faty
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Financial management and administration
Financial management and administration, while being part of the functional arrangement within the field of public administration, almost certainly forms the core of government administration since the State needs to utilise public money efficiently, effectively and economically to render goods and services. The collection of public money through legislation governing revenue collection concerns, what Botes, Brynard, Fourie and Roux (1997/8:314) refer to as taxes, tariffs, levies, fees, fines and loans, with the distribution thereof being referred to as “distributive justice” according to Pauw, Woods, Van der Linde, Fourie and Visser (2009:16). The process of financial management is also outlined in the model of value for money, which, according to Woodhouse’s (1997:47) depiction concerns the 3E-model as described in Chapter 1.
Since all facets of PFM remain central to government service delivery, budgeting remains as a critical component. UNDESA (1998:115) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014:1), for instance, indicate that although the budgeting process incorporates decision-making on all public finance matters, inclusive of the actual management of revenue and expenditures, it reflects the true intentions of government, essentially providing a blueprint to translate funds into programmes and projects. While the scale of budgeting has increased over the decades, budgeting has long been a function of the State. Nevertheless, the OECD (2014:1) affirms that budgeting encompasses all levels of government and that it should not only constitute a specialised activity at the national/central level of government.
Budget preparation and implementation, therefore, remain prerequisites for the successful implementation of government policy. All government departments are required to provide estimates of expenditure and a budget plan to allocate available resources equitably for the successful implementation of government projects.
Defining the State within the context of public administration
Willoughby (1896:8) argues that “by the term government is designated the organisation of the State, — the machinery through which its purposes are formulated and executed … [and that] … while the term State is, when strictly considered, an abstract term, government is emphatically concrete.” Chamberlain (1898:3) concurs and emphasises that “the State is the precedent, underlying verity which government is intended to embody and represent [whereas] the government is the organisation through which the State acts, a contrivance whose sole use is to realise the purpose of the State.” Marek (in Robinson, 2013:559) also provides a core interjection in that “the identity and continuity of the State are not affected by changes of government.” Therefore, the death of a ruler or a change in government through elective processes does not constitute the end of the State. When referring to the State, Murali, Kumaresan Raja, Palanisamy and Sundararaman (2005:20) emphasise four inalienable elements that include population, territory, government and sovereignty. In this context, the State is an organic concept of which the government is a part, an agent of the State. Chamberlain (1898:3) indicates that the State, perceived in varying degrees of realisation, essentially contextualises the political ideal as the moral ideal where justice forms the foundational baseline. Although not negating the importance of government in this regard, Chamberlain (1893) argues that these characteristics may be incorporated in the government sphere to reinforce the State’s existence.
Weber’s definition (in Robinson, 2013:561) contextualises the State “as the form of human community [that] lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory.” As a compulsory political institution the State, therefore, maintains a monopoly to use force within its territorial boundaries. However, Cudworth, Hall and McGovern (2007:1) emphasise that there is little academic consensus on an appropriate definition of the State, while Barrow (1993:9), on the other hand, terms the State a compounded entity with a variety of interrelated overlapping theories of political phenomena.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS
According to Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke (2014:29), between 1 269 and 2 778 participatory budgets had been identified by 2013, with Sintomer, Herzberg and Allegretti (in Sintomer, Herzberg & Röcke, 2014:29) indicating 626 to 1 138 in Latin America, 474 to 1 317 in Europe, 58 to 109 in Asia and 110 to 211 in Africa. Smith (2004:4) also notes that democratisation, decentralisation and good governance effectively influenced the worldwide adoption, implementation and escalation of PB. The development of PB can be traced back to political developments in Latin America and Eastern Europe during the early 1980s and late 1990s. Dias (2014:23) identifies approximately five core phases in the dynamics of the dissemination of participatory budgets since the late 1980s.
The contextualisation of the first three phases can be credited to Cabannes and Baierle (in Dias, 2014:23). The first phase draws parallels with trials between 1989 and 1997 that emphasised initiatives in Porto Alegre (Brazil) and Montevideo (Uruguay), where more than 30 municipalities initiated PB experiments. The second phase, referred to as Brazilian PB, transpired between 1997 and 2000 and encompassed the establishment of variations of PB in more than 140 municipalities. The third phase emerged mainly after 2000 with a broad diversification and international expansion of PB experiments, particularly in Latin America and Europe where the original Porto Alegre model was adopted to conform to local administrative processes. The fourth phase, a trend beginning in 2007/2008, mainly addressed the academic-administrative interface of PB experiments and the network of PB applications in Latin America, Europe and North America. The fifth phase, approximately from 2008 until now, exhibits an escalation of participatory budgets worldwide, particularly their integration into larger and more complex systems of participatory democracy.
Following the re-establishment of democracy in Brazil during 1985, Langa and Afeikhena (2004:2) indicate that traditional patronage practices, social exclusion and corruption remained commonplace. In an effort to stabilise political practices, numerous NGOs, social movements and political parties gradually structured their planning apparatus to incorporate public participation in the budgetary process within the municipal sphere. Strengthening the connections between citizens and the State remained imperative and Gaventa (in Smith, 2004:6) articulate that there had to be a “fundamental rethinking about ways in which citizens’ voices are articulated and represented in relation to local governance.”
CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 BACKGROUND
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
1.4 CONSIDERING AND APPROPRIATE RESEARCH APPROACH
1.5 RESEARCH APPROACH, DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH
1.7 BENEFITS, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1.8 STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH
1.9 CLARIFICATION OF KEY CONCEPTS AND TERMS
1.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BASELINE REGARDING BUDGETING AND PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
2.3 A COMPOSITE THEORY FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
2.4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 38 2.4.1 Political dimension
2.5 GENERIC FUNCTIONS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.6 NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.7 STATE AND GOVERNMENT
2.8 BUDGET THEORY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2.9 CONTEXTUALISING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS
2.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: DECENTRALISATION AND PUBLIC BUDGETING
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 DECENTRALISED GOVERNMENT AND BUDGETING
3.3 FISCAL DECENTRALISATION, TRANSPARENCY AND BUDGETING
3.4 PUBLIC BUDGETING CONSTRUCT
3.5 BUDGETING AS A SYSTEM AND A PROCESS
3.6 BUDGET CYCLE
3.7 BUDGETING TECHNIQUES
3.8 A CONSENSUS ON KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THE BUDGET
3.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: PARTICIPATORY DIMENSION OF BUDGETING
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AS A DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE
4.3 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES
4.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS
4.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING INTERFACE
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS AND PRACTICES CONCERNING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5.3 PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING IN DEVELOPED ECONOMIES
5.4 PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING IN DEVELOPING ECONOMIES
5.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING: THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
6.3 BROAD BUDGET FRAMEWORK
6.4 PLANNING AND BUDGETING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT
6.5 DEVELOPMENTAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PARTICIPATION
6.6 TOOLS AND MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION IN SOUTH AFRICA
6.7 A CONVENTIONAL MODEL FOR PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
6.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7: PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE INDICES ANALYSIS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 MOTIVATION FOR COMPARING INDICES
7.3 IBRAHIM INDEX OF AFRICAN GOVERNANCE
7.4 DEMOCRACY INDEX, 2014
7.5 OPEN BUDGET SURVEY, 2015
7.6 AFROBAROMETER SURVEYS
7.7 DECENTRALISATION INDEX, 2012
7.8 BUDGET OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION: A CASE FOR SOUTH AFRICA
7.9 SUMMARY FINDINGS: PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES
7.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 OUTLINE AND RESEARCH DESIGN
8.3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGETING THEORY
8.4 DECENTRALISATION AND PUBLIC BUDGETING
8.5 PARTICIPATORY DIMENSION OF BUDGETING
8.6 ANGLOPHONE COUNTRIES AND PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES
8.7 INDICES ANALYSIS AND PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
8.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
