Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Saki Kumagai Sruti Bandyopadhyay Helene Grandvoinnet* Table of Contents Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Key Concepts and Rationale for CE in PFM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Citizen Engagement Public Financial Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CE in PFM and Rationale: Why Mainstream CE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Citizen Engagement in International Initiatives and Standards for PFM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overview and Principles of CE in PFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Principles of Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Menu of Citizen Engagement Entry Points in the PFM Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Phase 1: Fiscal Law and Policy Design and Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Phase 2: Budget Formulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Phase 3: Budget Enactment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Phase 4: Budget Implementation and Accounting and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Phase 5: External Scrutiny and Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A: Public Financial Management as Usual versus Examples of PFM that include Citizen Engagement. 41 B: Overview of Selected Citizen Engagement Approaches and Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C: Social Accountability Analytical Framework and Contextual Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 D: Unpacking Constituent Elements for Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management . . 44 Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Glossary of Selected Citizen Engagement Approaches and Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 * “Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results” was prepared by Saki Kumagai, Sruti Bandyopadhyay, and Helene Grandvoinnet as part of the Governance Global Practice’s programmatic advisory services and analytics (ASA), “Citizen Engagement: Re-building the State and Citizen Social Contract.” The ASA aims to help provide analytical insights, knowledge, and learning to support and implement the next phase of the World Bank Group’s Strate- gic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations. The authors are grateful to peer reviewers Keith Mclean and Manvinder Mamak for their very helpful comments; Asmeen Khan for their guidance and com- ments on various drafts; and Barbara Rice for editorial support. 2 Design by Claudio Mendonca (ccm.design) Authors Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Saki Kumagai is Governance Specialist at the World Bank. She specializes in supporting govern- ments create and strengthen more transparent, accountable, and participatory government sys- tems. Saki leads the Governance Global Practice’s citizen engagement and CivicTech work and supports multiple World Bank-financed service delivery operations in countries such as Egypt, Ma- lawi, and Somalia. Sruti Bandyopadhyay is Knowledge Management Officer in the Development Economics (DEC) Vice Presidency. She has worked at the World Bank since 2012, providing technical expertise to capacity building programs, peer-learning initiatives, and World Bank projects focused on strengthening the roles of accountability institutions in public financial management systems. Prior to joining the World Bank, Ms. Bandyopadhyay worked in rural India on social accountability, focusing on pub- lic finance and public administration. She holds a Master’s degree in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Helene Grandvoinnet is Lead Governance Specialist at the World Bank, with two decades of ex- perience in research, policy dialogue, and project design and management on a range of gover- nance issues (transparency and accountability, decentralization, public finances, justice reform, anti-corruption and civil service reform) in fragile and low-capacity environments. 3 Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Introduction The World Bank Group’s twin goals — ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity — encourage the strengthening of an inclusive society, based on a citizen-state social contract that promotes government accountability. “A sustainable path toward end- ing extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity would also involve creating an in- clusive society. … An inclusive society must have the institutions, structure, and processes that empower local communities, so they can hold their governments accountable” (World Bank Group 2014a). Citizen engagement (CE) is an approach to achieve the twin goals in a sustainable manner.1 The World Bank’s commitment to mainstream CE opens up more avenues to proactively identify entry points for CE in public financial management (PFM) operations. A core objective of the 2014 Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen En- gagement in World Bank Group Operations was to adopt a coherent and holistic approach to operationalize CE in World Bank supported operations. It identified PFM as one of the five outcomes areas where CE can potentially improve achievement of development outcomes (World Bank Group 2014b). The 2018 Independent Evaluation Group’s (IEG) report Engaging Citizens for Better Development Results assessed how effectively the Bank Group has been mainstreaming CE and demonstrat- ed how this process contributes to achieving development outcomes. The IEG recommends that the World Bank provide support, where appropriate, for “thick” CE, i.e., is regular and 4 continuous, uses multiple tools, and is embedded in country systems (IEG 2018). The Governance Global Practice supports leading activities to advance transparency, ac- countability, and participation for more inclusive and accountable institutions. Recent reframing of governance is supporting further work in these areas. The World Development Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Report 2017: Governance and the Law redefined the concept of governance as “the process through which state and nonstate actors interact to design and implement policies with- in a given set of formal and informal rules that shape and are shaped by power” (World Bank 2017a, 3). This reframing of governance provides an opportunity to further develop interventions to strengthen core government functions, such as PFM, by advancing trans- parency and citizen participation for greater accountability and results. How to mainstream CE in PFM remains an area for further exploration as it is often con- sidered a back-office system that is invisible to the general public and has little to do with citizens. That being said, PFM is an impactful means to achieve broader development objectives, such as state building, macroeconomic stability, and efficient and effective re- source allocation and service delivery, by establishing and strengthening country systems for budget discipline and resource allocations and promoting technical efficiency in gov- ernment spending (Beschel at al. 2018; Kristensen et al. 2019). The World Bank’s support on PFM is solid and steady over several years. For example, 51 projects approved in FY19 tagged a theme of Public Finance Management, which represents a commitment of $3.235 billion, and 53 projects in FY18 with a commitment of $2.324 billion.2 This note is intended to provide a menu of CE entry points in PFM to strengthen the core functions of government through CE approaches targeting the World Bank task teams. It is organized as follows: chapter 2 articulates the concept and rationale for CE in PFM. It spells out how CE in PFM is an integral part of international initiatives and standards for PFM. Chapter 3 begins with an overview of CE in PFM based on the CE dimensions and summarizes the principles of CE in PFM. Chapter 4 provides a menu of options for main- streaming CE in the PFM cycle. It is envisioned to support task teams identifying relevant entry points for CE in PFM operations. Based on a desk review, existing CE in PFM ex- amples are highlighted. Chapter 5 discusses the importance of the contextual elements in identifying suitable CE approaches and tools, and concludes with some key takeaways. The note does not intend to provide comprehensive solutions on CE in PFM. Rather, it serves as a resource for task teams to design and implement CE in PFM in a more nuanced manner. 5 Key Concepts and Rationale for CE in PFM Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Citizen Engagement The Strategic Framework introduced CE as “the two-way interaction between citizens and government (or the private sector) for better development outcomes.” CE activities are defined by the level of interaction between the two actors, including inform, consult, collaborate, and empower3 (see figure 1). The Strategic Framework acknowledges that ac- cess to information and other information sharing and awareness raising activities under “inform” is a necessary enabling condition for effective CE. Because these transparen- cy-focused activities under “inform” typically entail a one-way interaction, these activ- ities alone do not meet the definition of CE according to the Strategic Framework (World Bank Group 2014b). Figure 1. Dimensions of Citizen Engagement Level of Interaction t en m Empower ge ga En Final decision making in the hands of citizens en tiz Ci of e re Collaborate eg D Partnering with citizens in parts or all of decision making ng si ea cr In Consult Obtaining citizen feedback on analyses, alternatives decisions Inform Providing citizens with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities, solutions Citizen Involvement in Decision Making Source: World Bank Group (2014b). 6 Openness and transparency — the availability of information to the general public and clarity about government rules, regulations, and decisions (Agarwal and Warren 2011) — is the foundation on which CE (i .e ., activities under consult, collaborate, and empower) Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results takes place . For this reason, this note will not exclude activities under the “inform” cat- egory when discussing CE approaches and tools applicable to PFM . Public Financial Management Public financial management refers to the set of laws, rules, systems, and processes used by governments (e .g ., national, subnational, and local levels) to mobilize revenue, allocate public funds, undertake public spending, account for funds, and audit results . The PFM system is often described along the annual budget cycle with the following key phases: budget formulation, budget execution or implementation, accounting and reporting, and external scrutiny and audit (Kristensen et al . 2019) . This note contends that PFM is also about the enabling environment — laws, policy design, and the policy-making process — and that it encompasses a broader set of functions than financial management. For this reason, this note follows the five phases of the PFM cycle (figure 2), which includes law and policy dimensions . The note’s authors consider them to be part of the key phases of the annual budget cycle . Figure 2 . Five Key Phases of the PFM Cycle Fiscal Law and Policy Design and Decision Making External Scrutiny and Audit Budget Formulation Budget Implementation and Budget Enactment Accounting and Reporting Sources: PEFA Secretariat (2016); World Bank (2013) . Note: Authors consider the following phases as part of the annual budget cycle: budget formulation, budget en- actment, budget implementation and accounting and reporting, and external scrutiny and audit . 7 CE in PFM and Rationale: Why Mainstream CE Citizen engagement in PFM refers to the variety of ways in which citizens interact directly Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results with public authorities throughout the key phases of the PFM cycle (figure 2). The modes, frequency, and depth of participation in PFM vary by phase and purpose of engagement (see appendix A). It may be through face-to-face communication, deliberation, or input to decision making, through written forms of communication including the internet, or by a combination of different mechanisms. It ranges from one-off public consultation or invita- tions for submissions, to an ongoing and institutionalized relationship, such as social audits in India,4 regular public surveys, standing advisory bodies, or participatory budgeting (PB) — where citizens vote on and decide how a specific line in the budget will actually be spent. The discussion of evidence in this note builds on the evidence of CE in PFM provided by the 2014 Strategic Framework. It made a strong case by scanning the literature and concluding that CE in the PFM process produced strong intermediate and final results, such as citizen mobilization, more inclusive budget processes, and pro-poor fiscal policies. It also found that the emerging empirical evidence suggests links between increased budget transpar- ency and improved governance; positive development outcomes; improved socioeconomic and human development indicators; fiscal balance of national governments; reduced pub- lic debt and deficits; reduced risk premia for financial markets; and higher credit ratings and lower spreads between borrowing and lending rates (World Bank Group 2014b, 78). The meta-analysis by De Renzio and Wehner (2015) largely agrees with these findings by concluding that budget transparency and citizen participation impacts on macro-fiscal, resource allocation and service delivery, and governance. On service delivery, for example, Touchton, Sugiyama, and Wampler (2017) studied 5,550 Brazilian municipalities from 2006 to 2013. They found a strong and positive relationship between the presence of participatory institutions and improvements in infant mortality. Participatory institutions, social programs, and local capacity reinforce one another to im- prove well-being. Good governance and effective administration of government programs can be supported by citizens’ participation in monitoring. In India, public participation through social auditing of its rural employment guarantee program has helped the gov- ernment identify a misappropriation of $1.4 million, out of which nearly $560,000 has been recovered. Nearly 6,000 field personnel have been implicated or removed from duty based on findings of social audits. The impact of continuous cycles of social audit in de- terring potential corruption is beyond quantification.5 The Strategic Framework also noted that citizen participation influences the level of tax com- pliance. Citizens are more willing to pay taxes when they perceive their preferences are re- 8 flected in public institutions, or they have direct participation in budgetary decisions (World Bank Group 2014b, 78–79). A recent World Bank study supports this claim. It found that mu- nicipalities in Brazil that adopt PB programs collect 39 percent more locally generated taxes Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results (property and sales taxes plus fees) than similar municipalities without these programs. This amount corresponds to about 3 percent of municipalities’ budgets and is equivalent to roughly 40 percent of their capital investment spending (Touchton, Wampler, and Peixoto 2019). In Ghana, businesses are involved in designing tax policies, and because of their participation in policy formulation, they are more likely to pay their taxes (World Bank 2017). Citizen Engagement in International Initiatives and Standards for PFM The demand for more active CE in PFM has been translated into various international prin- ciples and initiatives. This trend can be traced back to the 1998 Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It focused on the need for comprehensive disclosure of fiscal information along with sector-specific fiscal transpar- ency initiatives such as the 2002 Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative and the IMF’s 2005 Guide on Resource Revenue Transparency. More recently, developments in open fiscal data have greatly expanded the scope of budget transparency. Experience shows, however, that disclosure is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for accountability (Petrie 2017). Attention has recently moved to translating public disclosure into more effective account- ability by means of greater public engagement on PFM. Accordingly, CE in PFM has since been incorporated in more recent directives and principles (see table 1). Table 1. Recent Examples of Directives, Principles, and Initiatives on Citizen Engagement in PFM Year: Since 2011 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: OGP: Fiscal Openness Working Group Elements of Citizen Engagement: Brings together ministries of finance and civil society organizations to promote peer learning and more ambitious fiscal openness commitments. Year: 2012 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: GIFT: High Level Principles on Fiscal Transparency, Participation, and Accountability Elements of Citizen Engagement: 10 principles. Principles 1–9 are on transparency and other enabling environments. Principle 10 is  directly on CE. Principle 10. Citizens should have the right and they, and all nonstate actors, should have effective  opportunities to participate directly in public debate and discussion over the design and implementation of fiscal policies. 9 Year: 2015 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: OECD: Principles of Budgetary Governance Elements of Citizen Engagement: Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results 10 principles to provide concise good practice across the full spectrum of budget activities.  Principle 4. Ensure that budget documents and data are open, transparent, and accessible.  Principle 5. Provide for an inclusive, participative, and realistic debate on budgetary choices.  Year: 2016 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: PEFA Secretariat: PEFA Framework Elements of Citizen Engagement: The following 2016 PEFA performance indicators include CE elements: PI-9: Public access to fiscal information. An A score requirement: the government makes available to the  public eight elements, including all five basic elements, in accordance with the specified time frame. PI-18: Legislative scrutiny of budgets. An A score requirement for dimension 18.2 (legislative procedures  for budget scrutiny): The legislature’s procedures to review budget proposals are approved by the legislature in advance of budget hearings and are adhered to. The procedures include arrangements for public consultation, among others. PI-24: Procurement. An A score requirement for dimension 24.3 (public access to procurement  information): Every key procurement information element is complete and reliable for government units representing all procurement operations and is made available to the public in a timely manner. An A score requirement for dimension 24.4 (procurement complaint management): the procurement complaint system meets every criterion. PI-31: Legislative scrutiny of audit reports. An A score require meant for dimension 31.4 (transparency  of legislative scrutiny of audit reports): All hearings are conducted in public.... Committee reports are debated in the full chamber of the legislature and published on an official website or by any other means easily accessible to the public. Year: 2017 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: IBP Open Budget Survey Elements of Citizen Engagement: Evaluates 115 countries across 6 continentsa; includes an expanded section on comparative assessment of public participation by the executive branch, legislature, and SAI. Year: 2019 Directives, Principles, and Initiatives: IMF Fiscal Transparency Code Elements of Citizen Engagement: The code is based on four pillars: (i) fiscal reporting; (ii) fiscal forecasting and budgeting; (iii) fiscal risk analysis and management; and (iv) resource revenue management. Policy 2.3 — “Policy Orientation: Fiscal forecasts and budgets should be presented in a way that facilitates policy analysis and accountability”— includes a CE element: 2.3.3. Public Participation: The government provides citizens with an accessible summary of the  implications of budget policies and an opportunity to participate in budget deliberations. Sources: GIFT (2012, 2016); IMF (2019); OECD (2015); OGP (2018a); PEFA Secretariat (2016). Note: CE = citizen engagement; GIFT = Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency; IBP = International Budget Partnership; IMF = International Monetary Fund; OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment; OGP = Open Government Partnership; PEFA = Public Expenditure and Fiscal Accountability; PFM = public financial management; SAI = Supreme Audit Institution. a. For more information, see https://www.internationalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/. 10 The World Bank’s support to its clients on PFM provides an entry point to operationalize the international principles and standards on CE in PFM, such as the PEFA Framework (see box 1) . It supports governments in achieving these international standards while Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results strengthening its core government functions through CE to attain better results, citizen centric governance, and service delivery . Box 1 . PEFA Measurements on Transparency and Access to Fiscal Information: The Current Status The PEFA Secretariat conducted an analysis of 42 completed national assessments of 3 PEFA indicators related to fiscal transparency and CE — PI-9 Public access to fiscal in- formation; PI-18 Legislative scrutiny of budgets (18 .2, Legislative procedures for budget scrutiny); and PI-31 Legislative scrutiny of audit reports (31 .4, Transparency of legislative scrutiny of audit reports) . The analysis suggests relatively low scores in key budget trans- parency dimensions between FCV and non-FCV contexts . This result indicates scope for further World Bank support on budget transparency and CE . PEFA Score Public Access of Information PI-9 Legislative Procedures for Budget scrutinity PI-18 .2 Transparency of legislative scrutinity of audit reports PI-31 .4 D Either less than the basic level of performance or issuficient information to score C Basic level of performance broadly consistent with good international practices B Sound performance above the basic level A High level performance that meets good international practices Fragile Countries Non Fragile Countries Source: Based on an unpublished presentation by the PEFA Secretariat, “PEFA in Fragile Countries: Budget Transparency and PFM Related Citizen Engagement” (n .d .) . Note: The PEFA 2016 framework has been applied . Out of 42, 7 assessments were from fragile countries (Afghan- istan, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Iraq, Mali, Togo, and Zimbabwe) . None of the countries were assessed “A” on PEFA Scoring. CE = citizen engagement; FCV = fragility, conflict, and violence; PEFA = Public Expenditure and Fiscal Accountability . 11 The World Bank also supports international initiatives and movements that contribute to advancing the agenda of CE in PFM. These examples include the OGP (see box 2) and open contracting. While these international initiatives may not be considered the direct entry Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results points to mainstream CE in PFM through Bank-financed operations, practitioners need to be cognizant of the potential synergies between CE in PFM and other international initia- tives that it supports. Box 2. OGP Commitments in Open Budget and Open Contracting Launched in 2011, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) brings together both govern- ment and civil society members to help government become more transparent, account- able, and responsive to citizens’ needs with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of governance and public services.a To date, 79 countries, along with a growing number of local governments and civil society organizations (CSOs), are members of the OGP.b Partic- ipating countries have made more than 3,000 commitments as part of their action plans.c These commitments include policy areas related to open budget and open contracting, among many others. The World Bank can potentially support governments in achieving these OGP commitments across all citizen engagement (CE) dimensions. Fiscal openness (i.e., fiscal transparency, oversight of budget and fiscal policies, and par- ticipation in the budget process) and open contracting and procurement for anti-corrup- tion are among the policy areas of the OGP where action plans are formed. Open budget commitments. Of the action plans of OGP members, 81 include a total of 508 open budget commitments. Many of them focus on the inform dimension of CE while some are leading efforts on CE in public financial management. Of these commitments, 83 percent (424 commitments) focus on increasing transparency through the publication of budget and fiscal information; 16.5 percent (84 commitments) focus on trying to improve public participation across the budget process; and only 13 percent (71 commitment) focus on oversight of budget and fiscal policies.  The Philippines (inform). The Philippines commits to greater fiscal transparency in the extractive sector, demonstrating the ways in which open budgeting commitments can be used to improve service delivery at the sector level (2013 Action Plan).  Ghana (inform and empower). Ghana commits to adopting measures to increase fiscal transparency. In addition, it introduced participatory budgeting through which the gov- ernment collaborated with relevant civil society organizations (CSOs) (2013 Action Plan). 12 Open contracting commitments. Among members’ action plans, 70 include a total of 189 open contracting commitments since 2011. Through commitments, OGP members create Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results open registries of contracts and implement open contracting data standards. The OGP notes that open contracting has grown rapidly among OGP members since 2015.  Elgeyo Marakwet, Kenya (inform and consult). Elgeyo Marakwet County commits to expanding open contracting in response to citizens’ concerns regarding the execution of contracts. It standardizes project design and reporting documents, publishes regular reports on awarded contracts and project implementation, and manages an online tool to enable public monitoring throughout the contract cycle. The county seeks to expand procurement opportunities for youth, women, and people with disabilities and publish data on the tender of government contracts (2016 Action Plan). Sources: OGP (2018b, 2019). a. See OGP website, “Mission and Strategy,” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/mission-and-strategy/. b. See OGP website, “About Open Government Partnership,” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/. c. OGP action plans are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society define am- bitious commitments to foster more transparency, accountability, and inclusion. Members are considered to be officially participating in OGP once they have begun to consult with CSOs to develop an action plan. For informa- tion on the Action Plan Cycle, see https://www.opengovpartnership.org/process/action-plan-cycle/. For details on OGP members’ action plans and commitments, see “OGP Explorer,” https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ explorer/all-data.html. The OGP Explorer provides the OGP community (e.g., civil society, academics, govern- ments, and journalists) easy access to the wealth of data OGP has collected, including OGP commitments. 13 Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Overview and Principles of CE in PFM This note offers a menu of CE mainstreaming options in PFM from two perspectives. First, chapter 3 identifies relevant approaches and tools according to the dimensions of CE as spec- ified in the Strategic Framework to provide an overview. Chapter 4 looks at entry points in five phases of the PFM cycle. It starts with an overview to chart out potential CE approaches and tools in each dimension (i.e., inform, consult, collaborate, and empower) and enabling environment, which are applicable to all CE dimensions. The chapter also summarizes the principles of CE in PFM that apply to all types of CE interventions across the PFM phases. Overview The identification of CE approaches and tools depends on (i) the engagement’s purpose (i.e., inform, consult, collaborate, or empower); and (ii) contextual factors associated with CE approaches and tools (e.g., level of government participation, level of citizen participa- tion, technical complexity, time required, and cost associated with the approach and tool). See appendix B for an overview. Table 2 provides a snapshot of approaches and tools that can be used in engaging with citizens to improve results (see glossary). 14 Table 2. Examples of Approaches and Tools for Citizen Engagement in PFM Examples of CE Approaches and Tools Enabling Environment Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Inform: Providing citizens with balanced and objective information to assist Legal frameworks that  them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities, and solutions require or facilitate opportunities for CE in Public display of information (e.g., annual budget cycle and the  budget process (e.g., access importance of PFM, how citizens can engage) and information campaigns to information, right to Public display of budget information and data, including expenditure (e.g.,  information law, freedom budget transparency, open budget, and budget transparency portals) of association, and relevant Public reporting of revenue and expenditures  PFM policies) Citizens Budget  Improved transparency  Budget literacy campaign  and quality of national and Independent budget analysis  subnational budget systems Contract transparency and open contracting   Public display and information or media campaign of audit findings GovTecha (e.g., IT systems   Citizen charters for domestic resource mobilization and PFM, Consult: Obtaining citizen feedback on analyses, alternatives, and decisions e-procurement) CivicTechb  Consultations (e.g., online, SMS messaging, face-to-face  consultations, focus group discussions, consultations with expert Accountability and oversight  groups, public hearings, and townhalls) institutions Citizen report cards  Budget literacyc  Citizen and user satisfaction surveys  Public expenditure tracking and public expenditure tracking surveys  Grievance redress mechanisms (e.g., suggestions, recommendations, and  complaints, including corruption grievances and procurement related) Third-party and participatory procurement monitoring  Social audit  Collaborate: Partnering with citizens in parts or all of decision making Citizen or user membership in decision-making bodies  Participatory planning  Empower: Final decision making in the hands of citizens Citizens’ juries  Participatory budgeting  Sources: Agarwal and Warren (2011); World Bank Group (2014b); World Bank (2012). Note: CE = citizen engagement; IT = information technology; PFM = public financial management; SMS = short messaging service. a. GovTech solutions include hardware, software, applications, and other technology to improve access and quality of public services, facilitate CE, and improve core government operations (World Bank Group 2019). b. CivicTech is hardware, software, applications, and other technology to facilitate CE. It enables citizens to overcome income, social, and geographical barriers to interact with governments and participate in decision making (World Bank 2019). c. Budget literacy is defined as the ability to read, decipher, and understand public budgets to enable and enhance meaningful citizen participation in the budget process (Masud et al. 2017). 15 Principles of Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results The Strategic Framework established the five guiding principles for CE mainstreaming by the World Bank Group: (i) it is results focused; (ii) it involves engaging throughout the operational cycle; (iii) it seeks to strengthen country systems; (iv) it is context specific; and (v) it is gradual. In addition to these greater guiding principles, this note outlines principles for CE in PFM.6  Transparency. Be clear and provide full information about the objectives, scope, and constraints for CE in the process, intended outcomes, timeline, and expected results, and be transparent about the views and inputs the government receives. Citizens should understand how and at which stage their inputs and feedback will be solicited, the limits of what can and cannot be changed or incorporated, and the expected results of their participation. These steps should help avoid unrealistic expectations.  Accessibility. Facilitate public participation by ensuring that the target audience and par- ticipants have knowledge of logistics, processes, and timelines as well as access to rel- evant materials (e.g., relevant fiscal information and data, including but not limited to budget summaries, Citizens Budgets, annual financial and performance reports). The relevant materials should be provided in formats and using mechanisms that are easy for all to access, understand, and use or re-use and transform. Information on process and timelines should include dates, locations, who can be involved and how, format for inputs, and contact details. When physical participation is planned (e.g., consultations, meetings, or public hearing), ensure the time selected maximizes the participation of the intended target audiences and choose locations and venues for public and univer- sal access. When GovTech solutions are considered, for transparency and participation, consider adopting universal access7 for the platform to be accessible by all.  Inclusivity. Efforts need to be made to engage diverse actors and avoid discrimination based on any basis, including nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual ori- entation, disability, age, class, and level of education. Both hard and soft measures should be considered to promote inclusive CE. Hard measures address factors that influence physical access (see above on accessibility) and other support that promotes inclusion (e.g., provision of childcare). Soft measures relate to factors that foster affin- ity among participants and lend authenticity to the participatory process. For example, participants should be treated with respect; time and opportunities for their contri- butions should be prioritized; and feedback and inputs should be considered based on their merit and relevance to enhance government performance. 16  Timeliness. Allow sufficient time for the public to provide inputs and, where desir- able, allow for more than one round of engagement. This requires strategic planning as the budget and policy cycles may offer limited duration for meaningful CE. When Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results planning, teams should consider at which stages of the PFM cycle citizen engagement should take place to increase opportunities for impact (e.g., CE during budget prepa- ration versus execution).  Multiple Engagement Channels and Tools. Depending on the scale, scope, time, and cost, a variety of approaches and tools can be used to ensure that opportunities are available for citizens to engage in the PFM cycle. Mechanisms should be guided by the purpose of engagement, which will determine the depth and proportionality of engagement, the con- text-specific factors, and the contextual factors associated with CE approaches and tools.  Sustainability and Scale. Sustainability and scalability depend on whether CE is embed- ded in the country or government systems. Ensure engagement activities are comple- mentary to government programs and systems, so CE can contribute to increasing the effectiveness of existing governance and accountability systems.  Closing the Feedback Loop. In essence, CE entails three steps: (i) the government shares information with the public; (ii) the government listens to citizen voices, feedback, and inputs; and (iii) the government takes appropriate actions based on citizen feedback and reports back to citizens on actions taken. Adopt a proactive approach to report back on the actual outcomes of public participation. Summaries of inputs provided by citizens should be made public, accompanied by an explanation of how or if their con- tributions have been taken into account; and if not, the reasons why. Reporting back using country-specific formats can be done, for example, by publishing a report and making an announcement through radio, television, websites, and social media.  Government Ownership. Government ownership is a critical ingredient for closing the feedback loop and achieving sustainability of CE in PFM. Assessing the regional and country context may help articulate a government’s interest, incentives, and level of expected ownership and participation.  Reciprocity. Citizens and groups should be encouraged to be open about their mission; the interests they seek to advance and how they are represented; their commitment to and observation of all agreed-to rules of engagement (e.g., timeline and processes); and the level of cooperation toward achieving the objectives of their engagement. 17 Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Menu of Citizen Engagement Entry Points in the PFM Cycle Chapter 4 explores potential CE approaches in each of five PFM cycle phases and highlights relevant examples, which are illustrative and not meant to encompass all possible situations. Phase 1: Fiscal Law and Policy Design and Decision Making Fiscal policy determines the way governments manage revenues, expenditures, and debt. Citizen engagement on the revenue side principally concerns the level and structure of taxes or domestic resource mobilization (DRM) –– who pays and how much. Integrating CE in DRM is crucial to ensuring tax policy is fair and reflects the popular will, not just the aims of the elites and special interest groups. On the expenditure side, CE focuses on priorities for public spending –– who gets what services and how generously they are funded — as well as efficiency, effectiveness, and equity issues related to spending for services. The relationship between revenue and expenditure is critical. It determines the fiscal surplus or shortfall, which, in turn, affects overall macroeconomic stability. 18 Citizen engagement in revenue and expenditure policy design can happen at the national level (e.g., through independent think tanks or fiscal councils) or at the local level (sec- toral ministries). For example: Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results  The Rutegama commune in Burundi successfully increased local revenue collection by engaging citizens in the process of tax policy and administration reform. The newly elected reform-minded administrator led several initiatives to achieve success. First, budget literacy campaigns informed citizens about not only how taxes finance public service delivery, but also the rights and duties of citizens as taxpayers. Second, local CSOs functioned as intermediaries to translate the communal tax and budget informa- tion in French to local dialects during church services and community meetings. This was made possible by disclosing the commune’s DRM and budget data to CSOs. These outreach efforts were complemented by administrative reforms in the commune to improve citizens’ trust in the tax system by advancing transparency and efficiency of tax payment and monitoring systems (World Bank 2014).  In Mexico, the government involved citizens in expenditure policy design for the edu- cation sector. The Education Reform Program, a federal government program overseen by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, promotes public participation at every stage of program design and implementation. These engagements aim to improve in- frastructure and equipment in the most vulnerable schools throughout Mexico and en- hance the quality of learning. Under the program, citizens decide how to invest federal funds to develop their schools, and citizens take part in subproject implementation in schools. Early results show that public participation is achieving cost-effectiveness for public investments in these vulnerable schools and may in the long run be replicated in other federal programs that seek to fight the poverty gap.8  In Ireland, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council is an independent statutory body (mainly university professors and ex-regulators) whose purpose is to provide an independent assessment of proposed overall fiscal policy objectives, both revenue and expendi- ture. The council produces a biannual fiscal assessment report as well as an annual pre-budget statement. Reports are submitted to the Minister of Finance and published within 10 days. To support the delivery of its mandate, the council also produces ad- hoc reports including analytical notes, working papers, and other analytical work on the Irish economy, macroeconomic forecasting, and fiscal policy, in addition to an annual ex-post assessment of compliance with the domestic budgetary rule.  Supported by the Public Procurement Reform Project II, the Central Procurement Technical Unit of the government of Bangladesh established a Public Private Stake- holder Committee to share updates on procurement policy and discuss policy guidance 19 and the opportunities and challenges presented by ongoing procurement reforms. The committee is headed by the planning minister and represented by the key government agencies and representatives of leading think tanks, civil society, and the private sector Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results (World Bank 2016). Though rare, establishment of multistakeholder groups and platforms is another approach observed for participatory policy making for consultation and collaboration between citizens and government. In Brazil, for example, the constitution mandates the establishment of management councils at all levels of government, from federal to local levels. More than 28,000 management councils have been established to date in policy areas, such as health, education, and environment. They provide platforms where citizen representatives, ser- vice providers, and the government define public policies and oversee their implementa- tion. They also enable citizens to have a voice in policy making and provide a mechanism for greater downward accountability (Coelho et al. 2005). Phase 2: Budget Formulation During the formulation phase, the budget is prepared in consideration of government fis- cal policies, strategic planning, and adequate macroeconomic and fiscal projections (Kris- tensen et al. 2019). The Strategic Framework suggests engaging citizens may increase opportunities for impact at a time when their feedback and perspectives can be integrated into the blueprint of financial management. The government is the lead player during this phase and often invites citizens, including CSOs, academia, and the private sector, to engage in various forums. The Citizens Budget (CB) is one of the most frequently used approaches to inform citizens and the general public about the budget. CB is a simplified, nontechnical summary and presentation of a local or national budget that it is designed to reach and be understood by citizens. There usually are two types: a simplified version of the executive’s budget pro- posal and a simplified version of the enacted budget after consideration and voting by the legislature. CB can be a powerful tool during this phase when timed well, as it is intended to facilitate discussion between citizens and government and engage with citizens in the process (box 3). 20 Box 3 . Using the Citizens Budget as a Transparency Tool in CE Mainstreaming Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Budget transparency is a prerequisite for public participation and accountability, which are instrumental for a democratic and legitimate budget process . Many budget transpar- ency tools support information sharing and awareness raising . It can be challenging to integrate two-way interactions between citizens and the government . The Citizens Budget (CB) is a transparency tool designed to facilitate discussion between government and citi- zens. These interactions can be integrated with the process of preparing the CB. The figure illustrates the budget transparency feedback loop . A key step is determining the contents and format of the CB by consulting with and ob- taining inputs from stakeholders, citizens, CSO representatives, members of the legislative branch, and other relevant councils . High school and university students also can partic- ipate as part of their school activities . While CBs are produced by civil society groups in some countries, it is critical the government issue them to institutionalize its commitment to presenting its policies in a manner that is understandable and accessible to the public . Another key step is planning for outreach and dissemination activities, and collecting cit- izen feedback on the budget proposal and CBs to make improvements for the next cycle .  In South Africa, the National Treasury and South African Revenue Service jointly issue a CB “People’s Guide” online in Afrikaans, English, Ghosa, Setswana, and Xulu . The 2019 People’s Guide is a four-page summary that explains what the budget is and how it is prepared . The CB includes a one-pager on 2019 tax proposals . Together with New Zealand, South Africa is ranked first on the Open Budget Index, which measures a country’s overall commitment to budget transparency .  New Zealand annually issues its CB “Budget at a Glance,” which provides an overview of all budget information and key highlights of the year . In 2019, the government shed light on the well-being of citizens as the core of CB, unpacking budgets on mental health and well-being of children . 21 Sources: World Bank Group (2014b); IBP (2019); South African Government (2019); New Zealand Government (2019) . Open budget is an approach for government to inform the general public about budgetary allocations along with the CB, budget information campaign, and online open budget por- tals, among others. In Guatemala, Open Budget — presupuestoabierto.gt — is developed Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results by Red Ciudadana (Citizen Network) in support of the Ministry of Finance for the fulfill- ment of the OGP’s commitment on Open and Participative Budget (GIFT 2017a). The tool allows citizens to observe the presentations of each ministry on public resource manage- ment in real-time. This is a game-changer solution for citizens who could not attend the Open Budget workshops in person for logistical, geographical, or disability reasons. The presentations are broadcast live without any prior registration. In Guatemala, Facebook is the most popular social networking site. The Open Budget portal is accompanied by a Facebook page for citizens to post their comments and feedback and for government to respond to them. The World Bank’s BOOST initiative is an approach for establishing and strengthening open budget portals, which serve to inform citizens. Launched in 2010, the BOOST initiative is a World Bank-wide collaborative effort to facilitate access to budget data and promote effective use for improved decision-making processes, transparency, and accountability. Deployed in about 40 countries globally, BOOST provides user-friendly platforms where all expenditure data can be easily accessed and used by researchers, government officials, and citizens to examine trends in the allocation of public resources, analyze potential sources of inefficiencies, and become better informed about how governments finance public service delivery (see box 4).9 Box 4. BOOST in Action: Haiti’s Experience Haiti is the first Caribbean country to make budget data available to the public using BOOST. To support the government’s efforts to modernize its PFM system and increase transparency and accountability of the budget process, the Supporting Budget Transparency in Haiti Project was launched. The World Bank provided in- tensive technical assistance to the government on how to consolidate, analyze, and disseminate expenditure data in an accessible format, following BOOST principles. A web-enabled budget portal was developed to disseminate BOOST data through interactive and easy ways to visualize budget data with charts and maps. Haiti’s BOOST public expenditure database represents disaggregated budget data of the central government from 2006 to 2015. Note: More information is available through the World Bank’s “Open Budgets Portal: Haiti” at http:// boost.worldbank.org/country/haiti. 22 Many countries consult with their citizens and the general public by organizing pre-budget consultation meetings. For example: Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results  In the Republic of Korea, the line ministries preparing their budget requests and the central budget agency collect a nationwide perspective through online idea contests and open discussions on the budget. The ideas collected during this process may ap- pear in the National Fiscal Management Plan.  In India, at the national level, the pre-budget meeting between civil society and the Union Finance Minister takes place in December. During this meeting, civil society members are given a specific time period to put forth their views on what people expect from the budget.  In Bangladesh, at the local level, public consultation takes place on the budget proposal and is led by the Union Parishad (UP), the local level executive branch. It is estimated that around 80 percent of the unions hold this open budget meeting, although the quality of the budget document is not known (JICA 2015). The local administration organizes these open budget sessions in April. Three things happen during sessions: (i) UP officials read out the revenue and expenditure amounts of the last financial year along with the list of govern- ment programs implemented last year; (ii) UP officials share the income and expenditure proposal for next financial year and its allocation for different activities; and (iii) citizens raise questions and queries and make comments and suggestions on any of the issues of the proposed budget and plan. After the open meeting, based on these suggestions, some changes are made in the proposed budget and a final budget is prepared by the UP. Some governments consult with expert groups during this phase. Think tanks, fiscal coun- cils,10 and academia assess government fiscal plans and performance, budget propos- als, and the evaluation or provision of macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts. Then they share their findings with government, usually with the Ministry of Finance and line ministries. These expert groups can be formed as multistakeholder groups, represented by the government, civil society, and the private sector. For this type of consultation to take place, two prerequisites must be met: public access of budget data and information through the open budget process and a budget cycle with a built-in calendar for evaluation and feedback by expert groups. Required by Article 10 of the National Fiscal Act,11 the Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Strategy and Finance has formed an Advisory Committee for Fiscal Policy. The committee is represented by about 30 members,12 including vice ministers, governors, experts, aca- demics, CSO members, and local government officials. This advisory committee must sign off on the budget and the National Fiscal Management Plan. Committee members receive sufficient information to make informed comments. They are free to provide them in 23 writing or in person and have the power to vet or veto proposals as well as audit the entire executive budget. The advisory committee can advise on matters related to the National Fiscal Management Plan; proposal of budget and management of special funds for the Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results fiscal year; guidelines for the budget proposal; establishment, merger, or abolishment of special accounts and funds; and evaluation of the management of special funds. Participatory budgeting empowers citizens by providing them with the power of final bud- get allocation decisions. Launched in Brazil, many municipalities and local governments and some national governments around the world use the PB process and set a certain percentage of their annual budget aside — rule of thumb is 10 percent at most — for this participatory decision-making activity. PB is often used to effectively manage community development plans for mining funds at the municipal level as seen in Mexico (see box 5). Box 5. Management of Community Management Fund by Citizens: Participatory Budgeting Pilot in Cananea, Mexico The Municipality of Cananea in northern Mexico is home to one of the world’s larg- est copper mines, where workers continue to protest unfair pay and violent intimi- dation by private security forces. In 2014, the Federal Law of Rights established the Mining Fund, which aims to provide direct benefits to mining-affected communities through social, environmental, and urban projects. The law requires 2.5 percent of the government’s mining revenues to be pooled as the Mining Fund for the benefit of the mining communities and managed by the municipalities. Municipalities, such as Cananea which had never dealt with a large amount of budget, are now responsible for utilizing the Mining Fund. In 2013, the total income of Cananea, for example, was $8.4 million with a public investment of $371,000. The size of the Mining Fund allocated to Cananea in 2014 was $6.4 million and $7.6 million in 2015. In 2017, the Municipality of Cananea set aside $3.1 million of the Mining Fund for participatory budgeting in Cananea City and four ejidos, or communal lands. The initiative invited Cananea’s 30,000 residents to decide how the municipality will spend a significant increase in its public works budget. A total of 14 public meetings with 615 participants took place. Citizens generated a total of 377 community devel- opment ideas, which were converted into 34 proposals ready for technical analysis, then 31 proposals for public voting. Between September 16 and October 20, 2017, the people of Cananea voted for the first time to identify the 13 winning proposals. Source: Toscano (2019). 24 World Bank-financed operations provide tangible entry points for CE during budget for- mulation phase of the PFM cycle. For example, governments can organize a series of workshops to solicit the opinions of CSOs, community-based organizations, youth groups, Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results think tanks, academia, and journalists about how they can work with their national, sub- national, and local governments to assess community priorities and better allocate re- sources. The World Bank can also facilitate capacity building workshops to open a dia- logue between government and citizens. Capacity building initiatives, which are referred to “budget literacy,” can also be integrated in the education curricula to potentially close the budget transparency feedback loop (see box 6). They can foster the ability of youth and civic-minded adults to analyze fiscal policy objectives and measures of their governments as well as a sense of confidence and social responsibility to participate in the oversight of public resources (Masud et al. 2017). Box 6. Building Budget Smart Generations through Budget Literacy: Russia’s Experience The 2008 financial crisis was a wake-up call not only to governments, but also to parents. They began to appreciate the importance of their children leaving school with a basic knowledge of how their lives and prospects were affected by person- al decisions about budget and financial decisions by government. The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, in cooperation with the World Bank, piloted an initiative designed to encourage responsible citizenship and greater engagement in the budget process in four of Russia’s regions: Altai Krai, Moscow, Perm Krai, and the Republic of Bashkortostan. As part of this initiative, senior school students study and debate budget-related issues using real-life scenarios and information from the regional government budgets. The budget literacy course focuses on public budgets, government revenues and ex- penditures, foundations of fiscal policy, and practical skills for citizen engagement in the budget process. The teaching aids prepared for the course include a textbook and a workbook for students, methodological guidelines for teachers, and an edu- cational booklet for parents. A pilot program for the school course was conducted among students in 10th grade. Equipped with the classroom learning on budget, students attended meetings to ask questions directly to tax officials and met with regional deputies and representatives of financial institutions. Source: World Bank (2017b). 25 Phase 3: Budget Enactment A country’s national legislature often plays a role in the PFM cycle by reviewing and Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results debating the government’s draft budget (including its revenue estimates and spending plans) and authorizing the implementation of the annual budget. Exact responsibilities and processes may vary. In essence, legislatures are tasked with scrutinizing the budget proposals and fiscal policy documents and holding public officials accountable for com- plying with the law, implementing government policies efficiently and effectively, and achieving a nation’s development goals. Citizen engagement during this phase has two fundamental purposes: (i) providing leg- islators with nonpartisan budget analysis; and (ii) providing various viewpoints through public committee hearings and the solicitation of public input. Other essential players are expert groups such as think tanks, CSOs that specialize in budget, and academia. In many countries, legislators and committee members often seek support from impartial budget offices, such as a parliamentary budget office, within the legislative branch for in- formation and consultation. They have thematic experts and could include independent think tanks. Their essential roles are to provide independent analysis on the budget, the estimates, and other documents that include specific matters of particular significance relating to the nation’s finances, economy, or estimates of the financial cost of any proposal under the jurisdiction of the national legislature. A budget office functions as an information interme- diary for legislators to help them engage in the national budget process more meaningfully. The creation of budget offices within the legislature can be considered an institutional in- novation to enable and inform citizens along with legislatures on budget estimates. They can provide objective analysis of the budget, government estimates, economic trends, fiscal policy, and the financial implications of government proposals to the legislature and inform citizens on the budget analysis and estimates. Legislative committees often organize public hearings to seek input from think tanks, academics, or thematic experts on specific issues in the executive’s budget proposals. Public committee hearings and the solicitation of public inputs are the two primary con- sultation mechanisms for the legislature to engage citizens during this phase of the PFM cycle. It should be noted that access to hearings is often restricted by several factors, in- cluding the size of the hearing room and the location of government, which is usually in the capital city. Security considerations also limit access by the general public. As such, it is important for national or issue-specific CSOs to play a mobilizing role to canvas stake- holders for inputs through various mechanisms (e.g., meetings, social media, consulta- 26 tions, web-based outreach, and focus groups) and distill their input to committees. For example, in Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, formal press releases advertise the opportunity for public inputs. The Parliament of Uganda is often held up as an exam- Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results ple of a legislature that actively reaches out to CSO groups during committee inquiries and through other mechanisms, such as all-party groups and caucuses. Experts may be invited to comment or provide technical evidence to the legislature during this phase. Informally, legislators will also hear feedback and lobbying from their local- and national-level constituents. For example:  In Mexico, frank and open dialogue between civil society and the Congress of the Union has been a major driver of increased fiscal openness and transparency.  In the Republic of Korea, the Special Committee on Budgets of the National Assembly invites experts to a publicly broadcasted hearing. These experts are selected in coordi- nation with political parties to include a diverse range of specialists.  In South Africa, parliamentary committees are required to invite civil society and ex- perts to comment every time the budget is tabled. The public can make submissions in writing and be present at hearings. Reports for the committees are generated from the consultations. A new parliamentary budget office has been established of technical staff to collect information, including civil society input, and advise parliament. Phase 4: Budget Implementation and Accounting and Reporting During this phase, the budget is first executed within a system of effective standards, processes, and internal controls, ensuring that resources are obtained and used as in- tended. Accurate and reliable records are maintained on budget implementation. Then, information is produced and disseminated at appropriate times to meet decision-mak- ing, management, and reporting needs (Kristensen et al. 2019). The key players include government at different levels, CSOs, journalists, community groups, the private sector, academia, and the general public. Many governments at different levels established open budget portals to inform citizens by allowing them to follow the money and monitor the status of budget implementation. For example:  The Irish government’s Where Your Money Goes allows citizens to examine gross (voted and nonvoted) government expenditure over a period of 10 years. It provides snapshots of the government expenditure and estimated expenditure on a yearly basis, disag- 27 gregated summaries for the main categories of expenditure (e.g., social protection, health, and education), and a high-level summary of expenditure related to serving the national debt and European Union contributions, among other types of analysis.13 This Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results interactive, infographics-based platform makes budget allocation and implementation easily understandable for the general public.  Tunisia’s Budget Transparency Initiative, supported by a World Bank Development Policy Financing series, promoted improved transparency and accountability and greater public participation in policy making after the country’s transition following the 2011 revolution. All citizens can now view budget data — from the most general and simplified to the most detailed and specific — through a national web portal Miza- niatouna (Our Budget). All financial information dating back to 2008 on state revenue and expenditure, treasury funds, and public administrative entities is open to everyone (Grandvoinnet and Chasara 2019). Advances in budget transparency were recognized through substantially higher scores on the 2015 and 2017 Open Budget Index, which along with the new Tunisian Internet Agency, enabled Tunisia to join the OGP in early 2014 (World Bank 2019).  Eight states in the United States — Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — have created user-friendly websites that provide users with accessible information on state spending. Citizens can find information on specific expenditures through easy-to-use features, such as a subtotaling function. It provides an automatically generated annual sum by department and specific expenditure category, saving site visitors from having to add up individual amounts for themselves. All except Louisiana also offer a multitiered search function, allowing users to search by department and expenditure category simultaneously, or to conduct a second search in- side the parameters of their first search. All eight states additionally provide website us- ers with recipient-specific information on subsidy awards. Four leading states — Min- nesota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — provide information on the value of the subsidies received by companies through three of that state’s more significant and active subsidy programs, and all eight make the information downloadable for offline analysis.  Andhra Pradesh, a state in India, has established a portal to trace wage payment of the country’s largest workfare scheme, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. It ensures public finance is delivered to program beneficiaries. Governments are not the only stakeholder to utilize the concept of open budget portals to inform the general public on budget allocation and implementation. In 2008, a winner of the U.K. government’s “Show Us a Better Way” competition was the Open Knowledge Foundation’s platform, Where Does My Money Go?14 The platform is enabled by the U.K. 28 government’s open data and provides citizens with information analysis and visualization of U.K. public spending. Budget information may be an area where government and civil society can partner together to advance transparency and accountability. Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Governments can consult and collaborate with citizens to ensure the budget is executed as intended for public service delivery. Through PB, citizens are also empowered and during the implementation of the PB-selected projects, citizens can be invited for consultation as well. Civil society actors can take proactive initiatives to hold government or elected officials to account by following the budget and expenditure data during this phase. For example:  Burkina Faso’s Economic Governance and Citizen Engagement Project supports citizen monitoring and feedback on health and education service delivery to combat high rates of absenteeism, leakage of public funds, service providers’ demands for unregulated fees for services, shortages of textbooks, pharmaceutical products, and school feed- ing activities. Citizen Engagement Units, which are represented by government and civil society, were formed in 2017 to ensure delivery of services and redress of service user grievances. During 2019, the project plans to conduct community scorecards to measure the effectiveness of these units and develop service delivery action plans or compacts to ensure delivery of services (World Bank 2018).  In Cameroon, radio is a powerful instrument, widely used and unmatched in its reach to the poor and inhabitants of remote communities. To promote budget transparency in education and health services and constructive discussions between government and citizens, the Budget Transparency Initiative (BTI) piloted by the World Bank commis- sioned a series of broadcasts. In the District of Adamawa, 64 programs were developed and broadcast as part of a longstanding series on decentralization that also discussed issues of governance. Programs were broadcast in French and Fufulde. They informed people about the activities undertaken under the BTI and budget transparency more generally. Listeners could call in and direct questions to the guest for the day, includ- ing mayors and other public officials. Results of the BTI include increased tax revenues for one local council, changes in the willingness of parents to contribute to school fi- nancing, and greater trust between mayors and constituents (Alton and Agarwal 2013).  In India, social audits were first made statutory in the 2005 Rural Employment Act and have become an empowering tool for citizens to monitor budget implementation under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program. The social audit process, as it is being implemented by the Society for Social Audit, Accountability, and Trans- parency in the State of Andhra Pradesh, includes public vigilance and verification of the various stages of implementation. This is followed by social audit public hearings 29 where information gathered is read out publicly. People are given an opportunity to question officials, seek and obtain information, verify financial expenditure, examine the provision of entitlements, and critically evaluate the quality of works as well as the functioning of the program staff (Farzana and Iversen 2014). Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results  Supported by the Public Procurement Reform Project II, the government of Bangladesh collaborates with Brac University (BRAC) and its BRAC Institute of Governance and De- velopment (BIGD) to pilot citizens’ monitoring of procurement contracts at the local level. Facilitated by the BIGD, citizens committees in four subdistricts have been con- vened to bring together community members, private sector contractors, and the local procurement entities. The citizens’ committees jointly conduct procurement oversight to collectively resolve procurement challenges. They share findings at divisional work- shops, which are attended by government officials. According to a qualitative percep- tion opinion research of the procurement reforms, 79 percent of respondents (i.e., tenderers, procuring entities, civil society members, media, and financial institutions) expressed positive responses toward transparency in public procurement, 77 percent suggested that the procurement reforms have been effective, and 82 percent indicated that the project activities improved accountability in procurement (World Bank 2016).  The Municipality of Cascais is a coastal resort town in Portugal, just west of Lisbon. From 2011 to 2017, the municipality engaged more than 150,000 citizens (73 percent of population) in the process of PB and implemented 88 projects worth €15.82 million (GIFT 2017b). In Cascais, CE continues beyond citizens’ voting to identify community development projects through PB. For example, once the announcement of the win- ning projects is made and the implementation phase starts, the municipality arranges meetings with the authors of the winning proposals to understand citizens’ perspec- tives regarding the execution of projects and reconcile financial, technical, and legal gaps, if any, for the municipality to execute the projects. Additionally, Associação In Loco, an independent organization, conducts annual analysis of the PB practice and publishes results to ensure transparent implementation of PB and selected projects and to learn lessons to improve the PB exercise. The past assessment found that the “shared conception” of PB supports the “establishment of a new relationship between citizens and local authorities.” This model of having independent evaluation has been replicated in various municipalities in Portugal and by others in Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Sweden, and the United States (GIFT 2017b).  South Africa’s Mobile Social Accountability and Monitoring (MobiSAM) is a mobile ap- plication and web-, WhatsApp-, and Facebook-based platform that connects Graham- stown and Makana residents in the Eastern Cape province, to their local municipality. Through the platform, the Makana Municipality receives reports from citizens on the 30 budget implementation process, and budgets are spent on various service delivery out- comes. MobiSAM then tracks what response municipal officials made. Between March 2017 when the latest version of the platform launched and September 2018, MobiSAM received 993 reports. By then, about 14 percent of the 993 reports had been resolved Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results and less than 3 percent were closed to the satisfaction of reporters (Reynell, Thinyane, and Sieborger 2012).  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques supports CE to achieve greater trans- parency and accountability in combating corruption in Brazil. A group of Brazilian civic hackers developed a platform that supports the work of Rosie, a robot that analyzes the expenses of congress members based on available budget data. Rosie flags “suspi- cious” expenses made by the representatives and tweets the results to invite citizens to hold representatives accountable and provide justifications. Rosie is accompanied by Jarbas, an application programming interface, through which citizens can easily browse data combined from different sources to see whether a certain “suspicious” expense is indeed a misuse of public funds. This type of AI allows what has been im- possible to date — scan and analyze large datasets and present important information to the public in digestible bites in a transparent manner, so citizens can focus on hold- ing representatives to account (Cordova and Gonçalves 2019). Phase 5: External Scrutiny and Audit During this phase, public finances are independently reviewed, with external follow-up on whether the executive has implemented the recommendations for improving the PFM cycle (Kristensen et al. 2019). One of the key stakeholders during this phase is the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI). SAIs scrutinize government financial information and are tasked to ensure transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. Given their importance, the In- ternational Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) sets international norms and standards to provide guidance for SAI engagement with external stakeholders (see box 7). The SAIs lead in various CE activities to advance transparency, accountability, and partic- ipation in PFM. For example:  SAIs can inform citizens about their audit findings and recommendation by publishing their reports and undertaking a robust media strategy to disseminate the findings. CSOs and jour- nalists can also help SAIs in demystifying, simplifying, and disseminating audit findings.  SAIs can consult with citizens by holding annual meetings with CSOs, citizens, and other stakeholders (i.e., citizens participation in nonbinding consultation processes). Through this process, SAIs can receive proposals on entities and programs to be audit- ed for their potential inclusion in the annual plan. 31  SAIs can consult with CSOs, academia, and other stakeholders or stakeholder groups by calling for thematic workshops to receive a more focused contribution to the audit process. Often times, a thematic approach is taken by a sector (e.g., health, educa- Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results tion, public transportation, or environment) with organizations specialized in partic- ular topics or problems of public interest. For example, Argentina’s Court of Audit has mainstreamed and institutionalized this process with great success.15  SAIs can consult with CSOs based on their performance and social audits on selected service delivery areas. Beginning in 2012, the Commission on Audit of the Philippines partners with CSOs to conduct the Citizen Participatory Audit (Tan 2019). While international consensus for proactive CE for SAIs continues to grow as evident from OGP commitments, for example,16 most SAIs continue to have limited interaction with citizens. That phenomenon exists partly because citizens and CSOs lack an understanding of the role and capacities of SAIs, and vice versa. Many SAIs and CSOs are not sure why they should engage with each other — or if such engagement is even possible given SAIs’ formal mandates — and what the benefits would be from collaboration, given their lim- ited experience and capacity to collaborate in a meaningful and results-oriented way. The World Bank can support client countries in opening space for SAIs and citizens to interact to enhance external oversight for greater transparency and accountability (see box 8). 32 Box 7. International Norms and Standards for SAI Engagement Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results The guidelines of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) have incorporated citizen engagement as follows:  The Lima Declaration, the International Standards of Supreme Audit Insti- tutions (ISSAI) 1 issued by INTOSAI in 1977, sets the basic principles for SAI independence and details other important aspects of its investigative man- dates and practices to ensure its effective functioning. The Mexico Declara- tion, ISSAI 10 in 2007, discussed the rights and obligations of SAIs to report on their work and acknowledged their discretionary power to decide on the timing of publication and dissemination of audit reports within the context of the respective national laws.  INTOSAI’s 2010 Johannesburg Accords prescribed the Framework for Com- municating and Promoting the Value and Benefits of SAIs. This framework involves both an external focus for SAIs to make a difference in the lives of citizens and an internal focus to lead by example by being a model institu- tion. It has been incorporated into ISSAI 20 and 21, which emphasize the rel- evance of transparency and accountability and recommend institutionalizing formal mechanisms through which the public can make suggestions and file complaints related to alleged irregularities of public entities.  Formally issued in October 2013, ISSAI 12 further emphasizes that SAIs must effectively communicate and demonstrate relevance to citizens by reporting audit results in a way that facilitates their holding public officials accountable. This involves being responsive to risks and changes in their external environ- ment, communicating more effectively with stakeholders, and being a credible source of independent and objective insights to improve government agencies. Moreover, the standard emphasizes the importance of SAIs leading by example by adopting transparency and accountability practices themselves.  The guide of the INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee to increase the use and impact of audit reports also identifies the critical role that civil society organizations, citizens, and the media should play to support SAIs´ work and ensure the implementation of audit recommendations. Sources: IBP (2019); INTOSAI (1977, 2007, 2010a,b,c,d; 2013). 33 Box 8. Public Participation in the Audit Process: Nepal’s Experience Building on the well-tested Action Learning approach, the Advancing Public Partici- Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results pation in the Budget and Audit Process Program of the World Bank developed a par- ticipatory methodology to galvanize and inspire Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) and civil society organizations to engage effectively and co-create solutions to enhance public oversight. The program’s aims are:  Facilitate a “safe space” for raising awareness and promoting exchange of knowl- edge and experiences to build the political will of SAIs and CSOs to work together to design and implement concrete actions toward increasing the effectiveness of value for money audits in participating countries;  Facilitate the linkage between citizen oversight work (using social accountability tools and approaches) with horizontal accountability organizations, such as SAIs, for greater effectiveness and enhanced results;  Promote and facilitate the creation of multistakeholder groups (coalition building) to work together to identify problems (systemic governance challenges) and strat- egize solutions (actions must be taken to enhance the value for money from the government’s budgetary spending);  Strengthen the national capacities of SAIs and CSOs to implement tools and me- chanics for collaboration; and  Foster regional dialogues to bring about consensus on the importance of SAI and CSO engagement by disseminating the results achieved by participating countries when implementing collaborative mechanisms (regional dialogues are also aimed at inspiring other countries in the region to explore opportunities for implement- ing similar actions or strategies). In addition, supported by the Program for Social Accountability, the Office of the Au- ditor General, and Ministry of Finance of Nepal, Policy Research and Development Nepal implemented an innovative program that resulted in the Office of the Auditor General of Nepal (OAGN) undertaking participatory audit at the local government lev- el. The coalition of CSOs have been collaborating with the OAGN to incorporate citizen participation in the audit process in its Five-year Strategic Plan in 2016. In Febru- ary 2017, OAGN initiated the Citizens Participatory Audit in five districts affected by earthquakes and involved eight CSOs in performance audits. Source: World Bank (2015). 34 Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Conclusion This note provides a menu of CE entry points in PFM with examples. After establishing the concepts and rationale for CE in PFM, it illustrates how CE in PFM is an integral part of international standards and initiatives for PFM. It also highlights the many ways to mainstream CE in PFM; for example, either through engagement with broader public or with select specialized groups. Also, there are many ways to engage citizens in PFM across the CE dimensions. Based on a desk review, potential entry points for CE in the PFM cycle and key principles are summarized. The identification of suitable approaches and tools depends on the purpose of engage- ment as well as the contextual factors. Regional and country contexts matter to design and implement citizen engagement well. Understanding the broad contextual elements or enabling environment that bear on the form and effectiveness of CE becomes critical. Teams can use the Social Accountability Framework for conducting an analysis of factors that influence CE in operations (see appendixes C and D). This framework helps unpack the context around the five constituent elements17 for CE as well as the interplay among them and the multiple contextual factors mediating their relationships. It also helps as- sess opportunities and challenges. Examples of CE in PFM along key dimensions — inform, consult, collaborate, and em- 35 power — indicate three key observations. First, CE in PFM needs to move beyond transparency and do so not for the sake of engage- ment but to achieve higher development objectives (e.g., state building, macroeconomic stability, and efficient and effective resource allocation and service delivery). The exam- Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results ples also indicate dynamic activities and initiatives are taking place to advance transpar- ency in the PFM cycle. While transparency is the foundation for effective CE, experience suggests that it alone will not automatically lead to participation to achieve greater ac- countability and results. Task teams need to carefully consider how engagement with citizens can contribute to attaining development objectives that are based on transparency achieved to date. Second, the experience of CE in PFM highlights the importance of capacity. While not ev- eryone needs to be a budget expert, it is critical that both government officials and citizens have a basic understanding of key budget information — what it is, why it matters, how and when citizens can engage, and the outcomes of their engagement. As this note ex- plains, various budget transparency tools such as the CB, can be further utilized to advance budget literacy. Budget literacy also should refer to civic-mindedness and inclusive en- gagement so the budget and its implementation reflect the voices of ordinary people, the poor, and marginalized (e.g., women, children and youth, elderly, disabled, refugees and internally displaced persons, indigenous peoples, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities). Finally, teams need to prioritize and sequence relevant CE interventions to achieve higher development objectives and results. Examples indicate two engagement approaches in PFM areas: (i) engagement with the general public for government to receive broad feed- back; and (ii) engagement with small, select, and specialized groups (e.g., CSOs, academia, think tanks, and multistakeholder committees) so government can receive in-depth feed- back on particular aspects of the PFM cycle. These two approaches are complementary for government to gain legitimacy and be effective and efficient in budget allocations and service delivery. The important question then is how to identify entry points and prioritize and sequence CE interventions based on country contexts. 36 References Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Agarwal, Sanjay, and Warren A. Van. 2011. “How, When, and Why to Use Demand-Side Governance Approaches in Projects.” Social Development How-To Notes, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.world- bank.org/curated/en/823571468331836996/How-when-and-why-to-use-demand-side-governance-ap- proaches-in-projects. Alton, Martin Luis, and Sanjay Agarwal. 2013. “Increasing Accountability through Budget Transparency at the Subnational Level in Cameroon.” Cameroon — Budget Transparency Initiative, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/388321468163158363/Cameroon-Budget-transparency-ini- tiative-increasing-accountability-through-budget-transparency-at-the-subnational-level-in-Cameroon. Beschel, Robert P., Blair James Cameron, Jana Kunicova, and C. Bernard Myers. 2018. Improving Public Sector Performance: Through Innovation and Inter-Agency Coordination. Global Report Public Sector Performance. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/833041539871513644/Im- proving-Public-Sector-Performance-Through-Innovation-and-Inter-Agency-Coordination. Coelho, Vera Schattan P., Barbara Pozzoni, and Mariana Cifuentes. 2005. “Participation and Public Policies in Brazil.” In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century, edited by John Gastil and Peter Levine, 174–184. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/media/57a08c8c40f0b649740012ae/participation_and_public_policy.pdf. Cordova, Yasodara, and Eduardo Vicente Gonçalves. 2019. “Rosie the Robot: Social Accountability One Tweet at a Time.” Governance for Development (blog), October 29. https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/rosie-ro- bot-social-accountability-one-tweet-time. De Renzio, P., and J. Wehner. 2015. The Impacts of Fiscal Openness: A Review of the Evidence. Washington, DC: Global Initiative for Global Transparency. https://www.internationalbudget.org/publications/the-impacts- of-fiscal-openness-a-review-of-the-evidence/. Debrun, X., T. Kinda, T. Curristine, L. Eyraud, J. Harris, and J. Seiwald. 2013. “The Functions and Impact of Fiscal Councils,” IMF Policy Paper, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. https://www.imf.org/ external/np/pp/eng/2013/071613.pdf. Farzana, Afridi, and Vegard Iversen. 2014. “Social Audits and MGNREGA Delivery: Lessons from Andhra Pradesh.” India Policy Forum 10 (1): 297–341. GIFT (Global Initiative for Global Transparency). 2012. “High-Level Principles on Fiscal Transparency, Partici- pation, and Accountability.” Available at http://www.fiscaltransparency.net/pp_principles/.High Level Prin- ciples of Fiscal Transparency, Participation and Accountability. ———. 2016. “Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy.” Available at http://www.fiscaltransparency. net/eng/principles.php#Principle_01/. ———. 2017a. “Guatemala Open Budget Workshops (presupuestoabierto.gt).” Case Study in Public Participation Principles Guide, 39–82. Available at http://guide.fiscaltransparency.net/case-study/open-budget-work- shops-presupuestoabierto-gt/. ———. 2017b. “Portugal Cascais Participatory Budgeting.” Case Study in Public Participation Principles Guide, 15– 23. Available at http://guide.fiscaltransparency.net/case-study/cascais-participatory-budgeting-portugal/. 37 Grandvoinnet, Helene, and Margaret Chasara. 2019. Engaging Citizens in Countries Affected by Fragility, Con- flict, and Violence. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/569791584046574547/Engaging-Citizens-in-Countries-Affected-by-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence. Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results IBP (International Budget Partnership). 2019. “The Open Budget Survey.” Available at https://www.interna- tionalbudget.org/open-budget-survey/open-budget-index-rankings/. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). 2018. Engaging Citizens for Better Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. IMF (International Monetary Fund). 2019. “The Fiscal Transparency Code.” Available at https://www.imf.org/ external/np/fad/trans/Code2019.pdf. INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions). 1977. ISSAI 1: The Lima Declaration. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. https://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_access/IS- SAI_1_ISSAI_10/issai_1_en.pdf. ———. 2007. ISSAI 10: Mexico Declaration on SAI Independence. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. https:// www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_access/ISSAI_1_ISSAI_10/issai_10_en.pdf. ———. 2010a. The Johannesburg Accords: 27 November 2010. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. https://www.into- sai.org/fileadmin/downloads/about_us/Organs/Congresses/2010_Johannesburg_Accords/EN_jhbaccordsen.pdf. ———. 2010b. ISSAI 20: Principles of Transparency and Accountability. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. ———. 2010c. ISSAI 21: Principles of Transparency and Accountability: Principles and Good Practices. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. https://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_access/ISSAI_11__IS- SAI_40/issai_20/issai_20_en.pdf. ———. 2010d. How to Increase the Use and Impact of Audit Reports: A Guide for Supreme Audit Institutions. INTOSAI Capacity Building Committee. London: U.K. National Audit Office. https://www.intosaicbc.org/download/ increase-use-and-impact-of-audit-reports-eng/. ———. 2013. ISSAI 12: The Value and Benefits of Supreme Audit Institutions— Making a Difference to the Lives of Citi- zens. Vienna, Austria: INTOSAI Secretariat. https://www.intosai.org/fileadmin/downloads/documents/open_ access/ISSAI_11__ISSAI_40/issai_12/issai-12-en.pdf. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). 2015. The Study of the Upazila Governance and Development Project in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Final Report. Tokyo: JICA. http://open_jicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12231205.pdf. Kristensen, Jens Kromann, Martin Bowen, Cathal Long, Shakira Mustapha, and Urška Zrinski, eds. 2019. PEFA, Public Financial Management, and Good Governance. International Development in Focus. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/688551551759153145/pdf/PEFA-Public-Financial-Man- agement-and-Good-Governance.pdf. Masud, Harika, Helene Pfeil, Sanjay Agarwal, and Alfredo Gonzalez Briseno. 2017. International Practices to Promote Budget Literacy: Key Findings and Lessons Learned. World Bank Studies. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/966641496910520307/International-practices-to-pro- mote-budget-literacy-key-findings-and-lessons-learned. Ministry of Strategy and Finance. 2014. The Budget System of Korea. Seoul: Republic of Korea. https://english. moef.go.kr/images/TheBudgetSystemofKorea.pdf. New Zealand Government. 2019. Budget at a Glance: The WellBeing Budget. Wellington, NZ: The Treasury. 38 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2015. Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/Recommendation-of-the-Coun- cil-on-Budgetary-Governance.pdf. Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results ———. “Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance.” Paris: OECD. OGP (Open Government Partnership). 2018a. “Fiscal Openness.” Available at https://www.opengovpartnership. org/flagship-report-2/fiscal-openness/. ———. 2018b. “Open Budget Commitments Fact Sheet.” Available at https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/12/OGP_Fact-Sheet_Open-Budget_November2018.pdf. ———. 2019. “Open Contracting Fact Sheet.” Available at https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/Open-Contracting-Fact-Sheet-May-2019.pdf. PEFA Secretariat. 2016. PEFA Framework for Assessing Public Financial Management. Washington, DC: PEFA Secre- tariat. http://pefa.org/sites/default/files/PEFA_2016_Framework_Final_WEB_0.pdf. Petrie, Murray. 2017. “Public Participation in Fiscal Policies: What is public participation in fiscal policy and why is it important?” Fiscal Transparency (blog) June 7. http://www.fiscaltransparency.net/use/what-is- public-participation-in-fiscal-policy-and-why-is-it-important/. Reynell, Edward, Hannah Thinyane, and Ingrid Sieborger. 2012. “Social Accountability Monitoring using Mobile Phones.” Paper presented at the Southern Africa Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference, “The Internet of Things — Smart Homes and Cities — Evolution or Tsunami?” George, South Africa, Sept. 2–5. http://www.satnac.org.za/proceedings/2012/papers/WIP_Posters/185.pdf. South African Government. 2019. “People’s Guide: #RSABUDGET2019.” National Treasury and South African Revenue Service, Capetown, Republic of South Africa. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/ national%20budget/2019/guides/2019%20Peoples%20Guide%20English.pdf. “Social Audits and MGNREGA Delivery: Lessons from Andhra Pradesh.” India Policy Forum 10 (1): 297–341. Tan, Maria Gracia Pulido. 2019. Citizen Participatory Audit in the Philippines: Pilot Phase I (2012–2014). Learn- ing Note No. 3. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/995101557837621617/Citizen-Participatory-Audit-in-the-Philippines-Pilot-Phase-I-2012-2014. Toscano, Guadalupe. 2019. “Participatory Budgeting: Pilot Initiative as a Way of Engaging Citizens in Min- ing Royalties.” Presentation at the conference on “Foundations and Frontiers of Open, Participatory, and Accountable Government,” World Bank, Washington, DC, May 21. Available at https://gpsaknowledge.org/ wp-content/uploads/Theme-2-GToscano_PB.pdf. Touchton, M., N. Sugiyama, and B. Wampler. 2017. “Democracy at Work: Moving Beyond Elections to Improve Well-Being.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 68–82. Touchton, Michael, Brian Wampler, and Tiago Peixoto. 2019. “Of Governance and Revenue Participatory Insti- tutions and Tax Compliance in Brazil.” Policy Research Working Paper 8797, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank. 2013. Global Stock-Take of Social Accountability Initiatives for Budget Transparency and Monitoring: Key Challenges and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curat- ed/en/457241468340847491/Global-stock-take-of-social-accountability-initiatives-for-budget-transpar- ency-and-monitoring-key-challenges-and-lessons-learned. 39 ———. 2014. Burundi — Fiscal Decentralization and Local Governance: Managing Trade-Offs to Promote Sus- tainable Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/970171468014351438/pdf/929140WP0P14530English0web00PUBLIC0.pdf. Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results ———. 2016. “Bangladesh — Public Procurement Reform Project II: P098146.” Implementation Status Re- sults Report: Sequence 18, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/142161483142137686/Bangladesh-Public-Procurement-Reform-Project-II-P098146-Implementa- tion-Status-Results-Report-Sequence. ———. 2017a. World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. Washington, DC: World Bank. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017. ———. 2017b. “Budget Literacy – What’s in it for Russia?” Feature Story, World Bank Group, June 19. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/06/19/budget-literacy---whats-in-it-for-russia. ———. 2018. “ISR – Economic Governance and Citizen Engagement Project (P155121).” Implementa- tion Status Report 35156, World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/490111544716421678/pdf/Disclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-Economic-Governance-and-Citizen-Engage- ment-Project-P155121-Sequence-No-06.pdf. ———. 2019. IDA19 Second Replenishment Meeting: Special Theme — Governance and Institutions. IDA19. Washing- ton, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/696731563778743629/IDA19-Sec- ond-Replenishment-Meeting-Special-Theme-Governance-and-Institutions. World Bank Group. 2014a. The World Bank Group Goals: End Extreme Poverty and Promote Shared Prosperity. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. ———. 2014b. Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations: Engaging with Citizens for Improved Results. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/cu- rated/en/266371468124780089/pdf/929570WP0Box380ategicFrameworkforCE.pdf. ———. 2019. “Tunisia Opening the Black Box of Governance: What the Textbooks Don’t Tell You,” Gover- nance Paper, World Bank Group, Washington, DC. Open Government Tunisia 08162019.pdf. 40 Appendix A Public Financial Management as Usual Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results versus Examples of PFM that include Citizen Engagement Table A.1. Examples of Traditional PFM Activities versus Those that include Citizen En- gagement Business as Usual Business that includes Citizen Engagement Examples of traditional activities: Examples of activities with citizen engagement: The budget is prepared with due regard for  Legal frameworks exist requiring or facilitating  government fiscal policies, strategic plans, and opportunities for CE in budget processes. adequate macroeconomic and fiscal projection. Citizens are well-informed about the annual  The budget is executed within a system of  budget cycle and timing, how they can engage, effective standards, processes, and internal and how their inputs can be integrated. control, ensuring that resources are obtained and Citizens have access to easily understandable and  used as intended. reusable budget information and data. Accurate and reliable records on budget  Citizens and representative groups (e.g.,  execution are maintained, and information is interested citizens, civil society organizations, produced and disseminated at appropriate times academia, and think tanks) or other independent to meet decision-making, management, and budget groups are engaged on policy formation reporting needs. and budget preparation. Public finances are independently reviewed,  Citizens are engaged early during budget  including external follow-up on whether preparation through broad public consultations. the executive has implemented the Public expenditure tracking surveys are  recommendations for improvement. conducted to monitor budget implementation Public expenditure reviews are conducted to  and inform the public. evaluate the effectiveness of public finance. Supreme Audit Institutions collaborate with  citizens to plan and conduct audits collectively (e.g., social audits). Through participatory budgeting, citizens are  directly engaged in budget formulation, decision making, and budget execution monitoring. Citizens can access procurement information and  data, and provide oversight. Gender analyses and other types of budget  assessments (e.g., public expenditure reviews and Citizens Budget) include inclusive service delivery, and citizen engagement elements and citizens are consulted in the process of analyses. Sources: GIFT (2016); World Bank Group (2014b); Kristensen et al. (2019); World Bank’s Open Budgets Portal, see http://boost.worldbank.org/tools-resources/open-budgets. 41 Appendix B Overview of Selected Citizen Engagement Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Approaches and Mechanisms Table B.1. Overview of Selected Citizen Engagement Approaches and Mechanisms Technical Government Citizen Complexity Approached and Mechanisms Participation Participation Time Cost and Skills Required Required Required Information campaigns Weak Low Low Medium Medium Citizens’ charters Strong Low Low Low Low Budget transparency Strong Medium Low Medium Medium Inform* Public reporting of revenues Medium Low Low Low Low and expenditures Budget literacy campaign Weak Medium Low Medium Medium Independent budget analysis Weak High Low High Medium Citizens Budget Strong Medium Low Medium Medium Public hearings Medium Low Medium Low Low Focus group discussions Weak Low Medium Medium Medium Advisory body or committee Medium Low Medium Medium Low Consult, Collaborate, Empower Grievance redress mechanism Weak Low Medium Low Low Citizen satisfaction surveys Medium High High High High Community scorecards Medium Medium High High High Citizen report cards Strong High Medium High High Procurement monitoring Strong High High Medium Medium Public expenditure tracking Strong High Medium High High Social audit Medium High High High High Citizens’ jury Medium Medium Medium Low Low Participatory budgeting Strong Medium High High High Source: World Bank Group. 2014b. Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations: Engaging with Citizens for Improved Results. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. * Activities related to “inform” are necessary but not sufficient preconditions for CE. Closing the feedback loop (i.e., a two-way interaction providing tangible response to citizen feedback) is required to meet citizens’ expec- tations for change created by their engagement, use their feedback to facilitate improved development outcomes, and justify the cost of engagement with them. 42 Appendix C Social Accountability Analytical Framework Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results and Contextual Drivers Figure C .1 . The Social Accountability Analytical Framework State Action Information • Awareness of the issue Linked to the Citizen and State Action • Ability to resolve the issue • Accessibility • Official attidude toward engaging • Framing of the information with civil society demands of voice • Trustworthiness • Intrinsic motivation driving action Linked to Citiza-State Engagement • Incentives/costs linked to inaction for • information on existence and non-elected officials accessibility of the interface • Incentives/costs linked to inaction for • Information strengthning credibility elected officials of interface with key stakeholders (citizens and officials) Citizen-State Interface Linked to the Interface • Type of existing interface • Awareness of the interface • Credibility of interface • Accessibility of interface Linked to interlocution for Interface • Existence of interlocutors • Effectiveness of interlocutors in mediating citizens and state officials on the issue Civic Mobilization Citizen Action • Existence of mobilizers • Awareness of the issue • Capacity of mobilizers • Salience of the issue (agents/organizations) • Intrinsic motivation • Effectiveness in mobilizing citizens • Efficacy • Effectiveness in mobilizing state • Capacity for collective action officials • Costs of inaction Source: Grandvoinnet, Helene, Ghazia Aslam, and Shomikho Raha . 2015 . Opening the Black Box: The Contextual 43 Drivers of Social Accountability . New Frontiers of Social Policy series . Washington, DC: World Bank . Appendix D Unpacking Constituent Elements for Citizen Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Engagement in Public Financial Management Based on the Social Accountability Analytical Framework (figure C.1), table D.1 lists ques- tions teams can ask around the five constituent elements to better understand context, challenges, opportunities, and potential considerations and interventions. The elements include state and citizen actions as well as the three levers of information, citizen-state interface, and civic mobilization. Contextual factors influence these elements and the state and relationship between them. Assessment can help teams identify, prioritize, and sequence relevant interventions. Table D.1. Questions for Teams to Ask around the Five Constituent Elements for CE in PFM Indicative Questions State action Citizen action Are state officials (including elected officials)  Are citizens (or group of citizens) aware of PFM  aware of the value of CE in PFM, cost of not agenda as something needing attention? engaging, and cost (and risk) of engaging? Are aspects of PFM relevant to targeted groups, or  Do officials targeted by the intervention have  do they concern all citizens? responsibility or the authority needed for Do citizens believe they have the ability to make  addressing citizen inputs and feedback? Do a difference on PFM? Do citizens believe their officials know what action to take to address actions will likely have an impact? citizen inputs and feedback? Do officials have Are CSOs and other groups active in the PFM and  a strategy or plan to advance transparency and CE? Do they have capacity to mobilize citizens and engage with citizens? engage with state officials? Do nonelected officials (e.g., bureaucrats and  From the perspective of citizens, are expected  providers) and elected officials perceive any costs benefits (material and nonmaterial) from their or benefits to them if they do not engage with participation likely to be higher than the cost of citizens in PFM? participation? Do officials have reservations about civil society  Are citizens afraid to act or participate in the PFM  motivations to act on the PFM agenda? process? Are horizontal accountability institutions (e.g.,  legislative, SAIs, and other oversight institutions) active in holding officials accountable? Do officials perceive that media may support  mobilization? 44 Information Indicative questions CE considerations and potential interventions Are information and data on PFM accessible to  Simplify information (e.g., utilize infographics)  Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results citizens in ways they can easily understand and re- and make it available in relevant languages. use? Explore technology platforms to make information  Is information available and accessible on what PFM  more accessible to citizens and state officials (e.g., is, why it matters, and how citizens can engage? make PFM information and data accessible across Is the information on PFM significant enough for  agencies within government to improve awareness citizens and state officials to care? among state officials and allow management Are citizens likely to trust the sources of  monitoring on transparency). information and data? Strategically frame information and foster  information, outreach, and media campaigns. Engage with citizens and the private sector to  identify PFM data disclosure priorities. Utilize BOOST and e-procurement.  Citizen-State Interface Indicative questions CE considerations and potential interventions Is there an existing channel or mechanism for  Based on information collected, articulate the  citizens and officials to engage on PFM? CE strategy — such as type of feedback useful to What type of engagement is taking place through  the PFM cycle’s phases, modes, and frequency existing channels or mechanisms? What types of of engagement in relation to time and available citizen feedback are being collected, and how are resource (human and budgetary); types of they used? How frequently does the engagement engagement channels and platforms desired and take place (is it continuous or solicited)? Who required information sharing and outreach. are the citizens and officials participating? Is the Create or strengthen an existing weak interface  channel or mechanism inclusive? between citizens and state officials on PFM — Are citizens and officials aware of available  promote institutionalization of the citizen-state engagement channels or mechanisms? engagement space for sustainability. Is an existing engagement channel or mechanism  If a web-based platform, consider integrating  trusted by citizens and officials? universal access standards and citizen feedback Do interlocutors exist who can facilitate citizen-  mechanisms on the citizen-state engagement state interactions? Do they have sufficient platform (e.g., surveys, suggestions, and complaints) capacity and networks? Are they trusted by to make the platform more citizen centric. citizens and officials? Conduct active outreach and information  dissemination on the engagement platform. Identify trusted interlocutors, build awareness of  the platform, and mobilize citizens. Consider integrating indicator(s) relating to  the availability, accessibility, usability, citizen satisfaction, or government responsiveness through the citizen-state interface as part of the government performance management measure and scorecards. 45 Civic Mobilization Indicative questions CE considerations and potential interventions Do groups or media exist that can mobilize  Identify and use existing CSOs, associations,  Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results citizens and state officials on PFM? and networks to mobilize citizens, traditional Do mobilizers have adequate capacity to mobilize  institutions, and state officials. citizens and state officials (e.g., availability of Promote use of local media and other  leadership and strategy or plan for engagement)? communication platforms. Do citizens and state officials perceive the  Build capacity and create awareness of CE in PFM  mobilizers as credible? to assist CSOs, community-based organizations, and the media or other groups (e.g., youth and student groups) to mobilize citizens and state officials and build budget literacy. Build an engagement strategy by utilizing the  Environment and Social Framework’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan. 46 Endnotes 1 The Strategic Framework defines citizen engagement as “the two-way interactions between citizens and governments or the private sector within the scope of WBG interventions — policy dialogue, programs, projects, and advisory ser- Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results vices and analytics — that gives citizens a stake in decision making with the objective of improving the intermediate and final development outcomes of the intervention.” The term “citizens” is understood in a nonlegal sense. The framework defines citizens as “the ultimate client of government, development institutions’, and private sector interventions in a country. Citizens can act as individuals or organize themselves in associations and groups such as community-based groups, women’s groups, or indigenous peoples’ groups. Civil society organizations can represent citizens and can include organizations outside of the public or for-profit sector, such as nongovernmental organizations, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, foundations, academia, associations, policy development, and research institutions, trade unions, and social movements” (World Bank Group 2014b, 7–8). 2 Data are from Standard Reports, “ST1.2 Approved by Themes.” Retrieved on September 23, 2019, from http://operations- monitoring.worldbank.org/view/index.html#path/global/allprojects/lendingapprvdthemes/. 3 The Strategic Framework defines the dimensions as follows: (i) inform — providing citizens with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities, and solutions; (ii) consult — ob- taining citizen feedback on analyses, alternatives, and decisions; (iii) collaborate — partnering with citizens in parts or all decision making; and (iv) empower — final decision making in the hands of citizens (World Bank Group 2014b, 8). 4 For more information about social audits in India, see http://www.socialaudit.ap.gov.in/SocialAudit/FrontServlet?re- questType=SALoginRH&actionVal=GetHomePage. 5 For more information, see https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-people-are-watching-bjp-govern- ment-narendra-modi-4755176/. 6 These principles are informed by GIFT’s “Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy” available at http://www. fiscaltransparency.net/pp_principles/; the World Bank Group’s Strategic Framework (2014b), and IEG’s Engaging Citizens for Better Development Results (2018). 7 Universally accessible means that GovTech solutions are designed to be accessed, understood, and used by all persons regardless of disability, age, use of assistive devices, locations, or means of Internet access. It applies to hardware (e.g., electronic kiosks, touch screen interfaces), and software components (e.g., websites, electronic documentations, forms, e-portals, and multimedia) (World Bank 2019). 8 For more information see, http://guide.fiscaltransparency.net/case-study/public-participation-in-infrastruc- ture-and-equipment-projects-for-schools/. 9 For more information about BOOST, see http://boost.worldbank.org/boost-initiative. 10 Fiscal councils are independent public institutions aimed at strengthening commitments to sustainable public finances through various functions, including public assessments of fiscal plans and performance, and the evaluation or provision of macroeconomic and budgetary forecasts. The Fiscal Council Dataset of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) describes key features of 39 institutions identified as fiscal councils (as of 2016 end) across the IMF membership. The dataset includes general information, such as the official name and acronym of the council and the date of creation or major re- forms, the main features of the council’s remit, and their specific tasks and instruments to influence the conduct of fiscal policy; as well as key institutional characteristics such as the existence of formal guarantees of independence, account- ability requirements, and human resources (Debrun et al. 2013). 11 Article 10 (Gathering of Opinions about Financial Management): (1) The Minister of Strategy and Finance shall oper- ate an Advisory Council on Fiscal Policy (hereinafter referred to as the “Advisory Council”) comprised of public officials from each central government agency and local government as well as civilian experts, etc. to gather their opinions about financial management (Ministry of Strategy and Finance 2014, supra note 2.) 12 This council is made up of the vice minister from every ministry, the vice heads of the 16 local governments, and about 25 experts from academia and research institutes selected by the Minister of Strategy and Finance. This process was selected to balance political actors (having policy goals) with outside experts to achieve a budget that is fair and addresses the overarching policy goals as set by the preceding consultation processes. 13 Government of Ireland. Where Your Money Goes. https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/ (Retrieved on October 1, 2019). 14 For more information, see https://app.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/. 15 For more information, see http://www.e-participatoryaudit.org/module-02/planning-phase-meetings.php. 16 For example, Colombia, Costa Rica, Georgia, and the Philippines. 47 17 The five constituent elements of the Social Accountability Analytical Framework include state and citizen actions as well as the three levers of information, citizen-state interface, and civic mobilization. Contextual factors influence these ele- ments and the state and relationship between them. Glossary of Selected Citizen Engagement Approaches and Tools Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Advisory body or committee: a consultative group that includes a limited number of stake- holders (e.g., citizens, members of academia, the private sector, and civil society organiza- tions [CSOs]) that provide public inputs on policies, program, and projects. The advisory body can be set up as a formal committee or as an informal consultative group of service users. If often takes an active role in helping the implementing agency fulfill its goals and objectives. Budget literacy: the ability to read, decipher, and understand public budgets to enable and enhance meaningful citizen participation in the budget process; involves a technical un- derstanding of public budgets and the ability to engage in the budget process. Budget literacy campaigns: efforts — which can be facilitated by civil society, academics, or research institutes — to build citizen and civil society capacity to understand budgets in order to hold government accountable for budget commitments and to influence budget priorities. Citizen charter: a document issued by the government agency that delivers the services. It intends to inform citizens about the service entitlements they have as users of a public service, the standards they can expect for a service (e.g., timeframe and quality), reme- dies available for nonadherence to standards, and the procedures, costs, and charges of a service. The charters entitle users to an explanation (and in some cases compensation) if the standards are not met. Citizen report card (CRC): is an assessment of public services by their users through client feedback surveys. CRC goes beyond data collection. Itis an instrument for exacting public accountability through extensive media coverage and the civil society advocacy that ac- companies the process. Often times, CRC is used to solicit user feedback on the perfor- mance of service delivery providers and to give citizens the opportunity to systematically rate and help improve service delivery. Citizen satisfaction surveys: provide a quantitative assessment of government perfor- mance and service delivery based on the experience of citizens and service users. Depend- ing on the objective, the surveys can collect data on a variety of topics (e.g., government performance, citizens’ trust, and service delivery performance and experience). The sur- veys can be administered by a government ministry or agency, private sector, or CSOs. Surveys generally contain relatively short questionnaires. Citizen or user membership in decision-making bodies: a way to ensure accountability by allowing people who can reflect users’ interests to sit on committees or boards that make decisions about policy, regulations, and service provisions (e.g., school boards, utility Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results boards, and committees). Decision-making bodies can include elected and appointed of- ficials, along with citizens and users. The latter can be drawn from a wide range of direct stakeholders (e.g., community members, business leaders, representatives from special interest groups, retired civil servants, interested individuals, and CSO representatives). Citizens’ juries: a group of selected citizens that makes recommendations or action pro- posals to decision makers after a period of investigation on a matter. Citizens’ juries are a deliberative, participatory instrument to supplement conventional democratic processes. Community contracting: the process of community groups contracting for the provision of goods and services or the construction of infrastructure. A community includes groups of individuals, living in close proximity to each other and other social groups, grassroot entrepreneurs, or associations that are able to identify a need and come together to access project funds. The size of the community varies depending on the type of subprojects and includes people from all areas that make direct use of a subproject. The community is usually represented by some form of community-based organization or local project com- mittee that enters into a contract with the funding agency and handles the procurement. Community management: a process that occurs when services, local development activ- ities, or natural resources are managed by communities. They are represented by a com- munity-based organization (e.g., association, cooperative, or user management commit- tee) made up primarily by community members. Community monitoring: a system of measuring, recording, collecting, and analyzing in- formation, and communicating and acting on that information to improve performance. It holds government institutions accountable, provides ongoing feedback, shares control over monitoring and evaluation, engages in identifying and taking corrective actions, and seeks to facilitate dialogue between citizens and project authorities. Community scorecard: a community-based monitoring tool that assesses services, proj- ects, and government performance by analyzing qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions with the community. It usually includes interface meetings between service providers and users to formulate an action plan to address any identified problems and shortcomings. Consultations: the primary tool to promote stakeholder participation in project design and implementation. Depending on the objective, consultations can be conducted in various ways (e.g., public hearings, focus group discussions, advisory body or committee, or on- line consultations). Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Focus group discussion: a small group of six to ten people led through an open discus- sion by a skilled moderator. The group needs to be large enough to generate rich dis- cussion, but not so large that some participants are left out. In some country contexts, gender-sensitive focus group discussions have been utilized to ensure that the voices of women are represented. Grievance redress mechanism (or complaints-handling mechanism): a formal (i.e., in- stitutionalized) system by which queries or clarifications about the project or program are responded to, problems with implementation are resolved, and complaints and grievanc- es (e.g., staff performance, corruption, quality of service delivery, or procurement com- plaints) are addressed efficiently and effectively. Independent budget analysis (IBA): a process where civil society stakeholders research, explain, monitor, and disseminate information about public expenditures and invest- ments to influence the allocation of public funds through the budget. IBA can be applied at different levels of government such as local, state, provincial, and national levels. Information campaigns: processes to provide citizens with information about government plans, projects, laws, activities, services, and so on. A variety of approaches can be used such as public meetings, mass media, printed materials, public performances, information kiosks, websites, social media platforms, SMS (i.e., texting), and radio, among others. Input tracking: monitoring the flow of physical assets and service inputs from central to local levels. It is also called input monitoring. Integrity pacts: a transparency and accountability tool that allows participants and public officials to agree on rules to be applied to a specific procurement. It includes an “honesty pledge” by which involved parties promise not to offer or demand bribes. Bidders agree not to collude in order to obtain the contract; and if they do obtain the contract, they must avoid abusive practices while executing it. Participatory budgeting (PB): a process through which citizens participate directly in budget formulation, decision making, and monitoring of budget execution. It creates a channel for citizens to give voice to their budget priorities. PB’s aim is to increase efficiency in budget allocation by offering a set of mechanisms to citizens to define and incorporate their own priorities into the public budget; improve accountability and management by allowing citi- zens and government to discuss budget constraints together, make trade-offs, and optimize the use of scarce public resources; promote transparency in the hopes of reducing corrup- tion and bureaucratic inefficiencies; and encourage pro-poor policy selection. Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results Participatory monitoring: the active participation of project beneficiaries, project-affected people, communities, and other primary stakeholders in designing and implementing the monitoring. It is built around agreeing on expected results, defining how to track progress jointly with project beneficiaries, collecting required data, undertaking analysis, and devel- oping practical action plans to resolve identified problems. Participatory monitoring is used to increase the voices and ownership of primary stakeholders, to improve the relationship between the state and citizens, and to hold the state and service providers to account. Participatory physical audit: community members taking part in the physical inspection of project sites, especially when there are not enough professional auditors to inspect all facilities. Citizens measure the quantity and quality of construction materials, infrastruc- ture, and facilities. Participatory planning: a process that convenes a broad base of key stakeholders, on an interactive basis, to generate a diagnosis of the existing situation and develop appropriate strategies to solve jointly identified problems. Project components, objectives, and strat- egies are designed in collaboration with stakeholders. It is often considered part of com- munity development, where subproject proposals are meant to be identified in an open, participatory, and egalitarian way by a fully informed citizenry. Procurement monitoring: in the context of social accountability, refers to independent, third-party monitoring of procurement activities by citizens, communities, or CSOs to ensure there are no leakages or violation of procurement rules. Where procurement in- formation and data can be made easily available through e-Procurement and nongovern- ment stakeholders have easy access to the internet, independent parties can monitor such publicly available procurement data. Information sessions, townhalls, or public meetings can be held to inform interested citizens and potential contractors of project tenders and results. Procurement information can also be displayed on billboards in relevant public areas, posted on the government websites and social media platforms, and published in national and local newspapers. Public displays of information: the posting of government information — usually about projects, budgets, or services — in public areas, such as on billboards or in government offices, schools, health centers, community centers, project sites, and other places where communities receive services or discuss government affairs. Information can also be dis- played virtually on the government agencies’ websites and their social media platforms. Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS): a method to assess the efficiency of public spending and the quality and quantity of public services. Participatory PETS refers to en- gaging citizen groups and CSOs to track the flow of public resources for the provision of Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in Public Financial Management for Better Results public goods and services from origin to destination in order to determine how much of the originally allocated resources reach each level, and how long they take to get there. It can help detect bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and corruption. Public hearings: generally regulated, formal meetings at which members of the general public and other types of stakeholders can attend, ask question, and submit comments on the project or program under preparation and implementation. Public hearings can also be used by government representatives to discuss policies and government service delivery. Public reporting of revenues and expenditures: serves to inform the citizens of the re- sources and amounts of government revenue and how they are proposed to be used. The public disclosure of such information is necessary for citizens to understand the financial resources that government has at its disposal, thereby supporting their engagement on issues of public finance. Public reporting of expenditures also forms the basis for public revenue monitoring, which aims to ensure that public revenues are sent and managed as intended. Public reporting of revenues and expenditures enable citizens to hold the gov- ernment accountable for its resource management. Social audit (also called social accounting): a monitoring process through which organizational, program, or project information is collected, analyzed, and shared publicly in a participatory fashion. Social audits may go beyond the oversight of project finances and procurements to examine all aspects of the program or project, including level of access to information, account- ability and government responsiveness, public involvement, and project outputs and outcomes. Social audits are typically carried out by community groups (e.g., social audit teams and com- mittees), and findings are presented and discussed at a townhall and public forum or hearing. Third-party monitoring (TPM): monitoring by parties that are external to the project or program’s direct beneficiary chain or management structure. TPM is primarily used to provide an independent perspective on project or government performance. It can be con- ducted by CSOs, think tanks, academia, media, or private firms. User management committees: consumer groups taking on long-term management roles to initiate, implement, operate, and maintain services. User management committees are for increasing participation as much as they are for accountability and financial controls.