A Scoping Review of The Practicality of Participatory Budgeting in Rural Tanzania
BISNIS & BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi, Vol: 31, Issue: 1, Page: 49-63
2024
- 326Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage326
- Downloads199
- Abstract Views127
Article Description
The current framework of participatory budgeting (PB) in Tanzania refers to the Opportunities and Obstacles to Development (O&OD) methodology. However, this policy tool seems to pay little attention to the rural-urban dichotomy, thus raising questions regarding its practicality in marginalized, rural areas. This article synthesized evidence based on the practicality of PB under the O&OD methodology in rural Tanzania to provide insights for decision-makers and practitioners at relevant levels of government. Employing a scoping study approach, the included publications consisted of policy studies (n = 6), academic papers (n = 8), and journal articles (n = 7), all of which covered rural district councils (n = 21). Research designs, analyses, and results of these included publications were examined. The synthesized evidence suggests that PB is context-sensitive and may not be applicable in rural Tanzania due to costs of participation, unconducive political culture, limited fiscal autonomy, and knowledge inclusiveness trade-off. Overall, the evidence from practicality categories indicates that PB is an induced bottom-up process, which may require robust facilitation by civil society to be practical in rural areas. This article has policy implications for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, which promotes inclusive societies for sustainable development and access to justice for all through local governments.
Bibliographic Details
Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi: Bisnis & Birokrasi
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know