GIFT seeks for your contributions to progressively add more examples of practices that are aligned to the Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy. If you have a case you would like to contribute, please review the methodological framework you need to follow. Then, please submit your case study by emailing it to: Tania Sánchez at email@example.com. GIFT team will review the case study and share their decision to the author within 2 weeks of submission. Accepted Case Studies will be placed in the GIFT Guide on Principles and Mechanisms of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy, where they will remain accessible to thousands of researchers and practitioners worldwide.
A GIFT case is a standardized presentation of a public participation mechanism being implemented with respect to fiscal policy design or implementation in a country. It helps its readers to understand how practitioners have integrated public participation into fiscal policies, identifying the factors that underlie its success (or that constrained its success), and illustrating the critical moments, enabling environment and actions which affected the trajectory of an intervention. Cases should help codify and document why and how a mechanism was implemented, how it works (process, including decision-making, structure, components), how and why implementation either succeeded failed and what complex factor contributed to the implementation process.
GIFT intends to document and disseminate these cases through the Guide’s e-platform among a broad range of interested practitioners who want to learn from experience with mechanisms implemented elsewhere when designing or advocating interventions in their own country.
The Guide covers cases that are being written up some time after the mechanism has been implemented (relying on existing materials, not involving original interviews as people may have moved on), as well as cases that will be written when the mechanism is only just implemented. In this case, authors will do interviews and rely on other evidence that is freshly available.
Cases include primary data collection (through interviews, new surveys -using electronic means to conduct them- or existing surveys that contain relevant questions, and possibly focus groups) and supporting secondary sources, as well as a desk review of project or program documents, any monitoring and evaluation reports, and drawing from any available reviews or existing studies of the particular intervention or of a closely related intervention. Interviews are guided by an interview protocol that is specifically tailored to tease out the detailed processes at the various critical junctures of the project/program design and implementation.
For details, please refer Table 1.
a) Indictors to measure the process (e.g. how many people participated, how they participated);
b) Indictors to measure the impact on the system itself: (e.g. whether public inputs are all publicly available for all to see; whether they are summarised by the implementing agency; whether there is a published response saying how the inputs were used or not in developing or deciding on policy or implementation; evidence the inputs were included in official advice to decision makers)
c) Indictors to measure the impact on public service delivery (e.g. has learning outcomes in school has improved due to public participation in school budget making processes)
d) Indictors to measure improvements in social, economic and environmental impacts (e.g. improvement in SDGs).
2. Basic Facts
a. Stage in Fiscal Policy Cycle: Formulation, Enactment, Implementation, Audit
b. Lead institution: Executive, Legislature, Supreme Audit Institution, Non-state
c. Levels of Government involved: National, Regional, Local
3. Why (For what Purpose)
4. Authorizing environment
5. Who and how
6. Results and impact
7. Lessons Learned
8. Principles of Public Participation in Fiscal Policy
9. Country context
a. Type of government
b. Civic space (size of civil society, regulatory framework)
c. Open Budget Survey scores – the overall budget transparency score, and the scores for public participation. Indicate whether the intervention is measured by the OBS.
d. Score on TI Corruption Perceptions Index
The following supporting materials are seen as relevant supportive documentation that may be included as Annexes to the main case study document.