• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Budget accountability and participation

Budget accountability and participation

Helpdesk Report
  • Becky Carter
July 2013

Question

Is there evidence that a) transparent budgets / budget processes, b) CSOs engaged in budget accountability activities, c) International policy community actively promoting Budget Transparency, Accountability and Participation (BTAP), lead to improved budget accountability and participation? Is there evidence that improved government budget accountability and participation leads to more efficient, effective, equitable budgets?

Summary

Experts agree that the evidence base on budget transparency, accountability and participation is limited and underdeveloped. However there are a growing number of case studies and meta-analyses covering a wide geographic scope and diverse contexts, with a variety of methods and gender sensitivity.

Key findings from the evidence include the following:

  • There are examples of significant success thanks to budget transparency, but positive impacts remain far from systematic or definitive. Four main factors contribute to improvements in transparency, accountability and participation: processes of political transition; fiscal and economic crises; cases of corruption; external influences (Khagram et al, 2013).
  • Evidence on civil society budget work is growing; case studies show how CSO budget activities have been able to improve fiscal accountability and participation, but experts caution that it is premature to reach universal generalisations.
  • To date there is little systematic evidence tracing the impact of the (relatively new) international policy community’s activities on outcomes. Case studies are starting to record the impact of the International Budget Partnership and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative on improved transparency, accountability and participation.
  • Evidence on longer-term outcomes is much harder to come by. Some experts caution there is no guarantee that improved accountability and participation will result in more developmental policies. Others highlight that there is a growing body of evidence that supports the relationship between public sector transparency and better economic and social outcomes, proving that the best way to manage funds effectively and equitably is through accountable and participatory budget processes.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
Water for the urban poor and Covid-19
Helpdesk Report
2020
Civil Society and Accountability in Rwanda
Helpdesk Report
2019
Humanitarian Access, Protection, and Diplomacy in Besieged Areas
Helpdesk Report
2019
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022