The Participatory Budget Porto Alegre by smi10004

VIEWS: 65 PAGES: 36

									The Participatory Budget
Porto Alegre
   Participatory governance
Qu’est-ce que la gouvernance?

Changement de paradigme
Passage du gouvernement à la gouvernance
L’action publique n’est plus le monopole
 exclusif de l’État
Interpelle plusieurs acteurs dont l’État, le
 secteur privé, la société civile
Brésil:

Territoire: 8 511 965 km2
Population: 165, 9 millions de personnes
 (1998)
Groupes ethniques:
     - 55 % de Blancs (Portugais, Allemeands, Italiens,
       Espagnols, Polonais)
     - 38 % de Métisses
     - 6% de Noirs
     - 1% autres (Japonais, Arabes, Arméniens)
Brazil: A Historical Context

Portuguese colonization
1822: Declaration of independence
1964-1985: Period of dictatorship
1985 to present: democratic transition
  – 1988: New constitution adopted.
  – Establishment of a process of decentralizing the
    central government to local governments.
An Urbanized Society

Urbanization rate:
  – 75 to 80% of the population lives in 5,000
    municipalities
  – 47% of the total population lives in 14 cities,
    each of which contains over one million
    inhabitants
Socio-Economic Duality

Gross interior product per inhabitant:
  $6,480
Moving towards democracy

1989: New constitution adopted
The role of civil society is recognized and
 is guaranteed participation in…
Institutional reform
Decentralization process granting more
 power to municipalities
Nouvelle constitution

Structure gouvernementale à trois paliers:
  – Gouvernement fédéral
  – 26 États et un district fédéral
  – 1 500 municipalités

  – Les municipalités ne sont pas soumises à
    l’autorité des États en ce qui concerne les
    affaires relevant de leurs domaines de
    juridiction.
Constitution

 To favour forms of democratic participation other
  than elections, and to recognize community
  organizations as legitimate players in governance.
 To grant the power to municipalities to adopt
  their own by-laws, the structures they choose,
  and institutional forms of community
  participation suited to the local situation. Socio-
  spatial duality.
Decentralization

Giving more responsibilities to the
 municipalities (health, education,
 planning…);
Granting more legislative, executive and
 financial autonomy;
Introducing fiscal reform to distribute
 revenues throughout government levels
 and the regions.
Fiscal reforms

 First part: determine the amount of income from
  the two main federal government taxes, including
  income tax and the tax on industrial products,
  which will be distributed among the States and
  the municipalities.
 Second part: added value tax which the federal
  government shares with the municipalities
  according to what falls within their jurisdiction.
Porto Alegre, city of social
innovation…
 Rio Grande do Sul: the           Population of the
  state with 7 % of the             metropolitan region of
  country’s total population        Porto Alegre (consisting
                                    of 24 municipalities): 3.3
 Characteristics of the
                                    million people, including
  State’s economy                   41.65 % of the State’s
                                    population
   – Service sector (56% of the
     Gross National Product)
   – Industrial sector (35% of     City’s population: 1.3
     the GNP)                       million people
   – Agricultural sector (6% of
     the GNP)                      Regional capital’s role
                                   Commercial and services
                                    centre
Porto Alegre, Rio Grande Do
Sul’s Metropolis

200,000 inhabitants live in unregulated
  zones and do not have access to urban
  equipment and infrastructures
The Participatory Budget’s
Origins
 – Inception in 1989
 – The urban movement asks for change
 – The will to participate in urban planning and
   management
Exercising Participatory
Democracy
The process of popular participation
Allowing citizens to take part in
 elaborating the municipal budget where
 investments are concerned
Allowing residents to determine the
 distribution criteria of resources and
 investment priority of the municipality
Model for urban governance

A direct and popular participatory structure
  emphasizes cooperation and a partnership
  between the local government and civil
  society
Structure

 District    Regional assembly
 Borough     District meeting
 City        Regional and thematic
               forums
              City Council for the
               participatory budget
Participatory Budget’s Council

Regional forum delegates (32)
Thematic forum delegates (10)
Municipal employees’ collective (1)
Collective of neighbourhood associations
Elected members of the executive
 committee who cannot vote (2)
Approach

Inhabitants establish their investment
 priorities by sector.
They do not discuss figures, but rather
 needs and projects.
This exercise will be translated into an
 investment and budget plan.
The plan will be presented to the City
 Council.
The method of a fair distribution
of revenue
The region’s deficiencies in infrastructure;
Priority given to each region’s
 infrastructure category;
Number of residents living in zones with
 the greatest deficiencies;
The region’s total population;
Methods of encouraging
participation
Training provided on how to run a meeting
Basic courses offered to delegates (for
 example: law, management and finance)
Publishing a newsletter
Paying transportation costs
Providing child care
The cost of providing a participatory
 budget: $400,000 USD.
Required Conditions

 The will on the part of elected officials to share
  part of their power
 The adoption of fiscal reforms giving the power
  to the municipality to increase its revenues and to
  be able to fulfill the projects identified by the
  residents
 Establishing a new structure that is linked to the
  City Council
 The participation of civil servants and municipal
  professionals in creating a means of
  communication to keep the population informed.
Additional required conditions

 Improving the quality of life of the inhabitants,
  especially of the poor
 Alleviating disparities between poor and wealthy
  neighbourhoods
 Learning and practicing democracy
 Reinforcing social life and civil society
 Re-establishing the legitimacy of municipal
  politics
 City planning and management that meets the
  needs of all citizens
Limitations

 Difficulty in organizing the poor, especially those
  living in unregulated zones;
 Rallying the energies to work on the participatory
  budget gives less time and fewer human
  resources to organize around other issues in
  neighbourhoods;
 The fragmentation of bureaucratic functions does
  not allow the development of long-term goals or
  global perspectives.
Other Limitations

Risking the stagnation of the Workers’
 Party.
Concentrating the energies of the urban
 movement on issues around the budget
 limits the energy available for other issues.
Percentage-based investments related
to the municipality’s total expenditures

 1989   3.2%
 1990   10.0%
 1991   16.3%
 1992   17.0%
 1993   14.5%
 1994   17.0%
         Involvement in the
         Participatory Budget

18 000
16 000          Public
14 000
12 000
10 000
 8 000
 6 000
 4 000
 2 000
    0
         1990     1993   1996   1999   2001
Participant’s Profile

76% of participants are active in other
 groups and organizations of civil society
40% are in the lower income bracket
54% did not complete secondary school
Participation according to age
(%)

AGE       2000   AMs    DEL    CON

16 – 25   17.8   5.6    8.1    2.3

26 – 33   16.5   13.1   9.6    6.8

34 – 41   20.6   13.1   16.7   20.5

42 – 49   18.8   26.2   27.8   18.2

50 – 80   26.2   42.1   37.8   52.3
Participation according to level
of education (%)
SCHOOL
                     2000   AMs    DEL    CON
LEVEL
PRIMARY
                     52.4   46.7   39.2   36.4
(or less)
HIGH SCHOOL
                     23.9   38.3   34.9   34.1
(completed or not)
GRADUATION
                     19.9   12.2   23.1   29.5
(completed or not)

NR                   3.7    2.8    2.8     -
Participation according to social
and political involvement (%)
                                  DE
AFFILIATION         1995 2000            CON
                                   L
NEIGHBORHOOD (AM)   50.5   37.2   72.9   81.4
POPULAR COUNCIL      8.7    3.7   12.6   16.3
CULTURE/RELIGIOUS   10.6   14.8   26.6   27.9
POLITICAL PARTY      4.5    7.7   21.6   32.6
UNION                4.2    4.2   9.5    14.0
ORGs IN GENERAL     75.9   60.9   92.5   97.7
FIRST TIME
PARTICIPATION
                    48.5   49.5    -      -
Participation according to
political affiliation (%)
PARTY
                     2000   AMs    DEL    CON
SYMPATHY
PT (Workers’
                     38.9   43.0   47.6   50.0
Party)
Pop. Front
                     1.3    3.7    6.1    11.4
(others)
Opposition parties   4.9    5.4    4.3    2.3
No preference        40.7   35.5   28.3   25.0

NR                   14.2   12.4   13.7   11.3

								
To top