Participatory Budgeting in the city of Recife, Brazil - the world’s most participative public agency?

The example of Brazil has inspired participatory budgeting exercises around the world since the 1980s.  Indeed, the PB movement has spread to over 140 cities across the country, with particularly famous examples in Sao Paolo, Belo Horizonte and Porto Alegre (although the latter was much diluted after the change in political control in 2004).

Now it seems a new generation of PB approaches has arisen and, once again, Brazil is in the lead. The Prefeitura (City Council) of Recife, a city of over 1m residents in the state of Pernambuco, in the northeast of Brazil, has recently won the Reinhard Mohn Prize, organized by the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany, as the world’s most participative public agency. In this case study, we give a flavour of why it has impressed both international experts and also citizens – not only its own citizens but also the 11400 German citizens who, as part of the process to determine the winner of the Reinhard Mohn Prize, voted it their number one example of public participation in the world that could be imported and applied in Germany. (This was a follow-up to the 1993 Bertelsmann prize for the most efficient local authority in the world, shared by Christchurch (NZ) and Phoenix, Arizona). 

While the roots of participatory budgeting in Recife go back to the struggles against the Brazilian dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s, it first began to be practised in the late 1980s and 1990s, as in other parts of Brazil. However, the current system of Orcamento Participativo (OP), which literally means ‘participatory budgeting’, dates back to 2001, with the advent of a new political administration in Recife, based on a coalition of three left-oriented parties, led by mayor João Paulo de Lima e Silva. This coalition believed at the beginning of the electoral campaign that it faced an uphill battle to gain power, so it adopted a clear commitment to PB in its joint manifesto and then campaigned vigorously to make this commitment convincing, under a Director of Particpatory Budgeting (Secretario do Orcamento Participativo) João da Costa. Its subsequent victory in the election was believed by the coalition to be due, in significant part, to the popularity of its commitment to PB. It therefore set up a structure to implement PB quickly. The PB process has operated every year since then. Since 2009, João da Costa Bezerra Filho has been mayor of the City Council.

So what is special about Recife? Tony Bovaird visited the city in May 2011 to find out what has made its participative approach so successful.

Although a form of PB was instituted by the Workers Party mayor (Jabes Vasconcelos) in the late 1980s, it was not a fully popular participative model – the city budget was not sufficiently big at that time to allow that, nor was participation such a priority. Indeed, for two terms only a few of the popular actions demanded through the PB approach were able to be implemented - just enough was done to hold popular frustration in check. The subsequent (liberal) administration carried out even fewer of the initiatives demanded in the PB process and, when it left power in 2001, it was found that all the PB files in the city had been burnt.

It was only after 2001 that PB took on the character of a fully democratic popular movement. The coalition government elected at that time initially formed a minority in the city council and made participation one of its governing principles – indeed, PB was the first point in its programme.
The main purposes which the City Council of Recife originally had in mind when designing and running PB were:

• To give people a belief that they can play an important role in the co-management of the city and in the decisions which influence their quality of life
• To increase the perceived democratic legitimacy of the City Council by demonstrating that its actions are in line with what local people really want
• To find better ways to meet the needs and priorities of local people

Leading politicians in the new government recognized that there would be scepticism about whether this new PB programme would really be implemented. The new administration therefore committed itself to the principles of:

• Transparency – so that people could see what had been agreed and what was being done
• Co-management – so that people felt involved in the process from beginning to end
• Universal right to engage – everyone had a vote in the process
• Implementing agreed actions – so that the community had tangible outcomes that made their involvement worthwhile

Of course, such ambitious objectives and principles run the danger of raising expectations. As the mayor, João da Costa, commented in an interview with Governance International: “At first, when they saw what we were trying to do, they thought we were mad!”

In order to stop people expecting too much, it was essential that people themselves became involved in the prioritization process – in fighting for their ideas of what was MOST needed, people realized quickly that not everything was possible. This reinforced understanding that the main role of government is to make choices. By sharing these choices with the population, responsibility for the choices made was also shared. This meant that it was no longer possible for people simply to blame the government for things that were done – and not done. In this way, people were encouraged to co-govern with the administration, and to understand the role that both played in making choices for the city.  

Everyone has two votes – one on specific projects proposed for their region and one thematic vote, where they indicate the key area of the city’s budget they consider to be the highest priority. Interestingly (and similarly to many PB initiatives in the UK), groups of people in microregions often agree to vote for each other’s proposals.

In contrast to PB approaches in other parts of Brazil, the whole budget is potentially voted on – not just the investment budget. About 8% - 10% of total municipal budget is voted on each year in PB projects, infrastructure proposals, local initiatives, etc. All services have been a priority at one time or another since 2001.

This process has remained almost unchanged since 2001, with the exception of the introduction of  digital voting and the streamlining of some processes in 2007.

Refining projects and service changes

After the votes have decided the region’s priorities, local forums consider all the proposals  chosen – this allows some small scale redesign.

At this stage, costs are also brought into the choice of projects. Up to this stage, no specific costings have been made for proposals, although there is always a sense of what’s more and less expensive. For example, drainage channels are known to be a big job – in such cases, people are encouraged to break down proposals into several stages and consider them as separate projects, e.g. buying the land first, and then later building the specific facility.

There is no limit to the level of investment which can be proposed – it depends on the local context and needs. In hilly areas, like Ibullia, each proposal for stabilizing land can cost up to R$ 1m – but if this is what local people ask for as a priority, then they get it.

However, all Directorates (Secretarios) of the City Council are consulted about the viability of projects before they go ahead. If they say: “No, not feasible!” then the proposal goes back to the people of the region to discuss further – this doesn’t happen frequently, as there is discussion about project feasibility early on. Moreover, the ten years of PB have educated local people about what is realistic and what isn’t, so they generally vote for feasible options. If Directorates disagree about feasibility, which happens only rarely, then the mayor makes the final decision.

Although theoretically officials might mobilize to get their own ‘pet’ projects chosen at local level, there has been no sign of this happening – it is widely believed that people are too clever politically to allow this to succeed. Of course, at the thematic meetings, there are specific opportunities for the Directorates to make suggestions about which initiatives within their Directorate might be important for people to vote on through the PB approach.

Monitoring projects and service changes

After the priority proposals have been voted for, there are regular forums to monitor the implementation of these proposals until completion. Of course, the process has to allow for funding to be put in place and full design to be carried out. In the early days of PB there could be a delay of up to 5 years but now the target is to complete all initiatives within 2 years (although it still often takes 3 years in practice). 

The micro-region co-ordinators, together with their own team and the local people elected to the ‘commissions’, have the role of ensuring timely implementation.  Moreover, every 14 days there is a meeting of the commission to consider progress of each initiative - here the commission gets an update from city council staff and discusses how to effectively communicate the project.  Of course, some projects have an impact on wider areas or on the whole city – e.g. public toilets close to beach in one area – so approaches to communication have to differ between projects.

A key issue in implementation is, of course, finding the necessary resources. When João da Costa was Director of PB, he often had to find the resources alone. However, now that he has become mayor, this has become more of a joint effort by all the Directors. This has been made easier since it is now possible to show that what people are voting in the PB is, in any case, in line with what most Directors actually have suggested as most important for the city.

One remaining weakness in the PB system in Recife is evaluation of its impacts. A key politician in Recife described the evaluation approach as ‘fragile’ – mainly done internally, usually quite partial rather than through a structured method, and not using citizens as independent evaluators (although the PB commissions do some kinds of evaluation as part of their monitoring role).

Role of citizen co-production in PB in Recife

In Recife, the challenge in PB is seen to be how to use social networks in the city to help people to share their knowledge with government and to realize they can and should make a difference.  In the minds of many local people, ”the public sector should be doing this” even though they see that their co-production works. A similar learning process is taking place among the City Council’s technical and professional staff.

There are now 60 local associations bringing people together in the PB process, covering old people, young people, and many other groups – recently a new group of LGBTs has emerged.

Actually, PB has become the main social mechanism for many activities of the city government – every time there is need for dialogue and new ways of doing things, it is natural to do it through the PB structures and processes. In many communities, for example, where there has been serious violence, the staff involved in PB are the only part of the council which can operate effectively. Consequently, due to its credibility with and access to communities, PB has taken on extra tasks.

Effective working relationships between the PB team and the community are more easily developed because most staff come from these poorer areas. Over time, some members of the teams have moved to other posts in the city government, spreading the ethos of this way of working. However, many of these staff members continue to live in the poorer areas of the city and they demonstrate an example which is widely respected – a very different approach to the traditional public officials whom they have replaced.
Nevertheless, in spite of the range of expertise which local people have now developed through PB, there are still barriers to wider involvement in the work of the City Council. Although some pressure to employ local people is put on the firms contracted to carry out construction initiatives undertaken through PB, it has proved difficult to convince them to do so. At best, they typically just offer low-skill jobs – although even this helps, as it ensures that local people are involved and can keep the project on the right lines. It is even harder in relation to projects which don’t involve construction (e.g. street cleaning) - the companies which win these contracts typically have their own employees and are reluctant to employ local people. 

Other outcomes

Over the 10 years of PB in Recife, all choices made by citizens in respect of project priorities have been respected – this has built credibility with citizens. Interestingly, over time it has been recognized that the choices made by citizens are now similar (sometimes even better than) those made by ‘technical experts’ in the City Council. An example of the ‘common wisdom’ exhibited by citizens of the ‘morros’ (hills) is that there was no technical agreement by the city’s engineers on the best way of building a paved road system linking the hills, so this became a project in the PB process, where people voted for the parts of the road system which were most important. These were eventually joined up and the approach was seen to have been a very effective way of working out the best solution.

A critically important outcome of the PB process is that people have the chance to be heard – particularly people who were previously excluded socially and politically. Now more than 100,000 people participate in the process every year (those attending forums and those voting online). Participation in the favelas is often intense, as they feel they have the most to gain in influencing the city’s budget decisions.

Over 7.5% of the population are now involved in the PB process. The process is sustainable and part of the city’s fabric - indeed, it is unlikely that it could now be dropped by any of the political parties. However, the approach is continually tweaked in order to keep it interesting and to keep participation levels up.

The projects undertaken through PB have had major effects on the quality of life of local people – consequently, there has been great feedback, with many testimonials and favourable comments to the mayor and the City Council.
The main challenge now in the PB process is to increase the speed of project implementation. Already, the average time taken to implement projects has fallen to under three years but the target is now two years.

Over the decade of implementing PB in Recife, it has become more than a policy – it is now a cultural process, embedded deep within the ways in which local people think and relate to the City Council.

On the other hand, the City Council has had to be careful in how it manages the process. In 2006 there was a change in approach, putting more emphasis on people in local forums, so that two projects would be proposed from each group of ten people and 10 projects would be chosen in each microregion for prioritization. This was more focused than the previous system, and made fewer demands on City Hall staff.

Citizens have also been learning as the process has evolved – solidarity has grown, as some groups have come together to support each other (“You vote for my school, I’ll vote for your roadworks”), as a proposal has a much higher chance of being chosen if two groups agree on it.

While expectations have risen over time, the involvement of local people in the prioritization process has ensured that they remain realistic about what can be achieved and what is less likely to be possible.

Politicians have changed their attitude to PB over time. In the beginning, many local politicians were against it – they saw it as taking away some of their power, since getting local projects into the city budget has always been central to local politics. However, most politicians have gradually come to realize that they have to go along with something which is now very popular. Consequently, even if they are not enthusiastic, they now tolerate it.

In any case, things have changed - people no longer accept the idea that local politicians are the only way for their ideas to be represented, they now expect to play a role themselves. Of course, many local politicians complain that they were elected, unlike members of the public. However, some politicians have already changed with the times, mobilising support in their micro-region to vote for the things which they as politicians want – the mayor suggests that only the clever politicians have been doing this so far, and they know very well, since he used to organise the PB system himself, that he can see clearly what they are up to! Other interviewees suggest that perhaps a majority of politicians, from all political parties, now recognize the need to get involved in PB.
For the future, ways are being considered to ensure that local people understand better what is happening and what is possible under PB – and to help people enjoy the meetings and have more fun in the process than currently.

Finally, there is a desire to make more use in the process of the people who have been involved in the past, so that staff costs can be reduced and the process can be made more efficient.

Although some other cities in the region of Pernambuco, such as Olinda, Jabe Otao and Cabo have somewhat similar approaches to PB, there is not really a connection – their methodologies are adapted to suit local circumstances. The state is large, with significant socio-economic and cultural differences, and PB involves political decisions on how best to help local people to participate.

However, the state of Pernambuco itself now has a PB process, which ties in with and partly finances some PB projects in Recife.

More details on this Recife case study in participatory budgeting can be gathered from the Prefeitura de Recife website, http://www.recife.pe.gov.br/op/

Information on the Reinhard Mohn Prize of the Bertelsmann Foundation

The Reinhard Mohn Prize is for a governmental institution which has run projects which have been successful in revitalizing democracy and which have established new forms of popular participation. The Bertelsmann Foundation scored entrants for the 2011 Reinhard Mohn Prize on the actual and potential effectiveness of the initiatives undertaken to strengthen democratic structures and institutions, the capacity to establish innovative strategies to resolve problems, the level and scale of mobilization and representation of civil society, the integration of under-represented and socially excluded groups, the sustainability and impact of the initiatives , their degree of innovation and their replicability in other social contexts where participation might be relevant.

The approach in Recife was recommended to the Bertelsmann Foundation by the Centro de Estudos em Administração Pública e Governo (CEAPG) of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas de São Paulo (FGV-EAESP) as an example of innovation in local governance and citizen participation in municipal democracy. It was one of more than 1000 projects worldwide entered (through an internet application process) for the Reinhard Mohn prize.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Prefeitura de Recife for the photos and information in this website, with particular thanks for their co-operation to the Mayor, João da Costa Bezerra Filho, and Evelyne Labanca Corrêa De Araújo, Municipal Secretary for Management and Planning, City of Recife.