Original Research

Participatory budgeting in rural councils: The case of Mangwe District council, Zimbabwe

Tambudzai Ndlovu, Gerrit van der Waldt

Received: 23 Sept. 2024; Accepted: 02 June 2025; Published: 14 July 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Participatory budgeting (PB) is fundamental to democratic governance and to empowering communities to actively participate in shaping local fiscal decisions. The adoption of PB in Zimbabwe was motivated by the need to enhance citizen participation, improve service delivery, increase transparency and accountability and ensure responsiveness to citizens’ needs.

Aim: This study, which was grounded in the theoretical foundations of public choice theory, theory of change and citizenship theory, comprised an investigation of the intricate dynamics of PB’s implementation and its diverse outcomes, with the aim to design a participatory budgeting framework.

Setting: The study was conducted at Mangwe Rural District Council (RDC) offices in Zimbabwe.

Methods: A qualitative research design was employed, utilising semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method, supplemented by document analysis.

Results: A range of challenges were identified, including the limited empowerment of citizens because of restricted engagement in the PB process, challenges in accountability and transparency and service delivery constraints.

Conclusion: Despite the adoption of PB, Zimbabwean local councils are struggling to achieve positive financial outcomes.

Contribution: In response to these findings, a participatory budgeting model was developed for use by the Mangwe RDC and similar institutions. The proposed model offers a systematic and multifaceted approach to addressing the challenges and discrepancies identified in the context of PB implementation within rural African local governments. Guidelines for the operationalisation of the model are also provided.

Keywords: budget; participatory budgeting; rural councils; decentralisation; Mangwe District council; traditional leaders; ward development committee; village development committee; Zimbabwe.

Introduction

During the colonial era in Zimbabwe, the local government system was characterised by a discriminatory dual structure based on racial segregation. In the early years following independence, consistent efforts were made to revise this system (Chatiza & Zivhave 2020; Jonga 2014; Kurebwa 2015). According to Mutizwa-Mangiza (1985) and Makumbe (1998), the decentralisation directives issued in 1984 and 1985 facilitated grassroots involvement in governance through the establishment of local authorities, as provided for by the Urban and Rural District Councils Acts of 1985. These councils marked the beginning of a decentralised and more participatory governance approach in Zimbabwe. Local government councils became key instruments to improve citizens’ lives by enabling their engagement in the governance process. This paved the way for the transfer of financial authority and responsibilities from the central government to local governments (Coutinho 2010; Rural District Councils Act [Ch 29:13], Urban Councils Act [Ch 29:15]).

Despite Zimbabwe’s formal commitment to decentralisation and participatory governance, significant disparities persist in the implementation and effectiveness of these policies between urban and rural local authorities. While urban district councils have made relatively greater strides in institutionalising participatory mechanisms and engaging citizens in decision-making, inclusive of budgeting processes, rural district councils often remain constrained by limited resources, political interference and weak institutional capacity. This uneven progress raises critical concerns about the inclusivity, equity and sustainability of Zimbabwe’s decentralisation agenda. Similarly, although Zimbabwe’s legislative framework promotes participatory budgeting (PB) as a tool for enhancing transparency, accountability and citizen involvement in local governance, its practical implementation in rural councils remains limited and inconsistent. Key challenges include low literacy levels and limited public awareness, inadequate institutional support, limited fiscal autonomy and socio-political barriers that hinder effective citizen engagement. As a result, rural district councils often struggle to move beyond tokenistic consultation towards meaningful participation, undermining the transformative potential of PB in advancing equitable local development and democratic accountability.

The purpose of this article is to report on the findings of a study conducted to examine the outcomes associated with the adoption of PB by the rural councils of Zimbabwe. Grounded in the theoretical frameworks of theory of change (ToC), public choice theory and citizenship theory, the focus of this study was on a change intervention, whereby PB was adopted in place of traditional budgeting to ensure citizen participation in Mangwe District. Theory of change is particularly pertinent to this study because it provides a guideline and framework for evaluating the change intervention. Moving beyond theoretical discourse, a budgeting model designed to facilitate citizen participation and bottom-up engagement is proposed. This model accommodates the need to address the dynamics in the political, technological, economic and legislative environments to ensure the efficacy of PB in Mangwe Rural District Council (RDC). By fostering synergy between stakeholders, judicious resource allocation, capacity building and empowerment, and by affording citizens an oversight role and reinforcing the evaluation and feedback loop, the model emerges as a citizen-oriented approach that upholds the ideals of PB.

Literature review

Theoretical framework

The ToC serves as a macro theoretical framework for the study, as it offers an overarching map to determine whether the desired change has occurred in a particular context. It maps out the steps needed to achieve long-term goals by identifying key assumptions, interventions and outcomes (Deutsch et al. 2021). As such, it helps public sector institutions, policymakers and development practitioners to design structured, evidence-based strategies for social and institutional change (e.g. the adoption of PB).

Public choice theory premises that public officials, voters and bureaucrats are rational actors who make decisions based on personal incentives rather than purely public interest (Torgler 2022). It applies economic principles to political decision-making, analysing how individuals (e.g. officials from district councils) may respond. It challenges the assumption that government actions are always motivated by the public good and instead views political behaviour through the lens of self-interest and incentives (Firidin 2022).

Citizenship theory explores the nature, rights, responsibilities and participation of individuals within a political community (e.g. Mangwe District Council). It offers a framework for analysing governance, democracy and civic identity, shaping how individuals relate to the state and society (Melber et al. 2022). The theory encourages inclusive governance and participatory policymaking to enhance civic engagement, making it highly relevant to the analysis of PB in rural settings (Nordensärd & Ketola 2024).

Participatory budgeting

In representative democracies, citizens elect representatives who, in turn, hold the state accountable on their behalf. However, with the emergence of the new public management (NPM) paradigm in the 1980s, there has been an increasing demand from citizens to directly participate in and hold governments accountable. Zinyama (2014) notes that the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, through the Local Agenda 21, underscored the need to bring local governments closer to the citizens by advocating for active citizen engagement in shaping development choices. Buele et al. (2020) observe that the concepts of citizen participation and governance are now closely linked, aiming to increase efficiency, effectiveness and transparency in public management.

Chikerema (2013) identifies activities that promote citizen participation and highlights PB as a key strategy for involving citizens in the governance of their affairs. The concept of PB has garnered significant global interest, with numerous examples illustrating continuous efforts to enhance citizen participation in governance over time (Cabannes 2019; O’Hagan et al. 2020). Participatory budgeting was designed to provide citizens with an opportunity to be directly involved in and influence governments’ financial decisions.

Participatory budgeting was first implemented in Brazil in the late 1990s, with the aim of redistributing economic resources (Rumbul, Parsons & Bramley 2018). The World Bank has played a pivotal role in promoting PB adoption in nearly all developing countries because it views traditional budgeting processes as contributing to social exclusion among citizens in developing countries and PB as a catalyst for financial reforms (Larson 2018). Proponents of PB, such as Cabannes (2019) and Sintomer et al. (2013), argue that it generally enables citizens to address the priority concerns of their communities by actively participating in fiscal decision-making (Social Development Team 2006; Sterling, Grunfelder & Borges 2006). Similarly, Municipal Development Partnership for Eastern and Southern Africa (MDP-ESA) (2007) argues that adopting PB practices often leads to reduced corruption, increased public ownership of projects, deepened local democracy, empowered citizens, improved service delivery and greater transparency and accountability. Empirical evidence (Cabannes 2019; Sintomer et al. 2013; Zhuang 2014) highlights the widespread adoption of PB, as seen in its growing prevalence in Commonwealth countries. Significant PB experience has also been gained in regions such as Asia (e.g. India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia) and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Sintomer et al. (2013) and Cabannes (2019) observe that PB has facilitated improved governance in countries such as Porto Alegre and Cameroon, where corruption has nearly been eradicated and enhanced cooperation between administrators and citizens has also been reported. Participatory budgeting has also played a significant role in Australia, Canada and the Philippines, where it has given ‘a voice to the voiceless’ and increased citizen participation (O’Hagan et al. 2020:56). In sharing China’s experience with PB, Zhuang (2014) notes that Chengdu villages have direct control over their budgets, which has increased transparency, accountability for public funds and efficiency in responding to the needs of the village.

Drawing from these international experiences, PB can be seen as an inclusive reform process that empowers citizens to play a direct role in planning and allocating municipal resources. It is a process that involves all stakeholders in the budget process, from development and gaining approval to execution and assessment (Larson 2018; ed. Shah 2007; Tampubolon 2010). This means that PB is not a one-time event but an ongoing process in which citizens play a crucial role at various stages, contributing to their own development (Gudic 2016; Sobol 2016). Furthermore, PB enhances local community participation in local government affairs by influencing decisions regarding the identification, prioritisation and financing of service delivery projects (Cabannes 2019; Schugurensky & Mook 2024).

Application of participatory budgeting in Zimbabwe

As mentioned above, Zimbabwe’s system of government has undergone significant governance reforms since 1980. At the national level, the country transitioned from a parliamentary democracy to a presidential democracy, which granted the president considerable authority to intervene in all spheres of government, including in local government affairs. Such interventions were facilitated through various mechanisms, including the dominance of traditional leadership structures and interference in local government decision-making by the Office of the Minister of Local Government, the Provincial Administrator, the Minister of State and the Office of the District Administrator (Chatiza 2010; Chigwata 2010; Makunde et al. 2018).

In response to the power imbalances that existed during colonial times, the government introduced local government reforms through the Prime Minister’s Decentralisation Directives of 1984 and 1985, the aim of which was to redefine the position and responsibilities of local governments in Zimbabwe (Chatiza 2010). The decentralisation policy marked the beginning of a more people-oriented and community-centred local governance system that was intended to address the imbalances inherited from the colonial era.

According to Chatiza (2010), Chigwata (2010) and Makumbe (2010), the 2013 Constitution introduced a governance structure composed of three tiers: the national, provincial and local government spheres. This three-tier governance system is based on a devolved structure that recognises the need for flexibility and citizen inclusion in governance (Constitution 2013). Thus, the 2013 Constitution was established on the ideals and concepts of devolution, signifying a shift from centralised power to a more inclusive, people-oriented governance system characterised by citizen engagement, consultation and participation (Makunde et al. 2018).

Although Zimbabwe adopted the Rural and Urban Councils Act to promote citizen participation, it was not until the year 2000 that local governments adopted a participatory budget process (Chebundo 2007). This re-engineered budget process provided for consultative meetings in which all stakeholders could present their priority areas to local governments. The Rural District Councils Act, Chapter 29:13, requires rural local governments, like their urban counterparts, to create local budgets in compliance with prescribed procedures. In their budget formulation, rural local governments are directed to provide citizens with the opportunity to participate and make decisions regarding the effective use of local resources, thereby introducing PB in local governments.

Mangwe District Council as a case study

The focus of this study is on Mangwe District Council, a rural authority currently in the process of implementing PB as an alternative budgeting approach. Mangwe District is located in Matabeleland South Province, within the greater Plumtree area. Plumtree is divided into four districts: Bulilima West, Bulilima East, Mangwe District and Plumtree Urban. These divisions necessitated the separation of local councils, leading to the establishment of four distinct councils (Government of Zimbabwe 2016).

Despite the adoption of PB, experiences in Zimbabwe indicate that the country is failing to achieve positive PB outcomes. While much of the literature is focused on urban experiences in Zimbabwe, it is evident that the PB outcomes documented therein also apply to rural councils such as the Mangwe RDC. The assumptions regarding Mangwe District were informed by these broader Zimbabwean experiences, which are relevant to both urban and rural contexts.

The RDC is governed by a political and administrative structure comprising elected officials and civil servants. The political arm consists of 17 elected councillors, each representing one of the 17 wards in Mangwe (https://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/tag/mangwe-rural-district-council/). Traditional leadership also plays a key administrative role at both ward and village level, as stipulated by the Traditional Leaders Act of 1998.

Research methods and design

The aim of this study was to examine the PB praxis of the Mangwe RDC as experienced by both the citizens and RDC officials. To achieve this, it was essential to understand the participants’ perceptions of the phenomenon. Guided by an interpretivist research paradigm and qualitative research design, most of the data were gathered through a case study approach, which included participant observation, interviews with key informants and content analysis of policies, legislation and archival records. Field notebooks were used to document experiences and perceptions during data collection.

Semi-structured interviews and content analysis were the primary data collection methods. An interview schedule was designed for each of the three participant categories (or cohorts) to guide the interviewing process: (1) traditional leaders, councillors and village heads, (2) local government officials and (3) community committee members. These schedules were developed based on an extensive literature review and were piloted (pre-tested) with a small sample from the target population. The interview questions were translated into Ndebele, one of the local languages spoken in Mangwe, alongside Kalanga and Tswana.

The interview schedule was divided into two sections. The first concerned eliciting the biographical details of the participants. The profiles of the participants were categorised by age, gender, work experience and educational qualifications. They worked directly with issues related to PB and had special insights into its operational challenges and its impact on Mangwe district. Their years of experience in their respective positions ranged from one to 30 years. Gender representation was balanced, with 29 males and 20 females participating. In terms of educational background, nine participants had tertiary qualifications, 16 had completed ordinary level and 24 had basic primary education.

The second part of the interview schedule was aimed at an exploration of the status of PB and the perceived successes and challenges associated with its application in Mangwe district. The participants were asked both open- and close-ended questions.

The participants were selected using non-probability sampling, a method in which researchers exercise discretion in choosing individuals for the study based on their understanding of the phenomenon (Burns & Grove 2003; Nieuwenhuis 2007). The inclusion criteria for the participants included that they had to be individuals responsible for budgeting and financial oversight, such as the chief financial officer, two senior financial managers, two junior financial managers and two budget committee members. The Mangwe District Administrator was also interviewed, given the office’s administrative oversight of development programmes and services in Mangwe District.

All 17 wards in Mangwe were sampled, with one headman, one councillor and one committee chairperson interviewed from each ward. Ward councillors and headmen were chosen because they were responsible for overseeing local government structures and played a crucial role in community leadership. Community committee members were interviewed because they actively participated in the participatory budget process and were recipients of the development initiatives. To ensure inclusivity, gender equity was prioritised and the views of both males and females were solicited. Table 1 reflects the sample size per participant cohort and the associated reference codes for data analysis.

Content analysis was adopted for data analysis as guidelines and provisions on participatory budgeting were reviewed. Figure 1 illustrates the data analysis process.

FIGURE 1: Data analysis process.

The first step entailed organising field transcripts for data analysis and familiarisation with data (Box A). Data familiarisation prior to analysis is emphasised by Braun and Clarke (2006), who argue that researchers must thoroughly understand the data to prepare for initial analysis. Nvivo software was used to analyse qualitative data, and codes were used to organise data into a segment which represents a category (Box B). Nvivo software also enabled data analyses and the identification of themes (Box C), where themes were named, defined and reviewed. The software assisted in managing, shaping and making sense of unstructured data. A word cloud comprising key words (concepts and constructs) was extracted from the Nvivo system as illustrated in Figure 2. Thematic analysis of the responses enabled the researchers to identify, analyse and report patterns related to the subject under study.

FIGURE 2: Word cloud (Survey’s concepts and constructs).

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from North-West University and Mangwe Rural District Council (Ethics Ref.: NWU-01102-21-A7). Introductory and consent letters were provided to the participants, who signed them to ensure voluntary participation in the study. Confidentiality was maintained by protecting the participants’ identities with the use of pseudonyms. Permission was also obtained from the Mangwe District Administrator, ward councillors and village headmen, who acted as gatekeepers.

Results

In this section, the participants’ responses are reported either verbatim or in a summarised form, always in relation to the questions posed.

Q1: What legal frameworks are in place that provide for participatory budgeting?

This question was aimed at gathering information about the specific legal frameworks that support and facilitate the implementation of PB by the Mangwe RDC. Only 22% of the participants had sufficient knowledge of the policies and legislative frameworks governing PB:

‘When discussing the legislative frameworks governing PB, we would be doing an injustice if we fail [sic] to refer back to the PM’s Directives of 1984 and 1985 on decentralisation. These ushered in a participatory approach to governance, which sought to include everyone in the governance process.’ (CO2, Mangwe RDC Official, male, age 46)

Similarly, it was indicated that:

‘The constitution of 2013 is the basis of a participatory approach in local governments, as it provides for citizen participation in all spheres of life, including the formulation of the budget.’ (CL7, Mangwe Ward Councillor, male, age 52)

A participant pointed out:

‘The laws governing PB are very important because they provide guidance on how the process is supposed to be carried out. As articulated by law, citizens have a right to participate in the budget process and, as such, this seeks to empower the citizens to take control of their development process.’ (Mangwe Ward and Village Committee Member, male, age 42)

However, 68% of the participants lacked adequate knowledge of the policies and national legislation governing PB. This lack of knowledge represents a significant barrier to the effective implementation of and participation in PB processes.

Q2: What is the role of traditional leadership and the Mangwe Rural District council in the implementation of participatory budgeting?

When asked about the roles of traditional leaders and the Mangwe RDC in ensuring the successful implementation of PB provisions, the traditional leaders indicated that their role was mainly informational. They typically organised meetings on behalf of the RDC or councillor to disseminate information to the village or ward.

Regarding the role of the RDC in fulfilling the provisions of PB, the responses were mixed. The RDC officials mentioned that they had facilitated budget consultative meetings in the past. However, more recently, this responsibility had been assumed by the ward councillor in the absence of RDC officials, indicating a potential gap or inconsistency in the RDC’s involvement in the PB process.

The sentiments expressed by the councillors supported the notion that they played a role in leading budget consultative meetings, suggesting that individual councillors had taken the initiative to actively engage with the community and facilitate PB discussions. Additionally, it was mentioned that the RDC had made efforts to ensure that all the wards had ward development committee (WADCO) and village development committee (VIDCO) structures. These structures are recognised as crucial grassroots platforms for promoting community engagement and align with the principles of PB by providing opportunities for citizens to participate in decision-making processes. However, there was a general sentiment among the RDC officials, including CO1, that more needed to be done to enhance citizen engagement in the PB process.

Q3: How would you describe the current system of local government budgeting in Zimbabwe?

In response to this question, one participant commented:

‘For the past few years, we have been implementing PB in local governments in Zimbabwe. We have been encouraged to work closely with our communities, as it facilitates active participation from the community.’ (CO6, Mangwe RDC official, female, age 37)

Similarly, another participant observed:

‘The current system of budgeting in local governments seeks to ensure inclusivity. It’s a forum to empower previously marginalized groups in the community, such as women, the disabled, and the youth.’ (CO4, Mangwe RDC official, male, age 35)

The ward councillors generally agreed with the RDC officials, noting that the current budgeting system in Zimbabwe is aimed at involving citizens in decision-making:

‘The current budget system affords citizens an opportunity to react to the proposed budget.’(CL2, Mangwe Ward Councillor, male, age 53)

Based on the information provided by the participants, the current system of local government budgeting in Zimbabwe incorporates PB principles and is aimed and ensuring inclusivity and active community participation. According to participant CO6, PB has been part of the local government budgeting process for the past few years, indicating a recent shift towards involving communities in budget allocation and project selection decisions.

Participant CO4 emphasised that the aim of the current budgeting system in local governments was to ensure inclusivity, implying that efforts were being made to address the needs and interests of previously marginalised groups, such as women, disabled individuals and youths. The budgeting process was viewed as a platform for empowering these groups and giving them a voice in resource allocation decisions.

Overall, the responses suggested that the local government budgeting system in Zimbabwe was evolving towards a more participatory and inclusive approach, with a focus on active community participation and the empowerment of marginalised groups. This shift reflects a recognition of the importance of engaging citizens in decision-making and addressing historical disadvantages, which marks a significant departure from the top-down approach, whereby decisions are made by a limited group of government officials.

Q4: What are the key factors affecting citizen participation in the budget process?

The participants were asked to rank the factors influencing citizen participation from the highest to the lowest effect. Most of them indicated that the general turnout at community budget meetings was very low, which was a cause for concern. TL8 observed that very few people attended the meetings and those who did attend ‘do not effectively participate in the proceedings; people are not open in those discussions’.

When asked about the reasons for this situation, various responses emerged, including limited education, a lack of knowledge, poverty, politics, a lack of faith in the RDC or short notice of the meetings. These factors are ranked in Figure 3 according to the frequency with which the participants mentioned them.

FIGURE 3: Factors affecting citizen participation in budgeting.

Low educational levels were the most significant factor hampering effective citizen participation in the budget process. A participant highlighted this issue by stating:

‘Limited education among citizens is a hindrance to their participation because they do not even understand what the budget is.’ (CM6, Mangwe ward and village committee member, male, age 47)

Furthermore, the RDC officials agreed that the limited educational background of most of the citizens made it challenging for them to participate without the financial literacy needed to understand the budget. When individuals lack knowledge and understanding of the budget process, it becomes difficult for them to contribute meaningfully to discussions. However, one participant from a ward with higher educational levels pointed out:

‘Our ward is very educated. Most of the citizens are pensioners who were once civil servants. Therefore, failure to attend is not due to a lack of education but could be attributed to long distances. When in attendance, most of them effectively participate because they understand the budget process.’ (CL8, Mangwe Ward Councillor, male, age 48)

The lack of knowledge, capacity and expertise regarding the PB process was rated as the second most significant barrier. The participants generally agreed that most of the citizens had limited understanding and skills related to the PB process.

Poverty concerns were ranked third. The participants noted that while the citizens generally wished to attend meetings, their economic challenges often took precedence because they prioritised their livelihoods over attending consultative meetings that might not address their immediate needs. A participant explained:

‘The poorest of the poor do not attend consultative meetings because they are busy focusing on their small livelihoods to feed their families. As a result, the more elite are the ones who attend and their decisions affect the poor in the community. Those poor who do attend often end up being silenced by the elite.’ (CO3, Mangwe RDC official, female, age 46)

Some participants noted that the citizens did not attend these meetings because they believed the RDC was imposing decisions on them. Across most wards, the relationship between the RDC and citizens was described as strained and characterised by mistrust. The loss of trust in the RDC, because of unkept promises and perceived impositions, discouraged the citizens from participating in the budget process.

Political factors such as a lack of political openness, limited civic freedoms, victimisation and high levels of political polarisation also hindered participation. For example, it was observed:

‘Turnout at these consultative meetings is very low because people are disgruntled with how assistance is distributed. People feel politically discriminated against.’ (TL1, Traditional Leader, male, age 64)

Q5: What are your perceptions of the current Mangwe Rural District council budgeting process?

The dominant view that emerged from the interviews with RDC officials was that there was a lack of effective citizen engagement in the budgeting process. One participant shared:

‘As a council, we are trying to follow the legal side of budgeting by ensuring that mechanisms for participation are in place, but the problem is with citizens who do not attend the meetings. As a result, we have a process that is failing to function adequately due to the lack of citizen engagement.’ (CO6, Mangwe RDC official, female, age 39)

Another perception of the budgeting process in Mangwe was related to the ‘silent’ budget process. Participant CO2 highlighted that the lack of communication in the budget process had negative implications for effective citizen engagement. Furthermore, a few participants believed that low citizen engagement resulted from councillors not being in touch with their communities. Commenting on this, one participant noted:

‘If you have a good relationship with the citizens, it would be easy to have them participate in community matters.’ (CO3, Mangwe RDC official, female, age 46)

However, participant CO1 defended the councillors, pointing out that they struggled to engage with the citizens effectively because of a lack of adequate training in PB.

Based on the findings and statements provided above, concerns were raised about the current budgeting process in the Mangwe RDC. The dominant perception among the RDC officials in Mangwe was that there was a lack of citizen engagement in the budgeting process. These findings suggest that the Mangwe RDC needs to explore strategies to increase citizen awareness, improve communication and create meaningful opportunities for engagement to address this issue. The perception of a ‘silent’ budget process raises concerns about transparency and citizen engagement. This finding underscores the importance of transparent and inclusive budgeting processes, whereby information about the budget is widely shared and citizens have an opportunity to provide input and feedback.

Q6: Were you inducted into your office and the practice of participatory budgeting (PB) explained to you?

The intention of this question was to establish the mechanisms used to induct each group into their roles and provide education on PB.

All 14 participants from the councillor cohort agreed that a workshop organised by the Local Authorities Capacity Enhancement Project (LACEP) in collaboration with the RDC, which was focused on capacity building in revenue collection, enabled them to appreciate their roles and provided education on PB. However, they felt strongly that more workshops on financial issues should be conducted to enhance their knowledge and understanding of PB:

‘We had asked for another workshop so that we could enhance our understanding of financial matters.’ (CL2, Mangwe Ward Councillor, male, age 53)

When questioned about their roles in the PB process, the councillors unanimously agreed that they served as the link between the citizens and the RDC. Despite leading these consultative meetings, most of the participants expressed concern about the generally low turnout of citizens at these meetings. However, a few participants noted that the turnout was good in their wards because of the presence of educated individuals who could interpret financial jargon.

Q7: What role does the Mangwe Rural District council play in ensuring the citizens, traditional leadership and elected councillors’ education on budgeting activities?

In response, the RDC officials agreed on the important role played by the LACEP in providing a training programme for councillors. This training aimed to build councillors’ capacity with respect to financial issues, including PB. Following this workshop, most of the councillors were able to lead consultative meetings on their own without the need for RDC officials. Despite this progress, CO1 emphasised the need for concerted efforts to facilitate more training for councillors because they still lacked full capacity and understanding of PB. As the councillors are expected to serve as the link between citizens and the RDC, enhancing their knowledge is crucial. However, regarding traditional leaders and committee members, the RDC officials concurred with the views shared by these stakeholders: nothing had been done to facilitate their training and education on PB, which hindered effective citizen participation. It is concerning that no specific mechanisms or initiatives were mentioned to educate traditional leaders and committee members on PB. This lack of education has impeded their ability to effectively engage in and promote citizen participation in the budgeting process.

Q8: Which mechanisms do you use to disseminate budget documents to the citizens, traditional leadership and councillors?

According to most of the participants, budget documents in the Mangwe RDC were typically received in hard copy format during consultative forums. While a few individuals mentioned receiving them via WhatsApp, this method was not widely used. In recent times, it has primarily been the councillor in most wards who leads the consultative meetings and is responsible for explaining the contents of the budget documents. However, in three wards, the RDC officials had to assist the councillor with this task.

Participant CO6 noted that budget documents were advertised in the newspaper, made available for public inspection and communicated via a WhatsApp chat board platform with the assistance of the LACEP. All the stakeholders were registered, so they could access the chat board at any time. However, according to some participants, these mechanisms were too sophisticated for some rural residents in Mangwe, who had difficulty accessing and understanding them.

Q9: What are your suggestions to improve the effectiveness of participation mechanisms?

The following actions were suggested by the participants to improve the effectiveness of the mechanisms used to enhance participation in the budget process:

1. Comprehensive and ongoing training.

2. Clear and accessible communication.

3. Engage local interpreters.

4. Promote community outreach.

5. Strengthen collaboration between the RDC, councillors, traditional leaders and committee members.

Q10: What have been the main outcomes of participatory budgeting in Mangwe Rural District council?

In response to this question, both positive and negative outcomes were identified. The positive outcomes included the following:

1. Citizen engagement through regular budget consultative meetings.

2. Enhanced transparency by making budget information more accessible to citizens (e.g. hard copy budget documents, a WhatsApp chat board and the publication of the budget in local newspapers were key mechanisms).

3. Service delivery improvement by incorporating the development needs of rural communities.

4. Citizen empowerment, as consultative meetings provide a platform for citizens to hold the local government accountable on the use of resources.

On a less positive note, the following outcomes were identified:

1. Limited citizen engagement: Despite the Mangwe RDC having participation mechanisms in place, citizen engagement in the budget process was limited. Effective participation was usually hindered by the citizen’s lack of understanding of budget jargon. Participation, therefore, remained in the domain of a few elites who could interpret budget presentation formats and who understood typical budget jargon.

2. Lack of accountability and transparency: There was a perceived lack of accountability and transparency in the use of resources by the RDC. The citizens expressed a desire for more information on budget allocation and expenditure, and the need for the RDC to address these concerns to build trust and confidence among the community.

3. Limited service delivery: The RDC was failing to execute this mandate, as illustrated by a shortage of schools, health facilities and water sources. Most of the participants indicated that the citizens had to travel very long distances to access services.

4. Lack of prioritisation of community needs: The evidence suggests that the Mangwe RDC had not been prioritising the allocation of resources to projects that had a direct impact on the community’s wellbeing.

5. Financial constraints: It was established in the interviews the RDC failed to prioritise community projects because of financial constraints, which had been identified as a factor impacting their ability to fulfil their mandate. Non-payment of household taxes by citizens exacerbated the financial challenges faced by the RDC, making it difficult to finance projects and deliver services effectively.

Q11: What do you recommend should be done to improve participatory budgeting in the Mangwe District?

The responses obtained were thematically categorised as follows:

1. Enhance participation: According to participants CO1, CO5 and CO6, strategies should be implemented to increase citizen awareness and understanding of the budgeting process. This should include conducting public awareness campaigns, organising community meetings and workshops and utilising local media channels to disseminate budget information.

2. Capacity building and information dissemination: Most of the participants noted that providing the citizens with the necessary skills and knowledge to understand budgets and participate effectively was crucial. Therefore, they called for the organisation of capacity-building programmes, workshops and training sessions to educate citizens about the budgetary process, financial management and project evaluation. Providing induction programmes and training sessions for WADCOs, VIDCOs, traditional leaders and councillors could enhance their understanding of PB, their roles and responsibilities and the overall budgeting process.

3. Strengthen transparency and accountability: The participants pointed to the need to strengthen transparency and accountability mechanisms to build trust and confidence in the PB process. This could be achieved through regular and timely reporting on budget allocations, expenditure and project implementation. Independent oversight bodies or citizen-led monitoring groups could be established to ensure transparency and hold the authorities accountable for budgetary decisions.

4. Streamline decision-making processes: Streamlining decision-making processes is important for improving efficiency and avoiding gridlock. Clear guidelines and criteria for project selection and prioritisation can provide a framework for decision-making. However, it is essential to strike a balance between streamlined processes and ensuring meaningful participation.

5. Address resource constraints: Adequate resources are essential for the successful implementation of PB. The participants noted that, because finance was the fuel of administration, efforts should be made to secure sufficient funding for community projects.

6. Strengthen councillor-community relationships: Participants CO1 and CO6 posited that, to enhance effective community engagements, it was vital to foster stronger connections between the councillors and their communities by promoting regular and meaningful interactions.

7. Evaluate and adapt participation mechanisms: Some of the participants suggested that it was important to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for citizen participation and to adjust them as needed. Participants CO1, CO3 and CO5 underscored the need to seek feedback from citizens, councillors, traditional leaders and committee members to identify areas for improvement and address any concerns or barriers to participation.

According to the participants, the outcomes of PB could be improved by implementing these measures, leading to more citizen engagement, a culture of participatory decision-making, increased transparency and accountability, more effective resource allocation and, ultimately, improved governance and service delivery for communities.

Discussion

It is evident that PB in Mangwe has not yet produced the expected positive outcomes. The Mangwe PB experience is generally characterised by mistrust of the RDC, poverty, politicisation of the process, inadequate legislation and limited education and knowledge of the PB process among the councillors, traditional leaders, committee members and citizens at large. These factors are significant obstacles to effective citizen participation. These findings highlight key areas that require attention and careful management to maximise the effectiveness and impact of PB initiatives.

One of the main drawbacks of PB is the struggle to attract a broad and diverse range of participants. The findings indicated that certain groups, particularly those with limited resources or education, were unlikely to actively participate in the PB process. This underrepresentation of voices and perspectives has led to limited inclusivity and reduced the effectiveness of the process.

The participants noted that the PB process was highly time- and resource-intensive. Extensive planning, organising and facilitating participatory meetings and deliberation processes required substantial financial and human resources. Rural councils, already facing financial challenges, found it difficult to sustain the PB process. Additionally, PB often involves complex decision-making processes, particularly when prioritising and allocating limited resources among competing community needs. Balancing a variety of perspectives, addressing conflicts and reaching consensus can be challenging and time-consuming, leading to delays or gridlocks in decision-making. This complexity might result in some wards’ needs and priorities being overlooked. Simplifying the decision-making process and providing clear guidelines for prioritisation are essential to ensure efficient and effective resource allocation.

Engaging citizens in budgetary decisions requires providing them with relevant information about the budget, financial constraints and project feasibility. However, many citizens lack the technical expertise or access to detailed information needed to make informed decisions. Bridging this information gap and building citizens’ capacity to understand and analyse budgetary information is crucial for empowering them to participate meaningfully.

Participatory budgeting processes can be susceptible to political influence and manipulation. Some politicians might attempt to sway the decision-making process to serve their own agendas, undermining citizen empowerment and equitable resource allocation. Such influence can lead to low turnout and participation during consultative budget meetings, reducing the process’s integrity and equity. Implementing safeguards, such as independent oversight mechanisms and transparency measures, is essential to protect PB from undue political interference.

Recommendations: A participatory budget model for rural councils

The proposed budget model is built upon the content analysis and empirical findings to serve as a practical tool to effectively manage resources and encourage citizen involvement in the budgeting process.

At the macro level (A), the proposed participatory budget model illustrated in Figure 4 is influenced by public administration paradigms and theories (A.3). Citizen participation is a critical aspect of the NPM paradigm (A.1) and has been a central focus of efforts to improve public sector governance and service delivery.

FIGURE 4: A participatory budget model for application by the Mangwe Rural District council.

The environmental factors identified in the study that hinder the effectiveness of PB in the Mangwe RDC include the organisational structure (B.1), stakeholders’ involvement (B.2), economic conditions (A.5), political landscape (A.7), technological aspects (A.6) and legislative framework (A.8).

The integration of global best practices (A.2) significantly shapes the model, drawing on lessons learnt and challenges encountered in various countries. The model is further enriched by incorporating the dimensions of PB identified in the literature review. These dimensions include the government dimension (A.4), process dimension (B.4), mechanism dimension (B.3) and outcome dimension (C).

The government dimension is particularly significant in the PB process. It influences both positive and negative outcomes, reflecting the impact of the governmental environment. To contribute to favourable PB outcomes, the government dimension within the model assumes a central role in facilitating legislative frameworks that support PB implementation and citizen participation. Additionally, the government’s responsibility extends to policies that stabilise the economy, a critical factor for achieving positive PB outcomes. Similarly, the political environment must be conducive to PB’s success because its ability to thrive is compromised when citizen empowerment is not a governmental priority and when excessive central interference prevails because of party politics. Shielding local governments from central government overreach becomes imperative, affirming the government’s duty to ensure their autonomy.

Technological access is another crucial facet of the government dimension for achieving positive PB outcomes. The government’s proactive role in extending technology to rural areas, providing electricity, ensuring mobile and internet networks and offering technology literacy programmes is essential. This enables citizens to use online platforms for participation, thereby enhancing their engagement in the PB process.

The microenvironment (B) encompasses internal elements within the RDC, including organisational culture (B.1), stakeholders (B.2), the mechanism dimension (B.3), the process dimension (B.4) and the outcome dimension (C).

The organisational culture element (B.1) promotes transparency, collaboration and open communication, fostering an environment conducive to PB. Conversely, a culture of hierarchy, secrecy or resistance to change can hinder citizen engagement and open dialogue. The empirical findings indicate that the organisational culture in the Mangwe RDC is characterised by a lack of transparency regarding the budget process and insufficient communication about its initiation. This situation constitutes a barrier to meaningful citizen engagement in the budgeting procedure.

The second element within the micro dimension revolves around stakeholders (B.2). Stakeholders include individuals, groups or entities with vested interests in the activities of the RDC, including the budgeting process. These stakeholders range from local communities and traditional leaders to elected officials, civil society organisations and business entities. Therefore, the focal point of PB initiatives lies in bolstering stakeholder engagement within this process.

The third facet within the micro level of the model is encapsulated in the mechanism dimension (B.3). This dimension proposes pathways for addressing the challenges and enhancing the outcomes of PB. As delineated in the model, element A.2 (global best practices and challenges) provides the foundation for the mechanisms prescribed within the model. Driven by the challenges confronted during PB implementation in rural Mangwe, empirical evidence favours the adoption of strategic interventions meticulously tailored to bolster the PB process, as depicted in Figure 4.

Through the integration of these mechanisms, the model establishes a process dimension (B.4) that will enhance citizen engagement within PB. This dimension encompasses the modus operandi of the budget process itself, the timing of citizen involvement and the comprehensiveness of the participation process. Both empirical evidence and scholarly literature reveal flaws in the existing budget process, notably that stakeholder engagement tends to occur at a late stage and that effective citizen participation is lacking. Citizenship theory, for example, calls for citizenship education to foster informed and active citizens. It also highlights the role of public institutions in ensuring equal rights, social justice and protection of marginalised groups. The model’s mechanism dimension addresses these concerns through targeted approaches, including stakeholder consultations, public awareness campaigns, improved communication platforms and capacity-building initiatives. The overarching aim is to overcome the challenges identified in the empirical results. Collectively, these mechanisms will contribute to cultivating a culture characterised by transparency, inclusivity and responsiveness within the PB process.

The outcome dimension (C) is premised on the ToC by considering positive outcomes in the domains of increased transparency and accountability, active citizenry, empowered citizenry, tax compliance, improved service delivery and social cohesion. From a policy perspective, the model may redirect Zimbabwe’s legislative, political, economic and technological environments, offering context-sensitive policy solutions to improve PB implementation. This may include policy amendments to address low education levels, economic instability and mistrust in government affecting citizen participation in budgeting processes. As such, it confirms the main premises of citizenship theory, namely to encourage inclusive governance and participatory decision-making in financial matters.

The model is premised on a vision of a transformed PB process in which citizens are actively engaged, traditional leaders assume a pivotal role, elected officials become effective intermediaries and the RDC proactively establishes the necessary infrastructure and mechanisms to facilitate meaningful participation. In essence, the proposed mechanisms bridge the gap between challenges and positive outcomes, enabling the evolution of the PB process into a potent instrument for democratic decision-making and community development. As such, the proposed model offers a systematic and multifaceted approach to addressing the challenges and discrepancies identified in the context of PB implementation within rural African local governments.

Conclusion

This article comprised an exploration of the complexities and dynamics of PB implementation within the context of rural local governments in Zimbabwe, using the Mangwe RDC as a case study. The aim was to provide insights into the challenges, opportunities and perceptions of PB and to offer practical recommendations for fostering effective PB processes in the Mangwe RDC. The empirical evidence highlighted challenges such as limited citizen engagement, inadequate comprehension of PB processes and insufficient training. These issues were exacerbated by factors such as limited education, hostile economic conditions and a lack of trust in the local government system.

The study underscores the importance of addressing several dimensions, including the legislative, political, economic and technological environments, as well as fostering collaboration among the relevant stakeholders. Addressing these aspects is essential for creating an environment conducive to effective PB implementation and, ultimately, achieving positive PB outcomes.

The proposed PB model offers an integrated approach to fostering transparency, accountability, citizen engagement and empowerment and community development through budgeting initiatives. PB has the potential to transform rural local governments, empower citizens and promote community development. As such, this study contributes to the ongoing scholarly discourse in the field of public administration with specific reference to fiscal decentralisation, participatory governance, rural development and administrative and financial reforms. As such, the study provides practical insights that can guide policymakers, researchers and development practitioners working in similar contexts.

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

G.v.d.W. supervised the project. T.N. developed the theory and conducted the empirical study. T.N. analysed the data and formulated the findings and results. G.v.d.W. verified the data and results. G.v.d.W. and T.N. discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, G.v.d.W., upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References