Belo Horizonte, Brazil:
Co-Governance

 - Case Study Prof. Brian Wampler
Rafael Cardoso Sampaio
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 2
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
Contact:
Sarah Brabender
Project Manager
Reinhard Mohn Prize 2011
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Phone
+49 5241 81-81281
Fax
+49 5241 81-681281
[email protected]
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Alexander Koop
Project Manager
Reinhard Mohn Prize 2011
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Phone
+49 5241 81-81377
Fax
+49 5241 81-681377
[email protected]
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 3
Index
1. Executive Summary
4
2. General Background
4
Country
4
City
5
3. Background and Purpose of the Program
5
4. Structure, Process and Activities
6
Participatory Budgeting
6
PB Regional
6
PB Digital
9
Public policy management councils and conferences
5. Impact/Outcome
10
12
Influence on Political Decisions and Achievements
12
Achievements on Policy Area/Project Targets
13
Number of participants, Representativeness and Inclusion
14
Impact on Democratic Capacities
15
6. Evaluation of the Project - Challenges and Lessons Learned
16
7. Next Steps/Visions for the Future
16
8. Transferability to German Context
17
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 4
1. Executive Summary
In the last 17 years, the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, has institutionalized various formats to
incorporate citizens’ voices directly into policy-making. In general, there are three principal forms of
popular participation that are broadly used in Belo Horizonte: public policy management councils,
municipal conferences and participatory budgeting (PB). In 2009, 41 municipal councils, 52
regional councils and 571 local councils were in place, and 16 policy-specific conferences were
held. The PB program mobilized 40,000 individuals in person and 120,000 online. This complex
participatory governance system allows citizens both to put their issues and themes on the agenda
and to have their say in the selection and implementation of concrete public works. The extensive
public participation thereby serves several objectives, such as enhancing transparency and
legitimacy, using skills and resources of the population, reducing corruption and clientelism,
fighting poverty and inequality, and strengthening democracy.
2. General Background
Country
Brazil is the largest country in Latin America and the world's fifth-largest country, both by
geographical area and by population (192 million inhabitants). By 2011, Brazil had become the
world’s eighth-largest economy based on a diverse set of industries, including manufacturing,
agriculture, mining, financial services and tourism.
Brazil was a colony of Portugal between 1502 and 1815, when it became part of the United
Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. The Portuguese king took up residence in Rio de
Janeiro in 1808 after Napoleon invaded Portugal. Brazil is thus the only country in the Americas
that had its colonizers relocate to the colony. Brazil became an independent country in 1822. The
king of Portugal’s son became Brazil’s new emperor.
The country became a republic in 1888, and slavery was abolished in 1889, making Brazil the last
country in the Americas to do so. Brazil is a ―late industrializer‖ and began the process of largescale heavy industrializing in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1960, the capital of Brazil was moved to
Brasilia, which is located in the central-western part of the country. Brazil was ruled by a military
dictatorship between 1964 and 1985. Following the return to civilian rule, Brazil held a constituents’
assembly to draft a new constitution. The 1988 c defines Brazil as a federal republic formed by the
union of the federal district, 26 states and 5,564 municipalities. The form of government is that of a
democratic republic with a presidential system. The president is both head of state and head of
government of the union and is elected for a four-year term, with the possibility of re-election for a
second successive term.
Brazil's Human Development Index (HDI) improved to 0.813 in 2007, and the country is ranked 75th
on the list released by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). To determine a
country's human development levels, the UNDP takes into consideration its per capita GDP,
illiteracy rates, school enrollment rates and life expectancy indicators. Although Brazil is now one
of world’s largest and wealthiest countries, it is still a country with deep social inequalities, ranking
among the top 10 most unequal countries in the world. In the context of the developing world,
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 5
Brazil has large lower-middle and middle classes, but these remain small in comparison to those of
OECD countries.
City
Belo Horizonte is the largest city in the State of Minas Gerais as well as its capital. The planned
city was inaugurated in 1897, and it has grown to become the sixth-largest metropolitan area in the
country. Belo Horizonte has a population of 2,452,617, and almost 5.4 million people live in the
official metropolitan area. Belo Horizonte’s HDI is 0.880, its GDP is equivalent to €16.6 billion, and
its per capita GDP is €7,527.40.1 During Brazil’s period of economic industrialization in the 1950s
and 1960s, Belo Horizonte became a leading industrial location. Fiat, Mercedes Benz and
Caterpillar all have large industrial factories in the metropolitan region.
Belo Horizonte and Minas Gerais have long been important in political terms. At the beginning of
the 20th century, Belo Horizonte and São Paulo were the key states providing support to the new
democracy. Brazil experienced a military dictatorship between 1964 and 1985. During the
redemocratization period of the late 1980s, the first civilian president to be elected (although by the
legislature) was from Minas Gerais. The current president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, was born and
raised in Belo Horizonte.
3. Background and Purpose of the Program
There are different reasons behind the various institutions for participation used by the local
government.
Conferences go back to the initiative of civil society organizations (CSOs), which established them
in the 1970s. The idea of these conferences was to ally with policy experts and political activists in
order to identify the most important problems in public policies and to propose appropriate policy
solutions. In 1988, this idea was adopted by the federal government and integrated by a
constitutional act (with the passage of the 1988 constitution) as one part of participatory
governance in the new health-care system.
This same constitutional act also established management councils. Both the councils and
conferences are meant to help meet the needs of the population better, to make the system more
effective and cost efficient, and to fight against corruption. The city of Belo Horizonte now uses the
formats of councils and conferences in quite a few other policy areas so as to incorporate citizens
in policy management.
A PB program was first launched in Porto Alegre in 1990; by 1992, it had been adopted in 12 other
municipalities. Belo Horizonte adopted the program in 1993. The purpose of PB is to make the
allocation of budgets transparent, to reduce high levels of structural inequality, to allow citizens to
voice their opinions in public forums and to better integrate people’s needs in the decision-making
process. Since the particular PB process established in Porto Alegre is very cost intensive and
1
Source: www.pbh.gov.br. The exchange rate use dis that of January 20, 2011 : €1 = R$/BRL 2.3 (Reais are the official
Brazilian currency).
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 6
limited in terms of outreach, the municipality of Belo Horizonte set up an electronic process in 2006
that was specifically aimed at giving more people a chance to get involved.
4. Structure, Process and Activities
As explained earlier, there are three principal forms of popular participation in the city of Belo
Horizonte. Public policy management councils and conferences are now instituted at the municipal,
regional and local levels, and PB is a central part of the overall governing structure.
Participatory Budgeting
Belo Horizonte’s PB process has three main components: PB Regional, PB Housing and PB
Digital.2 PB Regional, founded in 1993, mobilizes participation in all nine city regions; its
deliberations focus on the allocation of resources for public works (e.g., paving, sewage, healthcare clinics). In PB Housing, CSOs register with the municipal government; when new housing
units are built, 50 percent of the new apartments are allocated to citizens affiliated with the housing
núcleos. PB Digital, founded in 2006, allows citizens to vote online for specific public works from a
menu of pre-selected projects.
PB Regional
PB Regional defines the investments in all nine administrative regions of the city of Belo Horizonte.
In this modality, the public selects the public works for the two subsequent years through regional
assemblies. In addition to the investments, voters designate representatives to monitor the
execution of these works. This participatory process allocates roughly 4–5 percent of the city’s twoyear capital expenditure (2009/2010: €47.8 million).
Belo Horizonte is divided into different areas in order to structure the PB process better:
Municipal level
Regional level (nine regions)
Local level (42 subregions)
Neighborhood level
Each of the nine regions is divided into 3–6 subregions, and the municipality also divided these
nine administrative regions into 80 planning units (PU). The subregions and PUs are grouped
according to similar characteristics and needs (e.g., number of inhabitants, socioeconomic
characteristics, physical barriers, occupation patterns, proximity, etc.).
2
PB Housing, founded in 1996, mobilizes citizens who lack decent housing and have a monthly household income lower
than €591. It was separated from PB Regional due to the complexity of housing-related issues (e.g., property rights
issues, costs of construction and the distribution of specific housing units to private individuals).
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 7
The budget available for each of the nine regions is determined by two factors:
 Resources for the PB process are split between the PUs according to the Quality of Life
Index (IQVU3) and the number of inhabitants. Thus, the lower the quality of life (measured
by the IQVU) and the higher the population in a particular PU, the more resources the
region will receive.4
 The second factor relates to the level of participation. If not enough people participate in the
subregional forums, the budget can be decreased. The minimum of participants in each
subregion is determined by the municipality based on its population. However, regions
cannot increase their budget by attaining higher participation rates than necessary.
The process is divided into nine phases:
 Openings at the municipal and regional levels:
Every interested citizen can participate in the municipal forum as well as those of the nine
regions. During this first phase, the regulations and guidelines of the PB process are
presented to participants, and the application forms for raising demands are distributed
within the community. Citizens are also informed about current budgetary policies and
investments made within the last two years. During the forums, participants also exchange
ideas on how to better organize their regional communities (e.g., through improvement of
schools, hospitals, roads, etc.).
 Forums at neighborhood level:
During the second phase, in self-organized forums, citizens discuss priorities and projects
they want to implement in their neighborhood. Forum organizers need to take minutes of
the meetings in order to prove that a minimum of 10 people attended each forum.
Depending on participant numbers, the forums take place in schools or even in private
homes. After the meetings, the project proposals can be submitted to the municipal
administration. The deadline to submit project proposals ends one month after the
respective regional meetings took place.
 First approval of submitted project applications:
During the third phase, the municipality and its responsible ministries approve or reject
project applications. If an application does not comply with the regulations and guidelines of
the PB process (e.g., projects should not only lead to individual benefits), or if a proposed
project’s technical and financial feasibility is questioned, its nominators (i.e., the person(s)
who proposed it) will be informed and given a chance to revise the application.
3
IQVU is an index composed of 38 indicators covering 10 different variables (supply, culture, education, sports, housing,
urban infrastructure, environment, health, urban services and urban security), which have different weights in the final
calculation. The index measures inequality in terms of availability of goods and services, thereby identifying the areas
most in need of investment.
4
In the process of distributing the resources of the PB program, the PUs are divided into two groups: Those with greater
IQVU levels make up the ―Special Group,‖ and the other PUs make up the ―Common Group.‖ The Special Group
represents around 30 percent of the municipal population and receives 10 percent of the PB program’s total resources.
The remaining 90 percent of the resources is slated for the Common Group, which represents 70 percent of the
municipal population.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 8
 Forums at subregional level:
The fourth phase takes place in the 42 subregions. During this phase, the residents in each
subregion discuss the submitted projects. Project nominators lobby for their proposed
projects. Before the participants pre-select the desired projects, they are informed about
their subregion’s budget. In total, every region can nominate up to 25 projects. Prior to the
meetings, community leaders negotiate in an effort to obtain support for their preferred
projects. In addition, the projects are presented to the general public during the open
deliberative forums, which give citizens a chance to persuade fellow citizens to support their
projects. At the end of the subregional forums, the participants can elect delegates for the
regional forum. In 2010, a total of 1,700 delegates were elected in the nine regions. The
number of delegates for each subregion depends on the number of people who participate
in the forums. Persons need to be at least 16 to become a delegate.
 Second approval of submitted project applications:
After a region’s projects have been identified, city officials visit all the project sites to
develop a technical appraisal of the viability of the proposals.
 Caravan of priorities:
The municipality provides information on the background and costs associated with every
project proposal to the delegates elected in the previous phase. The delegates will then visit
the areas of the 25 pre-selected public works in their region to get a better understanding of
the projects and a broader vision of the region’s needs. The purpose of these visits—known
as the ―caravan of priorities‖—is to encourage a spirit of altruism among the delegates
before they decide which projects will move forward in their region. The caravan of priorities
takes place on weekends. The delegates are provided with buses that take them to visit all
the sites. Each delegate is given an opportunity to lobby for his or her own project.
 Forums at regional levels:
At regional forums, the delegates discuss and select up to 14 projects per region from
among the 25 pre-selected projects (making a total of 126 citywide). The regional forums
take place one week after the caravan of priorities. The total budget needed to implement
the 14 projects has to be within the budget assigned to the region. In 2009/2010, a total of
109 public works were approved in the regional PB process. After the selection of the
projects to be implemented, the delegates elect representatives to a municipal council and
to nine regional commissions who are tasked with monitoring the implementation of the
projects. The number of representatives for each region depends on the number of
inhabitants within the particular region.
 Official closing of the process at the municipal level:
The regional PB process is then officially closed at the municipal level where the selected
projects were presented.
 Implementation and monitoring:
During the final phase, the regional representatives decide together with the city's
representatives about the final budget to be adopted by the local council. The city and
regional representatives will then jointly monitor the allocation of contracts for and execution
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 9
of the selected projects over the next two years. The representatives meet on a monthly
basis.
Every two months, the municipality publishes a newsletter on the regional and digital PB process.
The newsletter provides information on the PB process, the selected projects and the progress of
the implementation process.
Before the regional PB process starts, citizens receive information via the radio, local newspapers,
sound trucks, flyers and banners. However, mouth–to-mouth sharing of information is also very
important.
Municipal representatives estimate that the costs of organizing the regional PB process can be as
high as €26,000 per region (excluding staff-related costs). The openings and closing events at the
municipal level cost around €43,000.
PB Digital
In 2006, Belo Horizonte’s municipal authorities launched the "Digital Participatory Budget" (DPB)
program, which, unlike the city's regional PB, did not require residents to be physically present to
participate. Instead, the process took place using only online voting that residents accessed with
their personal voting identification numbers. In 2006, Belo Horizonte's municipal government
invested a total of €8.3 million in the digital PB projects (versus €42.7 million for its regional PB
process).
Through the website http://opdigital.pbh.gov.br, any citizen with a voter ID from Belo Horizonte
could choose nine out of 36 projects (one project per region) that had been pre-selected by
municipal authorities as well as by associations, citizens and delegates associated with the
regional PB. The DPB website was developed by an agency hired by the municipality. A unique
feature of the DPB was that, after making his or her selections, the voter could learn exactly how
many votes each pre-selected project had been given so far.
In order to minimize problems related to the digital divide, the municipal authorities set up several
voting kiosks (about 170), vans and Internet access points throughout the city (e.g., in schools, in
the central market and in shopping centers). The 2006 DPB website (which was completely
separated from the offline PB) presented basic information about each project, such as costs,
locations and pictures. In addition, online participation tools were also offered, such as e-mail and
discussion forums. It was not mandatory to discuss the projects before voting.
After the process started, citizens had 45 days to inform themselves about the projects, to ask
government officials any questions they might have and to discuss the projects with others both
on- and offline.
After the close of voting, although the 2006 DPB's website remained accessible online, the
discussion forum was shut down, and the messages that were posted in it were no longer
viewable. Instead, only basic information about the winning projects from each region remained
accessible. Testimonials from the population regarding participation in the online program were
also provided.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 10
The 2008 DPB process was very different from the 2006 one. Only one project was to be
implemented for the entire city. Citizens could vote for one of five project proposals that had been
selected by the municipality without the participation of any associations or citizens. Moreover, all
the proposals were meant to improve Belo Horizonte's traffic situation. The municipality also
reduced the days that people could vote for the project from 45 to 28.
The projects of the 2008 DPB affected a larger number of people because they were far more
valuable than the projects of the 2006 DPB or any of the projects of the regional PB. Each project
for the 2008 DPB was worth roughly €16.5 million versus €8.3 million distributed for all the projects
of the 2006 DPB.
In addition to online voting, a toll-free telephone number was provided for voting in 2008. A total of
11,483 voters used the phone service, or 10 percent of the people who cast votes. Eighty percent
of the rest voted online using private Internet resources, and only 10 percent took advantage of the
270 public Internet access points.
To encourage citizens to participate in the voting, around 800 people were trained to provide
information to interested citizens at 270 official voting kiosks. These kiosks were aimed at citizens
who did not have Internet access in their homes, whereas those with reliable and fast Internet
connections could participate from their homes or offices. The DPB process was also advertised
via TV, radio, the Internet and banners as well as on electricity bills and payroll slips.
There were also several innovations in terms of digital tools and content. A major improvement
was the inclusion of pictures showing the current roads "before" and "after" reconstruction. The
2008 DPB's website also provided details on each of the projects, pointing out their impact, costs,
benefits and beneficiaries. Another innovation was the use of virtual maps to identify project
locations and the public Internet access points for voting.
Finally, participatory tools were expanded. In addition to reactivating the discussion forum, two new
features were introduced. The first one was the possibility of posting online comments and
messages for each project without having to register. The second feature was a chat function that
could be used on pre-scheduled dates. During these chat sessions, representatives of the city’s
Planning, Budget and Information Office took questions, suggestions and criticisms from citizens. A
total of four chat sessions were held. After the vote, the forum and chat functions were shut down.
Although the discussions that took place are not accessible on the current website, the comments
that were posted on it before the vote can still be accessed. It is not possible to post new
comments.
The implementation of the DPB-selected projects are monitored by the same delegates charged
with monitoring the regional PB projects. Information on the implementation process is provided by
bimonthly newsletters and online.
Public policy management councils and conferences
Councils function in thematic public policy areas (e.g., there is an education council, a health-care
council and a housing council). The councils are granted two principal responsibilities: First, council
members have the authority to approve new programs and the annual budgets for the
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 11
corresponding agencies. Second, council members are responsible for oversight, such as verifying
that resources are properly allocated, that bureaucratic units are following rules and that outside
service providers are adhering to their contracts. This oversight mechanism helps to guarantee
accountability. These two sources of authority allow the councils to get engaged at different points
in the policy cycle, such as when policies are proposed and government programs are monitored.
Council seats are allocated to five types of actors: civil society actors (whether individuals or
representatives of organizations), labor union officials, government officials, service providers and
policy experts (often university faculty members). Not all councils include all five types, but
representatives of civil society, labor unions and the government are active in most of them.
Representatives may be elected (e.g., civil society organizations compete with each other while
unions hold internal elections for their guaranteed seats) or appointed (e.g., the government
selects officials to represent the mayor) for terms lasting between one and four years. For most
councils, the number of seats allocated to each group is determined by the formal legislation that
created the council or the internal rules governing the council. All council members need to have
an interest in and specific knowledge related to the activities of their particular council. Council
members are not paid for their participation.
Many councils hold meetings on a biweekly or monthly basis, during which they have an
opportunity to present information, question government officials and debate current issues while
government officials have a chance to provide council members with information. Since all council
meetings are open to the public, they must be announced five days in advance.
Much of the detailed policy work of the councils is carried out at the subcommittee level. These
committees conduct research, draft policy proposals and engage in oversight activities. They then
report back to the larger council in order to advance the council’s work. In the better-organized
councils, there are multiple subcommittees tasked with specific problems.
Complementing the public policy management councils are policy-oriented thematic
conferences, which are held at the municipal, state and federal levels of government. Most
conferences take place over one or two days every one to four years and are attended by
interested citizens and community leaders. In 2010, the longer conferences (e.g., those related to
housing and health care) each had over 1,000 participants. A key responsibility of the participants
is to propose, discuss, debate and then vote on general policy proposals. This helps government
officials determine which policy programs they might want to address.
Many conferences are linked to the public policy management councils in the thematic areas. At
weekend-long conferences, participants deliberate over policy options and seek to define clear
agendas for specific policy areas. For example, in one year, a health-care conference may focus
on mental health, thereby encouraging the government to pay greater attention to the issue. In
another year, the health-care conference may decide that the most pressing issue is family health
and work with the government to strengthen related programs.
Councils and conferences are often interconnected in two ways: First, the representatives for the
councils are often elected during the annual or biannual conference meetings. Second, the
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 12
councils develop the content and the agenda for the conferences. Thus, the key co-governance
institutions are linked together in the hope of creating a more unified policy-making process.
5. Impact/Outcome
The extensive co-governance system in Belo Horizonte has had many impacts. These impacts are
wide-ranging and include the direct incorporation of citizens’ votes into governmental policy, the
building of public infrastructure and the involvement of thousands of citizens in public policymaking processes.
Influence on Political Decisions and Achievements
The Workers’ Party (PT) and the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) have jointly managed the city of
Belo Horizonte as part of a coalition since 1992. Since then, the political coalition has been reelected four times. One of the pillars of their governing strategy has been using participatory
institutions to guide their policy-making strategies. The government is based on a ―co-governance‖
strategy, whereby a broad number of access points allow citizens and community leaders to
influence the shape of policy outcomes. Thus, at the level of representative democracy and the
governing strategies of the elected governments, we can say that participatory governance
institutions are being taken seriously to a significant degree.
These different participatory institutions help legitimate the policies of the government. Citizens
involved in co-governance believe that their voices directly affect policy-making. This legitimacy is
championed by government officials, who claim that their policies are based on public decisionmaking processes that reflect the will of the people. The legitimacy is also championed by
participants, who return to their communities and inform its members that the latter have influence
over public decision-making.
Of course, given the differences in their rules, we should expect that the three types of participatory
institutions have different impacts on political outcomes. What we find is that the thematic
conferences provide opportunities in the policy-making process for CSO leaders to raise broader
thematic issues, to make contact with each other and to chart out political strategies with
government officials. They can also serve as important forums for influencing the general outlines
of policy debates and demonstrating the numbers of individuals interested in the topic. Finally, PB
programs focus on specific, incremental policy-making and allow citizens and CSO leader to focus
on selecting and implementing public works. In these processes, citizens’ choices directly influence
government action. The clearest examples of direct political impact can be identified in the PB
process, in which citizens make decisions that directly affect how public resources are allocated.
Between 2006 and 2010, the government of Belo Horizonte coordinated a national network of PB
programs. For example, it helped strengthen the flow of information between these different
municipalities in order to allow them to support each other. The government’s involvement as the
lead coordinator in the national network demonstrates its support for co-governance.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 13
Achievements on Policy Area/Project Targets
The PB program allows us to clearly document whether citizens’ policy selections are being
implemented. Between 1993 and 2010, citizens approved 1,303 projects, of which the government
executed 1,048 (80.4%). The fact that not all the projects have been executed yet has to do with a
number of factors, such as complexity, legal disputes or, most commonly, because they were only
recently selected by citizens (in 2006 or 2008). In addition, citizens approved the construction of
6,668 housing units, of which 3,323 have been completed (50%). The percentage of housing units
built is lower than that of other PB projects completed owing to the legal complexities associated
with land tenure, the cost of purchasing land and the cost of building the units. Overall, the
government spent over €517.4 million on PB projects between 1993 and 2010.
A key issue is where these resources are being spent. Since the basic principles of the PB
program are based on social justice, the Workers’ Party governments have attempted to allocate
resources to low-income vilas and favelas (villages and slums). With the PB program, resources
are distributed based on the Quality of Urban Life Index (IQVU) and citizen mobilization.
The data provided in Table 1 clearly show that the majority of the resources spent in the PB
process were allocated to projects in poor vilas and favelas.
Table 15
1,000 PB Public Works Projects
Social Vulnerability Index
1993-2008
Social
vulnerability
of region
No. of
public
works
Population
% of total
city
population
High
529
761,453
34
Medium
350
849,611
38
Low
121
627,224
28
Total
1,000
100
Source: City of Belo Horizonte (PMBH) 2009.
Resources
spent in
region (in
BRL)
547 million
315 million
97 million
960 million
% of total
resources in
region
57
33
10
Resources/
population
1.68
0.87
0.36
This evidence shows that 57 percent of the total resources spent in the PB process went to the
poorest regions, which were home to 34 percent of the population. This is clear evidence that the
Workers’ Party governments are fulfilling their commitment to the principles and rules of PB.
This co-governance has also had positive impacts in other areas as well. For example, the
government set up ―civil defense‖ committees to link emergency crews with community leaders in
high-risk communities. At the moment, half of the new city-built housing units are distributed to
families living in areas subject to mudslides and flooding. With the ―Vila Viva‖ program, for
example, an urbanization and housing program aimed at shantytowns, there have been no deaths
due to landslides since 2003. In addition, between 2006 and 2009, the homicide rate in program5
This data was provided by Rodrigo Nunes Ferreirra (PMBH–SMAPL). His efforts to provide data are greatly
appreciated. We would like to extend our thanks to him, Ana Luiza Nabuco and Veronica Campos for their assistance.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 14
related areas was reduced by 80 percent and the crime rate by 50 percent, due in part to increased
community policing.
Finally, Belo Horizonte boasts health-indicator levels that are on par with much wealthier major
urban areas, such as Porto Alegre and Curtiba. Over the past 20 years, government officials have
implemented public policies aimed at addressing not only individual health-care needs but also
broader societal ones as well. Although the government of Belo Horizonte might not have been
able to meet all of the health-care needs of its low-income citizens, it has been able to deliver
better services to more people with lower levels of resources.
Number of participants, Representativeness and Inclusion
There is now a large number of people participating in the PB program in different venues across
Belo Horizonte. Table 2 shows the number of people who participated in 2006 and 2008. The
participation rates for the regional PB program were similar for the 1996–2004 period, and the
rates are similar to those of other successful PB programs in Brazil (e.g., those in Porto Alegre,
Recife and Fortaleza).
Table 2: Regional and digital PB: Participation and Budget
2006 PB
Regional
2006 PB
Digital
2008 PB
Regional
2008 PB Digital
Participants
33,643
172,938
40,967
124,320
Budget (in € mln.)
42.6
8.3
47.8
16.5
In 2006, the PB Digital program had 172,938 participants, or roughly 10 percent of the city’s
eligible voters. In addition, it had younger and wealthier participants than the regional PB program,
so it fulfills its purpose of expanding the target group.
The second issue is the number of co-governance positions established in Belo Horizonte by 2010.
Table 3 shows the number of institutional openings for citizens, union officials and government
officials to directly involve themselves in the public policy management councils. There are nine
regions within Belo Horizonte. In this case, ―local‖ refers to the neighborhood level, which includes
public facilities (e.g., health-care clinics, schools).
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 15
Table 3
Co-governance Venues and Formal Representation for
Citizens as well as Government and Union Officials in 2009-2010
Number of
Municipal6
Regional7
Local8
Total
Participatory-governance
venues
Seats for: Citizens/CSOs
41
309
52
377
479
2,725
572
3,411
Government officials
325
124
1,406
1,855
Union officials
35
132
141
308
Service providers
64
N/A
N/A
64
Sources: See endnotes
Table 3 shows that government officials and citizens are now actively engaged in working with
each other and that there are multiple opportunities for citizens to raise questions and concerns. In
addition, roughly 9,000 people expand and further the debate by participating in public policy
conferences each year. This creates greater opportunities for public learning, accountability and
forging government-society cooperation.
Impact on Democratic Capacities
The involvement of citizens in councils and conferences has had the effect of greatly expanding
the number and range of voices in the policy-making process. The institutionalization of an
elaborate participatory governing (or ―co-governance‖) process blurs the line between state and
civil society as many civil society organizations (CSOs) now find a place for themselves directly
within the state apparatus via participatory institutions. Government officials, in turn, have direct
access to community leaders, and the two can work in tandem to find political and policy solutions
to a wide range of problems. Participatory governance expands the boundaries of representative
democracy by increasing the number of institutional venues that allow citizens and civil society
leaders to directly engage in policy-making processes. These venues and policy decisions
complement, rather than replace, the logic of representative democracy because the institutions
are housed within an already strong executive branch (mayors, governors, president). Thus, the
new policy community creates a process of permanent and ongoing dialogue among policy elites
and community leaders that allows them to develop common understandings of problems. Indeed,
these informal contacts, which run parallel to the formal meetings, make up a crucial bonding
6
Martins 2007: 114.
Regional venues are councils in the areas of: health care (9 venues, 183 citizens, 75 government officials, 92
government workers); social services (9 venues, 54 citizens, 9 government officials); conselho titular (board holder) (9
venues, 45 elected/paid citizens); public transportation (10 venues, 50 citizens, 40 government officials (including two
from the public bus company), 40 union officials); and parks (15 venues, 45 citizens). Source: Diario official de Belo
Horizonte, DECRETO Nº 13,920, April 16, 2010.
8 8
Local venues include: the urbanization program ―Vila Viva‖ (25 venues, 276 citizens, 10 government officials); local
health posts (141 venues, 141 citizens, 141 government officials, 141 union representatives); schools (186 schools,
1,700 citizens, 1,116 school officials); social services (54 schools, 108 citizens, 54 government officials); BH Cidadania
(citizenship) (25 venues, 50 citizens, 75 government officials); and civil defense (48 teams, 400 citizens, 10 government
officials). Vila Viva and civil defense data were provided by Ana Flavia Machado Martins, the chief of staff of the
president of URBEL, via personal communication on April 14, 2010. Education data was provided by Flávia Julião,
director of the school stipend program for the municipality of Belo Horizonte, on April 12 and 19, 2010. Social Service
data was provided by Savio Araújo, executive secretary to the city’s social service council via personal communication
on April 16, 2010. BH Cidadania data was provided by Marcus Annibal Rego on April 23, 2010 in a document entitled
―Estrutura de Gestão do Programa BH Cidadania‖ published by the City of Belo Horizonte.
7
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 16
element that generates trust, shared understandings of policy problems and an increased
awareness of the difficulties faced by states and citizens as both parties seek to devise policy
solutions.
6. Evaluation of the Project - Challenges and Lessons Learned
An ongoing challenge for government officials and participants in these co-governance processes
is how to maintain their vitality. There is a burden on the government to encourage employees to
find new ways to present information, to mobilize citizens and to ensure that the programs respond
to demands. A commonly voiced fear is that the process is becoming too ―routinized,‖ in the sense
that all the actors involved play predetermined roles. From the perspective of citizens, they are also
in a bind. They must continue to pressure government officials to ensure funding for their
programs, but they know that if their criticism is too strong, there is a real possibility that
government officials might withdraw support. In addition, since the co-governance institutions are
increasing complex and interlinked, community leaders need to have more and more information,
which places a great burden on veteran leaders and is discouraging for new leaders because they
often lack basic information and knowledge.
Another lesson learned is that the impacts must be evaluated at several different levels. We should
first assess the impact of public policies before turning our attention to how citizens are expanding
their base of policy and political knowledge and engaging with public officials. The ongoing ―cogovernance‖ tightens the connections between community leaders and government, which can
produce both positive and negative outcomes. On the positive side, we see that citizens are able to
hold government officials accountable, that they have input on which public services should be
delivered, and that they are able to ensure better service delivery through better oversight.
However, clientelism and patronage politics still find their way into co-governance due, in part, to
the intense conflict between government officials and community leaders.
A challenge for all co-governance is how to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society—
often the very poorest and those living in the worst conditions—are able to gain access. Belo
Horizonte has made a certain degree of progress in this area since its smaller planning units (PUs)
are focused on ensuring the participation of the poorest sectors of the city. Nevertheless, it remains
very difficult to organize and mobilize these sectors. This is an ongoing challenge not only in Belo
Horizonte, but also in most places that have participatory governance institutions.
7. Next Steps/Visions for the Future
Co-governance is now an established element in of the policy-making process of Belo Horizonte.
Politicians, bureaucrats and citizens have grown accustomed to having co-governance as part of
the policy-making process. We should expect that there will be changes: For example, newly
elected government officials may place different emphasis on different programs and formats, or
the empowerment of civil society organizations might change how they seek to use these
institutions. In any case, this is a dynamic process rather than a frozen institutional format.
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 17
If the Workers’ Party/PSB coalition that has governed Belo Horizonte since 1993 loses the 2012
election, it is possible that a new government will no longer use participatory budgeting. However,
this seems unlikely given its widespread acceptance as a policy-making and democratic tool.
Likewise, it is obviously also possible that a new government would alter the level of support
provided to the PB program or attempt to change the type of public policy issues subject to debate.
The next digital PB process will take place in the summer of 2011, and the preparation for it will
start in January 2011. The municipality is currently considering whether it should include more
citizens in the first selection round of the projects to be voted on later.
The municipality also plans to launch a new website in 2011, from which citizens can receive
information on the status of the implementation of the projects (e.g., reasons for any possible
delay).
8. Transferability to German Context
In more general terms, you could say that the idea of having citizens participate in making budgetrelated decisions is transferable to the German context. However, in doing so, you also have to
pay attention to the fact that there is no single participatory budget in today’s Germany. Instead,
you can see two trends: On the one hand, there are the participatory budgets that fall under the
general umbrella of austerity proposals related to the ongoing municipal-budget crisis. On the other
hand, there are certain practices that try to take citizens’ proposals into account when trying to
improve service provision and infrastructure. In the latter case, the most important variable is the
specific part of the city inviting citizens to play a role in determining its policies. Examples drawn
from Latin America are particularly well-suited to this kind of participatory budgeting. However,
given the very tight budgets of most German municipalities, it would be particularly challenging to
find ways to fund such citizen-suggested programs. With money so tight, it often happens that
there is no funding left over in municipal budgets to implement the suggestions, which creates a
situation that threatens to diminish the credibility of participatory budgeting over the long term.
What’s more, it must also be noted that participatory budgeting and social urban development
currently have only the most tenuous of ties.
For a variety of reasons, the participatory budgeting of Belo Horizonte offers valuable suggestions
for how to further develop citizen participation and participatory budgeting in Germany. The
process has a budget that is not only set, but is also distributed among the various planning units
(PUs) according to pre-defined criteria. Resources are first split up according to a social index that
tries to makes sure that PUs that are especially in need of infrastructural improvements will receive
more funds than those that already enjoy a higher standard of living. Using this method,
participatory budgeting processes could also be tied to municipal social policies, both of which
have traditionally been handled separately. In the second step, the amount of resources that each
PU receives can be adjusted according to the number of people participating in the process.
Likewise, the municipality can set a minimum proportion of the population (0.5%) needed to
participate. If too few of a particular PU’s residents participate in the forums, the funding that had
been allotted to it can be reduced, and the money that has been taken away can be allotted to
Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Co-Governance
| Seite 18
other PUs with sufficient participation rates. This method guarantees that an appropriate number of
citizens are always supporting the larger projects.
Belo Horizonte’s ―Digital Participatory Budget‖ (DPB) process has resulted in a significant increase
in the number of participants and contributed to broadening participation to include various social
groups (e.g., the poor, the middle class and the prosperous). This is primarily the result of the fact
that the PB program no longer involves minor measures in individual parts of the city but, rather,
significant financial resources appropriated for major projects. Using this process, members of the
population can choose to cast their votes for a wide range of alternatives. However, in this case,
the project proposals are no longer chosen by the population but, rather, by municipal authorities.
This approach matches up well with participatory budgeting processes in Germany, where a
number of municipalities have already organized online PB processes. However, this has not been
done in the case of larger projects. The limited financial resources of German municipalities can
also be taking into account by having a vote over different options, and it would not involve any
major additional expenses to arrange for a similar further development of existing online
participation methods.
Organizing the participatory budgeting system down to the level of parts of the city entails relatively
high costs. Given the expected costs, if this system were to be transferred to Germany, the number
of forums would have to be limited. Using a system of dividing up resources between different
parts of the city with an index like the one Belo Horizonte uses could also be very expensive if the
relevant data were not already available. However, the expenses could be reduced to a certain
extent because most German communities already have data on infrastructure quality and the
social composition of their inhabitants, which could be put to use in allocating PB funds. In general,
having a council of delegates or advisory committee is to be endorsed because these kinds of
panels composed of citizens offer them a chance to monitor the implementation of the projects
they have proposed as well as to play a role in designing the participatory procedure.
Belo Horizonte’s PB model is also transferable to Germany in the sense that it does not violate any
federal laws. One requirement, however, would be having the municipal council determine the
criteria for dividing up PB-related resources. In our opinion, it would also be legally possible in
Germany to have a council of delegates like the one in Belo Horizonte to assist in the citizenry’s
self-organization and serve as a permanent liaison to the municipal administration.