Active Citizenry

Outcome orientated public services

Approaches to the analysis of deprivation increasingly focus on “empowerment” and “participation” as key dimensions of effective action to reduce poverty. The ideal form of development assistance to marginalized and remote areas is perceived as being direct financial assistance to the governments through the public budget. To this end, there has been a rapid growth of interest in the budget process as a site of action for strengthening the accountability of governments to their own citizens. Pro-poor advocacy initiatives led by civil society organisations focusing on the analysis of budget issues have developed at a striking rate. A global conference of civil society organisations took human rights in the budget process as one of its main themes.(1)
There is potentially much common ground between the advocates of financial prudence and the advocates of justice for the poor in promoting accountable, transparent and participatory budget processes. The World Bank’s PEM Handbook lays considerable stress on code of good practice in fiscal policy, accountability and transparency. The mechanisms of accountability must be ‘accessible, transparent and effective’ (UN,2001:para14). As a result of this interest in citizen participation and accountability, analyses are increasingly converging on the importance of understanding the politics and power relations that shape budget processes and outcomes.

The budget literature arrives at politics from the starting point of transparency and accountability. From a rights perspective, understanding politics and power are critical to the promotion of government accountability and citizens’ participation in budget processes. Participation is understood both as a right in itself and as a means of increasing the equitable outcomes of policy decisions. A range of work has emphasised the importance of an entitlement or rights-based approach to the provision of public services and transfers on the grounds that this is empowering for the poor and socially marginalized.

It should never be automatically assumed that allocations translate accurately into budgetary outcomes. What money actually gets spent by whom, on what items and for what purpose is often determined during the process of budget execution. This widens the field of concern beyond the legislature, Ministries of Finance and spending agencies down through the chain in the operation of line ministries and local government. It is also essential to establish efficient audit system with citizens participating to investigate information on the misuse of public budget.
Attempts to research empirically the politics of the budget process face numerous challenges.

The culture of the central budget office in most organisations (including governments) tends to be closed and defensive. Getting a genuine and open account of the incentives operating within it, and the strategies which are used to defend the perceived interests of the tax-payer in the face of spending bids is very difficult. Also, the incentives operating within budget systems may involve practices which are either formally illegal, or would be perceived as unethical if publicly revealed. Developing a public account of this level of budget formulation and execution is obviously very challenging, and cannot be done without complex negotiations with key stakeholders. And finally, the operation of power in its broadest sense (which is about who has most influence on the development of norms, and who sets the rules by which the ‘games’ of formal resource allocation processes are played) may simply be impossible to research and describe in conventional, positivist, empirical language of the kind that technocrats and administrative staff are comfortable with.

However, there is a strong general case for: opening up policy decision-making and performance assessment of the public sector to broader public involvement and scrutiny; for improving systems for expenditure monitoring and recording (so that it becomes possible to see where and how public money is spent); for improving the dissemination of information about the budget so that citizens, researchers and pro-poor advocates can start to mobilise. The key aim to improve a system of public management is to orient policy towards the delivery of outcomes. But in reality this is a complex challenge. Outcomes arise from multiple influences, the outputs delivered by public sector organisations being just one input or causal factor. The specification of outputs has to be evaluated in that context. For politicians, output (rather than outcome) targets have considerable attractions. Public sector managers can be held directly accountable for the performance of their organisations in various forms of ‘virtual contract’ which are a common feature of new public management systems, as the delivery of these is within their control (e.g. the building of a target level of road infrastructure). If senior civil servants are asked to orient their strategies towards achieving outcomes, the picture becomes much more complex. They may justifiably stop certain activities, and re-orient their organizations towards new forms of action.

The idea of shifting public policy towards an outcome focus is increasingly seen in the context of governance. If politicians are prepared to commit themselves to achieving particular results (e.g. improved health status, higher average incomes etc.) then the focus of their accountability may be more clearly geared to equitable outcomes for all citizens. By contrast, if the promises politicians
make relate to increasing inputs (levels of spending on health, education etc.) or delivering outputs (e.g. building public housing) then the possibility exists that these inputs or outputs can be delivered to particular client groups. Robust systems of pro-poor targeting, with transparent procedures, can act to prevent this happening, but require strong technical and ethical standards in implementing institutions. There is an argument that the norms and values operating within administrative units working at the sharp end of service delivery are a critical determinant of the service outcomes that people receive (if the police do not take domestic violence seriously women will not receive protection, whatever the law says). There is not much that policy-driven change can do to alter these in the absence of broader social and political transformations.

The most effective demand for better use of public money comes from an engaged and active citizenry. There are multiple channels through which citizens can help to build the level of accountability – involving engagement with both governmental and non-governmental structures. A key entry point is the design of public programmes in ways which promotes participation and mutual engagements of civil society in the public domain.

Mutualisation of public services

Models for mutualisation, covering legal and other aspects, designed to create replicable social enterprises across public services within a framework of quality assurance. However, the decentralisation of power in this way also creates firstly, the need for new forms of accountability /governance and secondly, the opportunity for new forms of citizens’ involvement, and opportunities for creative mutualisation across a range of public services. The idea of co-production reconceived public services. Instead of a traditional model, in which disinterested and expert professionals deliver services on behalf of, or for the use of, passive users, coproduction is about finding ways to unlock the knowledge and contribution of service users, valuing them as partners.

Mutualisation is an ancient way of working out social issues and inciting social mobility, predating the modern public, private and charitable sectors in Britain by almost a thousand years. Mutuality dynamics works well to re-energise public services; makes it more practical for users and fosters innovation to increase efficiency and engagement. It involves running organisations with the close co-operation or control of key stakeholders. Involving users in the delivery of public services makes them more efficient and responsive. It also offers, at a time of political disengagement, the prospect of a wide-ranging and participatory civic renewal.

Formal systems of political representation form only a small part of the conditions necessary for citizens – and particularly poor and excluded groups – to make effective claims on public policy, budgets and services. Making claims on public services involves factors such as: access to information; group solidarity; development of skills and capabilities; the help of allies capable of providing advocacy at other levels and in distant institutional domains; access to a ‘fair regulator’ capable of assessing competing claims according to rights provisions. It is increasingly recognised that formal channels of political participation alone may not be adequate to produce genuine, non-discriminatory and equitable public accountability in the management of public expenditures. A range of methods for promoting enhanced citizen participation from the micro level to the macro are being explored by central and local governments, civil society organisations and international development agencies; A holistic understanding of public expenditure systems - and the institutional cultures that condition them – is important in order to formulate strategies for change and improvement.

The reward of taking advantage of democratic and institutional renewal in public services won’t realize without mobilization of the community. It won’t happen by merely relying on good will and scattered experimentation of pioneers. The government needs to participate to develop a systematic policy framework to remove the barriers, disseminate the idea among users of public services and provide tools to let mutuality work.

The aim is to reinvent public services by opening them up to the energy and imagination of key stakeholders. This is a step to provide training in personal development and practical business skills while participants work on developing a real project of their own devising. The projects may not themselves be innovative, but the level of investment in individuals, and of risk, is. The emphasis of the project is to emphasis on learning by doing, in the belief that people learn best about entrepreneurship by taking entrepreneurial action themselves.

Opportunities for providing incentives should be explored, in order to enhance effective participation. The proactive supply of information on the concept in the public sector could improve compliance, and encourage public demand for accountability. The concept of mutualisation of public services and initiation to set up social enterprises must be explained through a proactive public information campaign, to improve awareness, engagement and participation.

The range of activities can include running enterprises for child care, education, ethical trading, through to creating employment opportunities, and boosting local markets. And with increasing concern on security issues community policing, youth re-offending and professional trainings are included in agenda as well. The project is aiming at training of trainers to inform, mobilize and motivate users of public services to develop new practical models and harness innovation to sift out ideas that work. It is about fulfilling mutual responsibilities for our mutual future.




The Third International Conference of the International Budget Project, Mumbai, India, November 2000 (IBP 2001b)



- DFID (2001a) Understanding and Reforming Public Expenditure Management: Guidelines for DFID
- International Budget Project (2001a) A Guide to Budget Work for NGOs www.internationalbudgetproject.org
- UNDP (2000) Human Development Report 2000, Oxford University Press, New York
- McLean, Iain (ed.) (1996) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. OUP.
- OECD (1996) Budgeting and Policy Making SIGMA Papers No. 9, OCDE/GD(96)110 (www.oecd.org/puma)
- Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- The World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/01: Attacking Poverty Washington D.C.
- Commonwealth secretariat, (2001), Assessment of Public Service Delivery and Budget Priorities