Institutionalisation of Participation in PRS processes

Walter Eberlei

The participation of societal stakeholders has become a crucial element on the way to developing Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) in many African countries. The success or failure of these strategies, of course, depends on their proper imple-mentation. To make a PRS work, to implement a strategy which really has an impact on poverty reduction is only conceivable with the ongoing participation of all relevant actors. This raises the question of how to institutionalise participation beyond the strategy development.

This paper describes an understanding of institutionalised participation at first. In a second step, recent experience with institutionalised participation in Africa is outlined, before some recommendations are made.

1. Participation in the PRS cycle

The PRS process is organised as a policy cycle. The drafting of the PRSPs is followed by implementation, monitoring and evaluation and - ideally after three years - by a revision or development of a new PRSP, at which point the cycle begins again. This roll-over principle is one of the innovative elements of the PRS approach. It is designed to provide the basis for an ongoing societal learning process about poverty reduction. However, the international debate on participation in this context is mainly focussed on participation on the way to the first PRSP. The World Bank / IMF PRSP Review, for example, draws a fairly positive balance of these first processes. That result was also confirmed by a number of the new PRSP country studies done by ECA: societal participation during the first PRS drafting processes has obviously enriched the final strategies in many countries.

But a few questions remain: How can societal participaton be shaped during the ongoing PRS cycle? How can participation take place during the necessary translation of PRSPs into the national budgets? Or into pro-poor sector strategies and macroeconomic strategies? What could the partici-patory monitoring of PRS implemen-tation look like? How to design a participatory review process after three years? To answer these and similar questions, there are a couple of ideas already, but experience so far is quite limited.

2. Institutionalised Participation

Participation is a well-discussed issue in the global development debate. A number of definitions are given like this one, which is taken from a World Bank publication and which is very comparable with similar formulations in other studies: "Participation can be defined as a process through which stakeholders shape and share control over development initiatives."1 Important elements are the process character as opposed to one-off participatory events, the term stakeholder including all societal actors, and the understanding of a form of joint policy-making.

With the term institutionalised participation, I want to enhance and state more precisely definitions like these. I propose to discuss at least four elements of institutionalised participa-tion, which you will see written in blue (or underlined):

Institutionalised Participation

With other words: Institutionalised participation reflects an open and learning society which develops its own potentials.

In political science the distinction is made between polity, politics and policy. Policies are the results of the interaction of polity and politics in a certain area. In order to get a good poverty reduction policy, you need appropriate dimensions of polity and politics in a society. Rights and structures - my first two points - are part of the polity dimension; legitimacy and capacity are important ingredients of politics.

These four elements are necessary attributes of institutionalised partici-pation. They should become something like standards in PRS processes. Participatory processes without these four elements run the risk of being no more than ad hoc, one-off participatory events, staying tentative and fragile. Many of the PRS processes so far have indeed reached only this quality level. If they are not institutionalised in the very near future their impact will be very limited. And perhaps even worse: if participatory processes are misused or misdirected, they may function as alibi processes in order to get donor assistance but avoid any substantial changes in the political framework for poverty reduction.

3. Standards for PRS participation

Let me describe the four standard elements in more detail:

Institutionalised participation needs basic political rights as well as specific rights of participation within the concrete PRS context. Citizens as well as an organised civil society have to have a rule-based and clear picture as to which role they can play in their society. There is hardly a PRS country to date which has outlined sufficently the role and rights of stakeholders in the coming implementation phases of PRSPs.

Institutionalised participation has clearly defined political structures for dialogue between all stakeholders at national as well as at regional and local levels. To conduct just one or two national workshops with a handful of civil society representatives is not a structured dialogue but an ad hoc event. Necessary structures have to be shaped on a continuing basis. Their competences and rights have to be cleary described, their membership outlined transparently. One necessary part of these structures is an open information policy of the government which allows a comprehensive insight into the implementation of the PRSP. And another structural aspect is that the implementation of a PRSP cannot be conducted in a centralised way only. Decentralised and still participatory decision-making and implementing procedures are necessary in the ongoing fight against poverty.

A third standard element of institutionalised participation is the legitimacy of decisions. Parliaments, which in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa are institutionally weak but usually possess at least a formally legitimate mandate, have to be involved in the full PRS cycle. Legitimacy exists only in those cases in which parliament had the possibility to influence the content of the strategy, did finally approve the PRSP, and is involved in its implementation. One should not forget that parliaments are the institutionalised form of participation in a democracy. Regarding civil society organisations, it has to be clear that they and similarly private-sector actors

do not possess the formal democratic legitimation to determine political decisions that are binding upon a government. However, these actors can increase their legitimacy making sure

The capacity question, finally, has been discussed broadly. A strong participation of societal stakeholders requires well-developed human resources. This includes specially trained and full-time-financed staff for poverty and policy analysis as well as for political lobbying and campaigning. But an appropriate organisational and technical environment also influences the capacity of stakeholders.

Without these four standard elements in political processes around PRS, we can hardly speak about effective and ownership building participation, and we cannot speak about institutionalised participation.

Having discussed this, I would now like to have a look at the concrete experience with participation in PRS processes so far.

4. PRS processes - critical views

As it is not possible to go into details here, let me briefly summarise a couple of critical views on the participatory aspects of PRS processes. They are based partly on the results of the PRSP review and statements made by external actors2, and partly on my own field research in countries like Uganda, Kenya and Zambia.3

1. Participatory elements do play an important role in the theory and practice of developing Poverty Reduction Strategies. But most PRS processes to date are founded essentially on participatory structures formed on an ad hoc basis.

2. In the majority of cases, the forms of participation established have involved consultations with the exchange of information and opinions between the government and civil society. Collaboration has been less frequent, and joint decision-making on relevant aspects of pro-poor policy is very rare.

3. In most countries with a full PRSP, civil society stakeholders have been broadly involved. But, from their own perspective, civil society impact on the outcome of the processes has so far been limited.

4. On the other hand, governments complain that they invited CSOs but got little qualified response. And some governments raised the issue of civil society's representativity and legitimacy.

5. Parliaments have in most cases been only marginally involved in the PRS processes to date.

6. Finally, the question remains whether national stakeholders do play a crucial role in the development of a PRSP or whether these papers are still dominated by the BWI.

But although there are a number of similarities there are also distinct differences in the participatory processes and, as well, significant differences in the approach to institutionalising participation.

5. Participation Assessment

The following assessment focusses on the 12 African countries with a fully fledged PRSP because they should have more than just a first idea regarding this issue.

In our Institute in Duisburg we used about 30 indicators to collect and assess data on relevant issues in all the four standard areas mentioned. Comparing the countries with each other, it is possible to

distinguish today between countries with an already strongly institutionalised participation, countries with moderate participation, and countries with weakly institutionalised participation.

The map indicates the three groups:

A. (red, in the printed version black): The two countries with strong participation in the PRS processes are Uganda and Burkina Faso. They have done - or are doing - a lot to institutionalise the participatory processes around their poverty reduction strategies. One can find the ongoing, broad-based and inclusive participation of social actors. Parliaments are involved in poverty-related issues. There is an open and continuous public debate on poverty reduction, especially in the media. It is obvious that the PRS processes in these countries are embedded in longer-term participatory and/or democratisation processes. Important preconditions, like freedom of opinion, rule-based political space for NGOs, and decentralisation of decision-making procedures, had to a certain extent already been fulfilled before the PRS processes started.

B. (green, printed: deep grey)4: A number of countries do comply with a couple of preconditions for institutionalised participation, but are still facing a number of deficiencies.

C. (yellow, printed: grey)5: Countries which might have made some important first steps on the way to a sustainable participatory process around PRS, but have still a long way to go to ensure institutionalised participation. Here, PRS participation has (to date) been limited to minimal forms, usually involving some information sharing, and at most consultation (in a sense of raising opinions). The participatory process is narrow in scope. Only a limited number of national actors are involved.

This means:

1. The environment for participation in the PRS processes varies from country to country. The stake-holders within a country influence the degree of participation.

2. The map is, of course, a snapshot, but the differences between the countries underline the assumption that societal participation and democratisation are in a dynamic move in SSA.

3. There is a lot of experience in developing institutionalised partici-pation, meaning that a south-south learning process on this issue has plenty to share, among Governments, among Parliaments, among Civil Societies.

4. Despite growing experience and a good progress which can be seen already, there is still a long way to go for many countries to realise participatory poverty reduction politics.

6. Good practises

Let me mention just some examples from Sub-Saharan Africa to show how rich the experience with institu-tionalised participation is already today. There are many more examples of sustainable participation in poverty reduction politics, also from other parts of the world.6

Capacity building: Many ideas have been developed, and some even implemented, to strengthen the capacity to participate: of the poor themselves, of the civil societies, the parliaments, and governmental actors. I shall not go into details here.

Legitimacy: Parliaments did not play any role during the first two years in the life of the PRSP concept. Fortunately, this is now changing in a number of countries and increasing the legitimacy of the strategies. Regarding civil society participation, one can observe the growing basis of civil society actors, networking with each other and becoming more representative.

Structures: The Ugandan experience has already been highlighted today. The Poverty Action Fund, with its elements of joint decision-making and monitoring, is one of the most elaborated structures of institutionalised participation within the PRS context.7 But also in other countries we find important new structures for ongoing participation. The Tanzanian Monitoring System is another good example.

Rights: Last but not least, the legal framework for participation is improving in a number of countries in Africa. Let me mention the example of the Access to Information Act in South Africa, which is not developed in a PRSP context of course, but could become a model for the countries in the whole region.

7. Conclusions

I would draw the following conclusions in order to strengthen institutionalised participation:

1. It is important to clarify the understanding of institutionalised participation and to formulate standards. I proposed to focus on four basic standards.

2. There is already a lot of experience with institutionalised participation in African anti-poverty politics. What is necessary are continent-wide learning processes and fora to exchange information and experience. The PRSP Learning Group plays a crucial role to cover this task.

3. We find a number of PRSP-related areas in each country, starting with the annual budget process. There are plenty of possibilities to promote and support participatory governance approaches.

4. The support for parliaments and societal actors has to be improved. Despite all the weaknesses of parliaments, I would state that those seeking sustainable, institutionalised participation in developing countries must not ignore parliaments. Especially the cyclical policymaking processes - like the budget processes - offer significant opportunities to gradually improve the role of parliaments. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Civil Society and the Private Sector can contribute a lot to poverty reduction. An ideal scenario would therefore be the close collaboration of parliaments and societal stakeholders in a cooperative relationship vis-à-vis the governments.

1 Brinkerhoff, Derick W. / Goldsmith, Arthur A. (2001): Macroeconomic Policy, PRSPs, and Participation. (World Bank Paper). Online: www.worldbank.org/participation, p.4

2 Documentation at the World Bank website: www.worldbank.org/poverty/strategies/review/

3 See among other publications: Institutionalised Participation in Processes Beyond the PRSP. Study commissioned by the GTZ. Eschborn 2001 (download possible from the World Bank PRSP Review website); (together with Lucia Hanmer et al) PRSP Institutionalisation Study: Final Report - Chapter 4: Institutionalising the PRSP Approach in Kenya. London 2001 (download possible form the the ODI website); Poverty Reduction Strategies between Global Governance and National Politics. In: Nord-Süd-Aktuell (Hamburg), 2002 (forthcoming in December).

4 Ethiopia, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauretania, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia

5 Guinea, Niger, Rwanda

6 See for more examples the GTZ study, fn. 3

7 Around 35 percent of the national budget is channeled through this fund. Decisions how to use the money are regularly discussed in a dialog between Government and Civil Society. The latter monitors the financial flows down to district and even sub-district level. This is done by non-governmental grassroots committees and through a newly developed Community Based Monitoring System. The participatory debate and policy-making on poverty issues in Uganda is furthermore enlightened by another joint Government-NGO-Monitoring-System, the Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project, UPPAP, which is able to bring the voices of the poor into the process. See www.internationalbudget.org/resources/howto/PAF2002.pdf