensuring their voices are heard and their priorities addressed.
Key Principle: Co-designed processes lead to resource allocation that reflects the lived experiences of diverse community members【4】【5】.
03. Transparency and Accountability
PB processes enhance governance by promoting openness. By involving communities in decision-making, PB fosters trust between governments and citizens, reducing the risk of mismanagement and ensuring funds are used effectively. Establish clear rules and accountability mechanisms to build trust in the PB process. Ensure that decision-making is transparent and that community inputs are valued and acted upon.
Practical Insight: Clear guidelines, accessible information, and visible reporting mechanisms are critical for building confidence in PB systems【2】【4】.
04. Adaptability to Informal Contexts
Adapting PB to the realities of informal settlements is essential for its success. This includes addressing issues like insecure land tenure, fragmented governance structures, and limited resources. Context-specific approaches ensure PB is not only functional but also impactful.
Application: In informal settlements, PB processes can integrate with urban upgrading projects, enabling communities to co-prioritize interventions that address their most pressing needs【3】【5】.
05. Capacity Building for Sustainability
Long-term success of PB relies on building the capacity of both communities and local governments. Training sessions, public awareness campaigns, and accessible tools ensure all stakeholders can engage effectively in the process.
Example: In Makueni County, capacity-building initiatives supported residents in understanding budgetary constraints and prioritizing projects collaboratively【3】.
06. Conflict Resolution through Collaborative Decision-Making
PB facilitates dialogue among diverse stakeholders, helping to resolve conflicts over limited resources. Structured processes enable communities to reach consensus on priorities, fostering collaboration instead of competition.
Tool: Scenario-building exercises can help visualize trade-offs and build agreement on resource allocation【1】【3】.
07. Integration into Policy and Governance Frameworks
Institutionalizing PB within governance frameworks ensures its sustainability and scalability. This requires embedding PB into existing planning, budgeting, and urban development policies.
Case Example: In Makueni, PB has been integrated into the county’s annual development planning cycle, ensuring ongoing community engagement in resource allocation【3】【4】.
How To
Participatory planning starts with identifying existing gaps and prioritizing solutions that align with community needs. Ensure all planned interventions are scoped within available budgetary constraints.
Example: Use scenario planning to help communities visualize different budgetary outcomes and their implications. This can involve creating different budget scenarios and discussing their potential impacts with community members.
Activity: Emphasize realistic cost estimation during the planning phase to build confidence in decisions. Engage local experts to provide accurate cost estimates and ensure that all stakeholders understand the financial limitations.
Facilitate participatory mapping to understand spatial and social dynamics. Scenario building allows residents to anticipate the benefits and trade-offs of various projects.
Tool: The VUMA Prioritization Tool helps visualize the outcomes of different interventions. This tool can be used in workshops where community members map out their neighbourhood and identify key areas for improvement.
Activity: Organize mapping sessions where the community can mark important locations, resources, and problem areas on a large map. Use these maps to discuss potential projects and their impacts.
Conduct participatory workshops to capture community priorities. Inclusive tools, like focus groups or surveys, help ensure marginalized voices (e.g., women, youth) are represented.
Insight: In Makueni, community needs assessments highlighted infrastructure gaps, guiding the allocation of funds. Use similar methods to gather comprehensive data on community needs.
Method: Use a combination of surveys, focus groups, and public meetings to gather input. Ensure that these sessions are accessible to all community members, including those with disabilities.
Use accessible formats to present potential projects, costs, and timelines. Ensure residents understand the implications of their choices to foster informed decision-making.
Example: Mapping missing projects in Makueni ensured equitable distribution of resources
Tip: Hold public meetings where project proposals are presented and discussed. Use these meetings to explain the benefits and costs of each project, and allow community members to ask questions and provide feedback.
Translate priorities into concrete, implementable project proposals with technical input from local authorities and experts.
Tip: Co-developing proposals builds trust and ensures technical feasibility.
Activity: Organize workshops where community members and experts collaborate to develop project proposals. Ensure that these proposals are realistic and achievable within the available budget.
Case Studies
References
1. Cabannes, Y. (2015). The impact of participatory budgeting on basic services. International Institute for Environment and Development. DOI: 10.31389/jied.67.
2. Saguin, K. (2018). Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven development. World Development. Link.
3. World Bank (2017). Inclusive and Effective Citizen Engagement: Participatory Budgeting in Makueni and West Pokot Counties. Link.
4. Wampler, B. (2000). A Guide to Participatory Budgeting. International Budget Organisation. Link.
5. TISA et al. (2012). Public Participation Under Kenya’s New Public Financial Management Law and Beyond. Link.
6. https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/scenarioplanning/#:~:text=Scenario%20planning%20is%20a%20process,the%20short%20and%20long%20term
7. Saguin, K. (2018) Why the poor do not benefit from community-driven developmentWorld Development. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X18303097
“Community-driven development [...] and participatory budgeting [...] are two different ‘devices’ to bring the community into the formal processes of development planning and budgeting, areas in public administration that are traditionally performed by experts and bureaucrats.”.