Social development has been an issue for both developed and in developing countries. Democracy and open budget increases society values and engagement towards better development’s stages. Although careful studies of the consequences associated with open budget are still surprisingly scarce, we can observe that comparative studies using transparency, participation and accountability indexes present significances when related with indicators that refer to democratic processes (Khagram, Fung, & De Renzio, 2013).
Raadschelders (1999) proposal for understanding Public Administration issues, which is based on the identification of the what, who, why and how the procedural elements are composed. In this line of thinking, from open budget core, the aim of the paper is to identify the what, who, why and how open budget decision-making process happens according to stakeholders and institutional theories’ perspectives.
While the openness of budget is a fractionated arena, the transparency, participation and accountability actions are mutually integrated and reinforced, as a synergic power (Ling & Roberts, 2014; A. Meijer, 2013; A. J. Meijer, Curtin, & Hillebrandt, 2012). The government budget represents the consensus from complex interactions, and countries need governance to ensure more transparent institutions and free participation of citizens, including accountability in order to become a state of open access (Khagram et al., 2013). Countries need governance to ensure more transparent institutions in the structure of the decision-making process and the free participation of citizens to achieve a state of open access (North, Wallis, & Weingast, 2009).
From a literature review on open budget approach, using a four variables model, which Ling & Roberts (2014) labeled as transparency, participation, accountability and development results, we should consolidate a theoretical open budget framework.
Therefore, this piece argues social development as an output (what and how) of government activities is the result of transparency, participation, and accountability work as inputs (who and why). From this a theoretical study on the open budget approach, we highlight that not only are empirical researches important to confirm or not the results, but also that other conceptual papers are required to identify different or similar perspectives on this piece’s contributions.
REFERENCES:
Khagram, S., Fung, A., & De Renzio, P. (2013). Open budgets: The political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ling, C., & Roberts, D. K. (2014). Evidence of development impact from institutional change: a review of the evidence on open budgeting World bank policy research working paper (pp. 32). Washington, DC: WB.
Meijer, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429-439.
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: connecting vision and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10-29.
North, D., Wallis, J., & Weingast, B. (2009). Violence and Social Orders (1 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raadschelders, J. C. N. (1999). A coherent framework for the study of public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(2), 281-304.
Key Words: Open Budget; Stakeholders; Institutions; Development; Theoretical Framework
