Community-Led Participatory Budgeting in Bangalore: Learning from Successful Cases
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Community-led Participatory Budgeting in Bangalore: Learning from Successful Cases by ELIZABETH M. CLAY Bachelor of Arts, Urban Studies, 2002 Columbia University Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN CITY PLANNING at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2007 @2007 Elizabeth Clay All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author: epartment of Urban Studies and Planning May 24, 2007 Certified -- ---- ~r ~· ,,,, - ,, S- - Ceasar McDowell Professor of the Practice of Community Development, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Langley Keyes Chairman, Master in City Planning Committee Department of Urban Studies and Planning I MASSACHU$ETTS INSTITUTE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUL 18 2007 LIBRARIES Community-led Participatory Budgeting in Bangalore: Learning from Successful Cases by ELIZABETH M. CLAY Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning on May 24, 2007 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in City Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ABSTRACT Urban India is rapidly growing, and in cities like Bangalore, the dramatic changes have both positive and negative impacts. Citizens express concern about the capacity and credibility of local government and corporate sector in leading local development. In contrast to rural India where the 73rd amendment helped spur citizen participation in local decision-making, in urban India there have been limited channels for citizens to participate in governance outside of the electoral process. In 2001, a civil society organization, Janaagraha, launched a participatory budgeting campaign aimed at improving local governance through engaging citizens in local infrastructure planning. The campaign resulted in citizens' budget priorities being approved in over twenty percent of the city's wards. Large-scale participatory budgeting has traditionally been an initiative of ruling parties using the apparatus of the state. As a civil society initiative, the participants faced the dual challenges of mobilizing citizens to produce good plans and convincing local government that their plans were legitimate. This thesis aims to answer two questions. First, what were the attributes of the associations and political and spatial factors of the communities that were successful in a 2001 participatory budgeting campaign in Bangalore? Identifying these success factors can provide tools to other communities in the previously uncharted territory of local participatory budgeting in urban India. Second, did the campaign strengthen or sidestep local democracy? This question looks within "success" to uncover the impact on existing political relationships and shed light on the effect of the campaign beyond infrastructure. To answer these questions, case study-based qualitative analysis in six Bangalore communities was conducted. Based on these cases, factors for ward-level success included limited political history or entrenchment, both for the elected official and physical ward in addition to committed leadership that had prior engagement with local government. The participation in the campaign was not representative of the population at large and did not result in pro-poor outcomes that have been the hallmark of other participatory budgeting initiatives. However, it strengthened representative democracy and institutionalized collective action instead of individual clientelist relationships. These answers suggest that citizens can successfully initiate participatory planning and budgeting campaigns, and they are not exclusively the domain of ruling state parties. The thesis concludes with recommendations for community-based organizations that want better neighborhood-level outcomes and a more significant role in decision-making. As community participation is institutionalized in India, understanding how citizen's groups can be effective both internally and in partnership with local government may contribute to improved urban governance and outcomes. Thesis Supervisor: Ceasar McDowell Title: Professor of the Practice of Community Development, MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was completed with the help of academic, professional and personal support from Cambridge to Bangalore. I want to thank Ceasar McDowell, my Advisor, for consistent support over the last year. In addition, the coursework I have undertaken over the last two years, particularly with Archon Fung and Gianpaolo Baiocchi has been critical in putting Janaagraha's work in a broader context. In Bangalore, I begin by expressing my indebtedness to dozens of residents and elected officials in all of the wards where case studies were researched. I appreciate you opening up your homes and neighborhoods to me. I am grateful to Ramesh and Swati and all the Janaagraha volunteers for your consistent openness and candor. A special thanks to Triveni and Karthik for your help. Thanks also to my good friends Sajan and Sanjanthi, and their lovely daughters Laya and Tia who made my 2005 visit to Bangalore feel like I was at home. Finally, thanks to Rahoul for introducing me to Bangalore and your constant support through every endeavor. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Citizen Participation in Local Governance ........................................................................ 8 1.2 Participatory Planning and Budgeting. ................................................................... 12 13 Case Study Analysis of Ward Works Campaign ...................................... ........ 15 1.4 Roadm ap. .................................................... 20 2. SETTING THE CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 21 2.1. Bangalore History. .................................................... 22 Early History: Tale of Two Cities........................................................................................ 22 Planning the City......................................................................................................................... 22 Community andAssociations ..................................................................................................... 25 21st Century Bangalore:Dreams of Silicon Valley. ..................................... ...... .. 27 2.2. Urban Governance in India. .............................................................................................. 29 CommissionerSystem. ................................................................................................................ 29 ParticipatoryPlanning in India........................................................................................... 30 23. Democracy, Participation and Civil Society in India: Literature.............................. 34 ParticipatoryDemocracy ........................................................................................................... 35 Governance. ..................................................... 38 NGO led-participationand its limitations ................................................................... 39 Civil Society, Class and Politics in India................................................ 40 2.4. Janaagraha and W ard W orks................................................................................................ 45 Janaagraha's Founding............................................................................................................. 45 Janaagraha's Approach............................................................................................................. 47 Criticisms of Janaagraha........................................................................................................... 50 Ward Works . ................................................................ 52 Ward Works Process Timeline. ............................................................................................ 53 Campaign Outcome.....................................................................................................................54 3. CASE STUDIES .................................................. 56 Key Questions . ............................................................ 56 Data Collection. ........................................................... 59 3.1. W ard 7 .... ................................................................................................................... 60 History of Ward and PriorCommunity Action. ..................................... .... .......... 60 Involvement with Janaagraha................................................................................................... 61 Leadership/Participants............................................................................................................. 62 Corporator................................................................................................................................... 66 Ward Works Process................................................................................................................... 67 Outcome. ..................................................................