Participatory Budgeting in Indonesia: Past, Present and Future

"Following several years of experience with participatory budgeting in Solo city, [Yayasan Kota Kita (Our City Foundation)'s] research set out to examine participatory budgeting processes in six Indonesian cities, to inform their work – and the work of others – strengthening citizen participation in urban governance."

This practice paper from IDS and Kota Kita looks at:

• "What is the current status of participatory budgeting in six Indonesian cities?
• What are the barriers and enablers to implementing participatory budgeting?
• How can government and CSOs [civil society organisations] help make participatory budgeting more transparent, inclusive and impactful?"

This paper describes Kota Kita and "reflects on the history and evolution of participatory budgeting in Indonesia. In doing so, it contextualises some of the findings of the research, and discusses their implications."

"The key themes of the paper are:

• What are the risks and opportunities of institutionalising participation?
• How do access to information and use of new technologies have an impact on participation in budget planning processes?
• What does it take for participatory budgeting to be an empowering process for citizens?
• How can participatory budgeting include hard-to-reach citizens and accommodate different citizens’ needs?"

Through practitioner research in which key questions (above) are formulated by grantees working in transparency and accountability, Kota Kita aimed to promote knowledge and critical reflection on participatory budgeting in Indonesia. Practices in Indonesia include: gotong-royong, a cultural preference for building consensus on community issues; and the musrenbang process, allowing citizens at the neighbourhood, district and city level to express their priorities for development projects. The six chosen sites are cities where participation in budgeting was pioneered or revitalised or augmented with an online process or included rural participation. Indepth interviewing and focus group discussions contributed data to the written report, and a national dissemination workshop closed the research process.

Kota Kita, begun in 2010, works to strengthen civil society and local governments, in part through capacity building programmes like the Urban Citizenship Academy, and convenes civil society platforms such as the Urban Social Forum. In Solo, information, collected through geographic information system mapping [GIS], was used to create neighbourhood profiles, ‘Mini Atlases’, for each of the city’s 51 neighbourhoods, which were placed online and used to organise musrenbang every year to prioritse projects. This process was then expanded to other cities. However, the government moved to regulate and formalise participatory processes, which, as stated here, weakened participation because CSOs were sidelined by the assumption that formalisation would ensure participation.

The 2014 Village Law ensured a flow of federal money to villages, but capacity building on planning and use of the budget has been lacking. Various sources of funding also require different kinds of management and decision making. Solo uses block grants for apportion funds to projects: "In our research, we found that transfer of budgets to the neighbourhood level through block grants is much more effective than other methods. Communities develop a sense of ownership of the projects, increasing participation in the process and easing the work of city governments, which can then give more attention to larger scale interventions." However, decision making on projects is closed to participation. "Access to relevant information is undoubtedly the first step to make the process more accountable and at the same time overcome some of the current disillusionment around participatory budgeting." The two types of information needed are: 1)  information relevant to identifying the needs and priorities of the community and 2) information to support formulation of proposals in line with available funds and to monitor outcomes for accountability. E-musrenbang platforms through which people can monitor the approval of projects submitted is a step, but the platforms must have uptake to increase transparency.

"Technology can be both an enabler and an obstacle...." Low digital literacy and internet use are obstacles. Citizens choose telephone and direct interaction over technological choices - even SMS (text) messaging. Technology (e.g., submitting proposals online) can hamper participation, whereas face-to-face submissions and community-level discussion enhance it.

The way forward is described as:

• "Strengthen the capacity of local musrenbang facilitators..... 
• Streamline participatory budgeting processes to ensure more efficiency [focusing on medium term planning]....
• Revitalise the role of civil society...[including] facilitating musrenbang discussions; providing capacity building for government and communities; strengthening participation by producing tools, modules and training for participation; providing useful urban information for planning and budgeting.
• Encourage devolution of budgets to neighbourhood level....
• Improve access to information.... [at the neighourhood level on  education, health, sanitation, infrastructure and the environment.]
• Use technology to improve access to information, and include young people....
• Encourage diverse sectoral discussions. Horizontal, sectoral discussions can ensure the inclusion of marginalised communities."