The International Budget Partnership: Reflecting on two decades of campaigning for fiscal governance reform

20th December 2016

New Year 2017 brings with it the 20th anniversary of the International Budget Partnership (IBP). Since its foundation, IBP has supported efforts around the world to make budget processes more transparent, participatory and accountable so that public resources are used to address poverty. During our milestone anniversary year, we will reflect on what we have learned and where we are headed.

IBP has been moving away from a linear formulation of transparency + participation = accountability. We now focus on budget accountability ‘ecosystems’ – the links between and among actors in the state (such as supreme audit institutions and parliamentary oversight committees) and society (such as CSOs and the media), and their influence on budget decision-making and implementation.

Viewing budget processes through an ecosystems lens helps us to look beyond the formal legal framework and the technical capacity of specific accountability actors: it helps us to consider the relationships and other dynamic factors of a complex system. IBP’s research suggests that even diverse national contexts have a similar set of institutions and mechanisms in their budget accountability ecosystems. However, the evidence – including IBP’s own Open Budget Survey – shows that these ecosystems are often weak, with a lack of collaboration between key accountability actors. For example, when state audit offices find irregularities they may make formal reports to the legislature or executive, but these may receive little meaningful follow-up – hardly surprising, given that their findings may implicate members of a government or ruling party.

So how can real accountability happen in these imperfect ecosystems? And how can civil society influence outcomes?

More successful campaigns to influence budget processes ‘connected the dots’: they worked across levels of government, brought together unlikely allies and used a wide range of tools and tactics.

In its search for answers, IBP has also been documenting CSO campaigns to influence budget processes and ensure access to quality public services. As the title of a case study synthesis – ‘You Cannot Go it Alone’ – suggests, the relationships between CSOs and other actors in the ecosystem are key. More successful campaigns ‘connected the dots’: they worked across levels of government, brought together unlikely allies and used a wide range of tools and tactics. These included, among many others, generating evidence, media engagement, legal redress and grassroots organising. Campaigns that relied on a more limited repertoire of strategies often yielded limited results.

Clearly, efforts by actors in the accountability system to ‘connect the dots’ is something that IBP and other external actors should be supporting. What exactly would that look like in practice? Our research and experience suggests some insights we hope to build on.

These reflections and questions arise from a desire to connect budget openness more directly to tangible outcomes for underprivileged groups. Inclusiveness, in governance and development, is inherently political. Our exploration of the interconnectedness of accountability ecosystems and effective citizen action is an attempt to find meaningful ways to navigate and shape those political dynamics.

Implementing the insights that emerge from this process is a challenge. Although our partners are increasingly savvy about navigating the accountability ecosystem, they still often run into dead ends when their goals would disrupt entrenched interests.

How can engagement build strong links both at the grass-roots level and with higher level decision-makers and accountability mechanisms? When is it necessary to take a more – or less – confrontational stance with state actors and mechanisms?

Where governance systems are underpinned by exclusionary power structures, an approach that seeks to achieve progressive reforms and outcomes will have inherent limitations – but strengthening an accountability ecosystem for inclusive development is a massive undertaking in any context.  And we still have more questions than answers.

New research … suggests that transparency and information disclosure only contributes to improved governance when it influences citizens’ political involvement.

New research by the World Bank suggests that transparency and information disclosure only contributes to improved governance when it influences citizens’ political involvement. This suggests that our work on open budgets should seek to shape public discourse and inform citizens’ civic engagement. We must find better ways to support and leverage the citizen movements that have been demanding government accountability around the world. And we should think about how to engage with, and help strengthen, representative membership-based organisations – such as cooperatives, community-based organisations, unions, or faith-based groups – to enable the collective citizen engagement that is most often associated with better governance outcomes

We hope that by bringing some of these important issues to the fore, we will be able to both harness the available evidence and build learning into our approach going forward. IBP’s evidence and experience suggests potential entry points for external actors who might help government reformers strengthen the accountability ecosystem.

IBP must find ways to leverage its engagements at international and national levels to support these pro-reform actors. We must also find more nuanced approaches to differentiating between challenges of capacity and incentives, and shape our focus accordingly.

 

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Brendan Halloran

Brendan Halloran

Brendan Halloran is the Senior Fellow in the International Budget Partnership’s Strategy and Learning team. In this role, Brendan supports strategy and learning processes at IBP – both the internal production of learning insights and drawing on evidence and ideas from broader research and practice in the governance space. He is also a member of the International Expert Panel of the Open Government Partnership’s Independent Reporting Mechanism.

Read more

Related items

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Politicians and administrators: conflict, collusion or collaboration?

How do relations between political and administrative leaders affect reform?

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi23rd October 2014

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal15th October 2015

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014