Between 24 August and 31 October 2015, GIFT conducted a public consultation exercise on a draft set of Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy. In a blog post of January 4, 2016, Juan Pablo Guerrero, GIFT’s Network Director, described the process of developing the draft principles, including the public consultation exercise, and published the final set of Principles as provisionally approved by GIFT’s Stewards in December 2015.

This note provides more detailed information on the public inputs received on the draft Principles, and how those inputs influenced the final outcome.

A total of 27 responses were received, from a wide range of sources – CSOs, think-tanks, practitioners, consultants, international civil servants, independent researchers, and academics. The individual responses have been collated, and arranged by each of the ten principles, as shown below. The names of the respondents have been removed as it was not indicated at the outset that respondent names would be published.

In general, there was strong support for all principles, with the average support for each principle ranging from 89% - 98%. There were no specific suggestions for a new principle to be added.

Some respondents suggested that the principles could be simplified and re-ordered, with some elements being shifted between the different principles, and some small changes made to the titles of some principles to make them clearer and the language more consistent. In other cases specific suggestions were made for additional wording to be incorporated in the Principles.

In the final set of approved principles a number of changes have been made. Many of these have been specifically in response to the public consultation. The main changes include:

  • The first principle is now about openness (principle 3 in the consultation version).
  • The titles of principles 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10 in the consultation version have been revised in an attempt to make them clearer, and in some cases also to better reflect revisions made to the substance of the principle. For instance, as noted by one respondent, the term ‘facilitated’ (principle 5) in this context might be understood as referring to the facilitation of a specific engagement exercise; the title of that principle has therefore been changed to ‘accessible’.
  • All the components of principle 7 in the consultation version – that participation be meaningful – have been moved to other principles where they are both relevant and strengthen the other principle. As noted by one respondent, ‘meaningfulness’ is in some sense an overarching aspect of public participation, a synthesis of a number of principles. The meaningfulness of public participation would now need to be assessed by drawing on performance against a number of the principles.
  • A respondent referred to the importance of openness about the actual results of participation. This has been added to the openness principle.
  • A respondent referred to the importance of the public being informed of the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of proposals. This language has been incorporated in principle 6.
  • Some respondents referred to the need for evaluation of participation exercises to improve practices and provide accountability. This has been added to principle 8.
  • A respondent suggested the addition of reference to the provision of safe spaces for public participation in recognition of sometimes hostile environments. This has been added to the inclusiveness principle.
  • A respondent suggested not just allowing individuals and communities to speak for themselves, but supporting them to do so. This has been added to principle 3.

In some cases it was decided not to incorporate suggested changes to the Principles so as not to over-burden them with detail. In one or two cases a suggested addition is now covered in the contextual material that precedes the principles e.g. reference to participation across the budget cycle. In other cases the issues are likely to be covered in the more detailed documents now being developed on good practices in public participation in fiscal policy. This was the case, for example, with respect to suggestions to add reference to the importance both of face to face and indirect engagement; and to the need for detailed stakeholder analysis to ensure inclusiveness. A number of respondents also suggested references be inserted to additional groups that should be referred to in the principle on inclusiveness. In the end, it was decided to draw on recognized UN language in referring to grounds for non-discrimination.

While the public consultation process was underway, two further in-depth workshop discussions were held on the draft Principles. The workshops, which were held under the auspices of the Open Government Partnership’s Fiscal Openness Working Group, involved ministry of finance officials and civil society representatives, and took place in Manila and Mexico City.

In addition, further desk reviews were conducted of participation principles in other policy domains and in other instruments. This resulted in some changes to the draft principles – for instance, the addition of the new Principle 7 on proportionality.

A revised set of draft Principles was then discussed by the GIFT General Stewards, and GIFT’s Lead Stewards, in Washington D.C. on 1 and 2 December. Substantial changes to Principle 10 resulted from these discussions.

The revised version of the Principles includes an Introduction and Background, to provide context to the Principles, and also includes the definition of the scope of fiscal policy and a preamble to the principles. GIFT Lead Stewards have until the end of January to provide any final feedback.

GIFT is now commencing work on a practical guide on how countries can implement the principles. A feature of the recent OGP Summit in Mexico City was the widespread assertion that real and meaningful public participation is critical to the success and sustainability of the OGP. A number of participants were concerned about the need to avoid ‘open-washing’ – governments going through the motions of engaging the public but not in a meaningful way.

There was also a focus at the OGP Summit on public participation as a right of citizens, and recognition of the key role it will play in implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals – not just SDG Goal 16 (building inclusive institutions) but the achievement of all the SDGs.

At the same time, however, there were many calls at the Summit for more guidance on how states can better engage their citizens. This was reiterated at the Fiscal Openness Working Group meetings run in parallel with the Summit, where ministry of finance officials and budget CSOs pointed to a clear need for practical guidance on how governments can better engage their citizens in the design and implementation of fiscal policies.

The Guide to Public Participation in Fiscal Policy that GIFT is now developing aims to help fill that gap. It will include examples of existing country practices – drawing on GIFT’s eight country case studies. It will also include suggested good participation practices, which will be disaggregated by area (for example, the Executive, the Legislature, and the Supreme Audit Institution). It is likely also that, over time, the suggested good practices will be graduated to take account of different country circumstances, starting points, and capacity.

We are keen to continue engaging with officials, experts, practitioners and the public in this field. If you would like to contribute to, or to be kept informed of GIFT’s further workon public participation in fiscal policy, please sign up to receive our newsletter or contact us!

Murray Petrie

GIFT Lead Technical Advisor

Public consultation responses

1. Inclusive: Ensuring inclusiveness and non-discrimination through the pro-active use of multiple mechanisms to reach and facilitate inputs from all citizens, including traditionally excluded groups, without discrimination as to political or other opinion, gender, ethnicity, religion, caste, citizenship, nationality or domicile. / How much do you agree with Principle 1? / Comments on the Principle
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Maybe want to include people with disabilities here.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
97 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
86 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
94 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
75 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
30 / A generic statement ofinclusiveness ornon-discrimination would not result in the involvement of marginalized group such as women and other poor marginalized groups. Principle 1 might be nice in paper, but would have no difference in its practice.
- There should be an explicit statement on ensuring participation for women, whether through inviting them directly to public participation venues, or having separate venues where their input will be incorporated. This also could apply to marginalized groups.
- The mention ofcitizenship, nationality, anddomicile should be made in a different statement, as participation in several domain of direct participation are local-based activities.
- Also mentionindigenous people in here.
100 / It's a very good principle to include opposition political opinion on the budget. Gender also should not be disciminated and their voices should be heard and open to discussion.
91 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90 / The principle should also include "duty bearers" as in many instances they are not fully aware of fiscal matters.
100 / El cuidadano es el principal contribuyente del Estado, por lo que debe al menos tener un acceso simple y entendible a la información fiscal.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
50 / I agree, but being inclusive requires up front analysis to see what people, groups and relationships exist and how they need to be accommodated in order to be inclusive.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
50 / It could be important to cover also geographical differences as something to take into account.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / There should be no discrimination on the grounds of disabilities on economic means either: for example, texts should be accessible to the visually impaired. It also goes without saying that they should be accessible in a non-electronic form and that they should not only be available online.
100 / I have heard from civil servants that budget information is too technical to be share with commons citizens. This is another discrimination way.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
2. Direct: Encouraging the public to speak for itself: although there may be groups and mechanisms that have standing to speak on behalf of others, individuals and communities should be allowed and encouraged to articulate their interests in their own ways, and to choose means of expression that they prefer. / How much do you agree with Principle 2? / Comments on the Principle
80 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Good, as much as that's possible.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
95 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
86 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
95 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
83 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
50 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
65 / Also mention that government should actively pursue, acknowledge, and engage in those means expressions that the public prefer. This would ensure that all ideas and inputs gathered through those are incorporated by the government.
100 / I think it is an option since institutions exist and their role is to speak on behalf of all citizens. But, for example in Algeria, these institutions are not representatives of the public interest and therefore this option is a good proposal to enhance broad participation through different channels.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
91 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90
94 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / You have to invest in education and fiscal education that the public understands and will be able to speak to articulate their interests.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
75 / Again, the up front analysis serves to identify and define who has authority to speak for whom.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
50 / It’s not only about encouraging the public to speak for itself but also to give support to these efforts
80 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Definitely. Care should be taken to ensure that women and disadvantaged groups are able to speak freely. Some anonymity may need to be guaranteed in that context.
85 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
3. Open: Ensuring openness about the purpose, intended outcomes, process, and timelines of public participation. / How much do you agree with Principle 3? / Comments on the Principle
90 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Absolutely agreed. Aligns with IAP2 Core Values.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
98 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
88 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
95 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
89 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
100 / This is a key principle because the government shall clarify the rules of the public participation. This information, made appropriately in order to cover the needs of the different stakeholders, will create trust in the process.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Ensuring openness on the result, and how the public's input is being incorporated is also important.
In Jakarta's workshop, there were cases where if inputs were not incorporated in in the upcoming budget cycle, and those inputs should be incorporated in the next budget cycle.
90 / In theory it is a good proposal but in practice we can encounter some delays.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
93 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
90 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
97 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
80 / What about open standards? open interfaces? open source software? open innovation?
100 / This one is a really good and important principle, but knowing if you are hearing an authentic sense of purpose is hard. Happy to share specific examples.
85 / I strongly agree with the intent but don't forget being open also means explaining the public's role in the process.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
75 / It would be useful to also include the different moments of the budget process and ways to engage. I mean there should be opportunities to engage with the executive, while doing the budget proposal, with the legislative, during deliberations, etc. So it could be useful to phrase this principle in a way that aknowledges that there are different moments/ways to engage in fiscal governance.
100 / Just want to add that this openness should be articulated very clearly and at a very early stage.
100 / Enter you comment, input or suggestion.
95 / Not just openness, but truthfulness and self-criticism should be fundamental principles. We should be prepared to admit where outcomes have not been reached, and should be keen to define where processes could and should have been improved.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
4. Timely: Allowing sufficient time in the budget and policy cycles for the public to provide inputs in each phase. / How much do you agree with Principle 4? / Comments on the Principle
60 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
95 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
51 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
91 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
50 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Principle 3 and 4 include time as a characteristic. Is Principle 4 only for Budget Process?
100 / This is already good. Short, but understandable.
80 / The idea is relevant again, but how much sufficient time. In Algeria, the time is defined in the law regulating the parliamentary discussion. Setting ann arragement outside the legal Framework might not be accepted by officials. It might be seen as an intrusion in the domestic affairs. So, we have to go smoothly.
95 / It might be useful to include specific timelines as a guide.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
81 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Anyway, you will need a tight timeframe to realize public participation, council debates, council decision and supervisal check y higher public bodies right in time.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Once more, the up front analysis should help determine "how much time is enough time" for the given situation?
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Too often, public bodies rush engagement. Often, sufficient time for input can be had by simply starting earlier.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
80 / Minimum guidelines on what constitutes "sufficient time" should be developed, if possible. Perhaps a minimum of 3 months for a proper consultation could be proposed.
85 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
5. Facilitated: Facilitating and supporting public participation in general by disclosing fiscal information and data in formats and using mechanisms that are easy to access, understand, use, re-use and transform and that are designed to facilitate participation. / How much do you agree with Principle 5? / Comments on the Principle
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
90 / What exactly do you mean by ¿facilitated Make the process easieror lead a group process? Public participation can take many forms, some of which do not require moderation/facilitation, e.g., basic surveys. Maybe clarify the term?
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
98 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.
100 / Enter your comment, input or suggestion.