evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Presupuesto Participativo — Peru's National Participatory Budgeting Law

Peru · Lima · See the Peru profile · See the Lima profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 61% 67/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Peru's 2003 Ley Marco del Presupuesto Participativo made it one of the few countries mandating participatory budgeting nationwide. In its first full year, 801 regional and local governments engaged over 30,000 citizens in prioritising S/.2.6 billion of public investment.

801
Regional/local governments running the process (2005)
30,061
Registered participants (2005)
2.6 S/. billion (~US$780m)
Investment prioritised (2005)
12,473
Prioritised projects (2005)
~36 %
Share of subnational budgets debated nationally (2007 (~US$393m))
10-83 %
Project execution rate range (2014-2016, by government/location)
32 %
Women's share of participants
26 %
Women's share of oversight-committee members
20 %
Women's share of technical teams

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas del Perú (MEF)
Period
2003–present
Keywords
public finance, citizen participation, municipal governance, public investment

Context

Peru's Congress passed Law No. 28056 (the 'Ley Marco del Presupuesto Participativo') in 2003, requiring every regional and local government to run an annual participatory budgeting cycle: convening registered civil-society 'agentes participantes', training them, holding prioritisation workshops, and formalising the resulting project list against each jurisdiction's development plan. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) regulates and monitors compliance through an annual guidance document and reporting platform. Villa El Salvador, a district in Lima, pioneered the practice in 2000-2001, inspired by Porto Alegre, Brazil, three years before the national law made it mandatory everywhere.

Results

In its first fully reported year (2005), MEF recorded 801 regional and local governments running the process — all 26 regions, 111 of 195 provincial municipalities (57%) and 664 of 1,634 district municipalities (41%) — engaging 30,061 registered participants in decisions covering over S/.2.6 billion (about US$780 million at the time) and 12,473 prioritised projects. A 2010 World Bank evaluation found that by 2007 the process was debating roughly 36% of subnational budgets nationally (about US$393 million).

Conclusions

Independent case-study research (IEP, 2020, covering 2014-2016) found that how many prioritised projects actually made it into the executed budget varied enormously by government level and location, from 83% in the district of Río Negro down to just 10% in the region of Amazonas, and that even budgeted projects were executed at a lower rate than ordinary investment (36% vs 52% in one province studied). The same research and a 2010 World Bank gender review found women made up only 32% of participants, 26% of oversight-committee members and 20% of technical teams, and documented some jurisdictions running the process largely to satisfy the legal mandate rather than for real deliberation.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas del Perú (MEF), regional and local governments nationwide, registered civil-society 'agentes participantes'

Conditions for success

  • a binding national legal mandate applied to every regional and local government
  • standardised annual guidance ('Instructivo') and a reporting platform from the national ministry to keep implementation consistent
  • structured workshops that link prioritised projects to each jurisdiction's formal development plan

Common failure modes

  • prioritised projects are executed at markedly lower and more uneven rates than ordinary public investment, ranging from 83% to just 10% by government/location, and lower on average than non-participatory investment in at least one province studied
  • women remained under-represented throughout the process (32% of participants, 26% of oversight-committee members, 20% of technical teams)
  • some jurisdictions run the process mainly to satisfy the legal requirement rather than for substantive deliberation

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful