Problem and Purpose

King Sabata Dalindyebo (KSD) municipality has no effective public participation in the budget formation process. Public participation is important as it improves the quality of decisions made by the municipality and encourage citizen-focused service delivery. At KSD municipality, the participation among citizens in the budget process is low. This was due to their lack of understanding of budget process. The low participation by the citizens was one of the factors that were causing poor municipality performance. The low public participation was also causing opaque hiring of staffs, wasteful and fruitless expenditure and non-compliance with the key performance indicators and smart objectives. Literature shows that effective participatory in the budgeting process is crucial since it enhances accountability and transparency. This reduces the government inefficiency and curb corruption, patronage and clientelism. At KSD municipality, citizens had feelings that their opinion were not effectively incorporated in the budgetary process.

The purpose of the study is to encourage citizen-focused service delivery through the implementation of public participation in the KSD Municipality budgetary process. This is important since local development can be achieved through participatory budgeting by including citizens in the negotiation of public resources. This is because it will result to prioritization of resource allocation, taxation and spending.

Background History & Context

       The Oliver Reginald Tambo District Municipality (OR Tambo District) in the Eastern Cape Province is home to the KSD Municipality, a Category B municipality. It was established in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution (RSA, 1996) and the Municipal Structures Act (RSA, 1998b). The municipality was formed prior to the 2000 local government elections when the transitional and rural areas of Mthatha and Mqanduli were merged. It was named after KSD in honor of his role in uniting the people of Mthatha and Mqanduli, as well as his contribution to South Africa's freedom. The administrative offices of the KSD Municipality are located in Mthatha. There are currently 36 wards in the municipality. The municipality is one of five in the district, and it is also the largest, accounting for a quarter of the district's geographic region. The Constitution (RSA, 1996) establishes three types of local government: a single-tier Category A municipality (made up of metropolitan cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants), a two-tier local government of category B (district) and C (local) municipalities, and a three-tier local government in which a category C municipality shares jurisdiction with a number of category B municipalities.

Public participation improves municipal policy, plan, and project decisions and promotes citizen-centered services. South Africa's post-1994 democratic government introduced new policies to increase citizen engagement in municipal management. Public engagement in financial decisions involves citizens deliberating and negotiating public resource distribution. Democracy improves living standards and services in South Africa. The government appears to be straining to meet voters' expectations as the country approaches its 21st year. To improve services, the government has developed many policies, guidelines, and laws. Rural and impoverished urban residents want better service. People, especially black populations who suffered under apartheid, see the current government as providing better services. Marginalized citizens complain that democracy has not brought bread-and-butter reforms. The current political system is mistrusted and unsatisfied. Service protests overwhelm South Africa. Social inclusivity is comparable between political systems. This narrative may make citizens who feel abandoned by their government lose faith in the current system.

The concept of public participation holds that people should be provided with an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and influence the municipality decisions. Public participation is therefore a collaborative activity where the concerns, values and needs of the citizens are acknowledged. Therefore, the municipalities in South Africa have to provide citizens with a platform to participate in the municipality decisions. Democratic government should ensure it is creating an environment that will encourage meaningful public participation and ensure the decisions made during public participation are incorporated into the policy proposals. This is in line with the South Africa’s Constitution that indicates that municipalities’ objectives are to encourage community organizations and involvement in the matters of local government. The 1998 White paper on Local government indicates that the municipalities should be committed to working with communities, groups and citizens in order to improve the quality of life and meet the materials, economic and social needs of communities.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

South Africa has established a number of legal instruments and democratic goods for public participation in budgeting. These were established to promote participatory budgeting under the sole leadership of government and local government, including the establishment of a constitution and a white paper on local government. Through these instruments, South Africa has, on one hand, promoted public participation in budgeting and, on the other hand, established the necessary linkages and important role of community members and local government in the budgeting process. The existence of these legal instruments is intended to ensure that the budgeting process is participatory and that it is fully engaged and effectively implemented by the public. In the case of the Constitution (RSA, 1996), there is a need for solidarity and coordination of efforts between the three spheres of government and between public and municipal authorities in all types of policy and decision-making. The Constitution places a responsibility on municipalities to establish platforms that allow for public participation in budgeting, to promote public participation in municipal functions and to increase the public's motivation for public participation. Budgets must be aligned with the needs and priorities of the community.

The Local Government White Paper (RSA, 1998) promotes a framework for government service delivery and the need for a people-centered approach to government. It reminds municipalities that they should incorporate the views, needs and goals of everyday residents into municipal decision-making and management, which includes a focus on budgeting. The White Paper requires the government to allow every stakeholder to participate in the decision-making process and to ensure maximum cooperation and greater public participation in the budgeting process.

The Municipal Systems Act (RSA, 2000) guarantees the fairness of participatory decision-making in the budget process and the comprehensiveness of the groups involved in decision-making. These provisions require municipalities to establish effective mechanisms, processes and procedures to promote greater involvement of local residents in the budgeting process. The Act states that residents' interests are mandatory in decision-making and intentionally involves the poor and other previously excluded groups.

The Financial Administration Act (RSA, 2003) provides a framework for municipalities to develop their budgets, as well as a specific timetable for their preparation and approval. The Act also defines the economic instruments that must be used when spending public funds. Government officials and local government authorities, as custodians of public funds, must act transparently and responsibly. The introduction of this law provides financial and legal support for budgeting.

These mean that there are legislative documents that play an important role in decision-making throughout the citizen participation process in the KSD municipality's budget. The introduction of the government document provides organizational and contextual support for citizen participation in the budgeting process and reflects the government's efforts to increase the motivation and fairness of citizen participation in the process.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The KSD municipality follows the budget process outlined in the MFMA (RSA, 2003), which sets out the framework for the preparation of the municipality's budget and the specific timeline for its preparation and approval. The planned timeline for the budget process is presented to Council for approval by the City's Executive Committee by August 31 of each year (10 months prior to the start of the next budget year). Accordingly, in August, the municipality convenes a forum of public representatives of integrated development plans, ward councilors and budget officers to present the draft budget process. The Public Representatives Forum is made up of ward and representative councilors, ward committees and all stakeholders (business people, community members, etc.) and is chaired by the City Executive Manager and supported by the Budget Steering Committee. The composition of the Public Representatives Forum is based on the criteria of ensuring geographical and social representation. The budget process is scheduled to be published in the local print media in September.

The budget steering committee following the print media advertisement meet to review the situational gap. In the month of October, a ward-to-ward outreach program is held to prioritize the resource allocation and consolidate the need analysis. This is referred to as the Izimbizo where the municipality officials meet the citizens in a public forum to listen to their concerns. The outreach is in accordance to the Municipality System Act that requires the municipalities to balance formal representative government by establishing an environment for local community participation in the municipality affairs. In April, the draft budget is advised for public comments and public meetings. These public meetings are in according to the provisions of MFMA that require municipalities to invite local communities to engage with the budget and make public the annual budget. This is in order to encourage public participation. The mayor and the head of department explain the budget procedures to the citizens. This is important as it promotes trust between the citizens and municipality as well as accommodate the marginalized groups. All needs and concerns are calibrated in the budget following the representative forum meetings and roadshows

In order to increase attendance and participation and to motivate people to participate in the budgeting process, the government needs to conduct education programs through the media to encourage and educate the public to participate in the budget. After a series of events and appeals, only 40% of municipal respondents indicated that they were regularly informed about budgeting and participated in these activities. Of those surveyed, 20 per cent said they were aware of budgeting but had never participated in it. As a result of the government's efforts, there has been a marked increase in public participation and motivation.

Method

The study used qualitative case study design using unstructured interviews of 52 participants that included finance officers, budgeting officers, IDP, communities and ward councilors drawn from KSD Municipality. The in-depth interviewee opinions were based on the term of participatory budgeting process within the municipality. To identify the participants in this study, purposive sampling was used to ensure only the participants who could provide crucial information about the participatory budgeting within KSD municipality were interviewed

What Went On: Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

The budget and IDP officer stated that the KSD Municipality adheres to the MFMA's budgeting process (RSA, 2003). Municipalities can create budgets within the parameters set forth by the MFMA (RSA, 2003), which also specifies the preparation and approval deadlines. According to the interviews, the accounting officer created the budget process plan and the schedule for the municipality and municipal units for the upcoming fiscal year with help from the manager in charge of IDP.

The budget timetable depicts the crucial dates for the IDP review, the medium-term budgeting framework creation, and the annual budget revision. The target dates have been established in accordance with the National Treasury's standards and the MFMA (RSA, 2003). After that, by the end of August each year, the executive mayor presents the council with the budget process plan timetable for approval (10 months before the start of the following budget year).

 In order to propose the budget process plan, the municipality calls the IDP Citizens' Representative Forum in August. With cooperation from the IDP/budget steering committee, the executive mayor presides over the citizens' representative forum, which comprises the ward and proportionate representative councilors, ward committees, and all stakeholders (businesspeople, community members, etc.). The selection of members for the citizens' representative forum is based on standards that guarantee socioeconomic and geographic diversity. In September, local print media in the area run an advertisement for the budget process plan. Following a print media ad, the IDP/budget steering committee, which is in charge of the citizens' representative forum, convenes in the same month of September to discuss the situational gap analysis. Municipal representatives make up the steering group for the IDP and budget, which is led by the municipal manager.

The outreach program is carried out in accordance with Section 16 of the Municipal Systems Act (RSA, 2000), which mandates that municipalities create conditions for the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, including the budget preparation process, in order to balance formal representative government with participatory governance.

The representative forum then submits the situational analysis report to the council after the ward-to-ward outreach initiatives. The technical budget preparation is then carried out by the CFO and senior managers. The steering committee for the IDP and budget then presents the first draught budget in March.

The draft budget is then made available for public feedback, and in April there are open forums and consultations. According to Section 22(a) of the MFMA, which mandates municipalities to make the annual budget public and encourage the local community to offer representation in connection with the budget, such public meetings and consultations are held. The KSD Municipality conducts the mayor's "roadshows" in this regard (public rallies). These programs seek to inform the public and promote more engagement.

 The mayor is joined by department heads who further explain the budget process to the public during these shows. Such a participative procedure is believed to decrease the likelihood of resource misallocation, accommodate the marginalized, and foster trust between the municipality and its residents. Following the roadshows and sessions of the representative forum, a synthesis of all the demands and concerns is calculated in the budget. The steering committee for the IDP and budget creates the final draught for this.   

The proposed budget is then presented to the council by the mayor. The council must vote on the proposed budget by May 31 in order for it to be approved (30 days before the start of the budget year). The manager in charge of budgeting delivers the approved budget in the written and electronic form to the National Treasury and the Provincial Treasury within 14 days of the draught annual budget being laid out. They also post it on the municipal website.

Local residents were of the opinion that public engagement in the financial procedures of the KSD Municipality was helpful. Both council members and people who responded to the survey stressed the need for citizens to take a central role in determining how much money cities and towns should set aside for certain services. Several residents commented that they want the city to work with them to determine what services are most important, and then adhere strictly to that list. They elaborated by saying that the residents would only value and appreciate a service if they had specifically asked for it. It's more probable that the service given by the municipality will be vandalized or left unused if the municipality chooses to ignore their list of requirements and instead provides another service that the municipality sees as vital.

Most respondents acknowledged the value of participatory budgeting, but they also reported that residents seldom took part in it, even for publicly accessible events like Izimbizo/roadshows. The public blamed their ignorance of the budget and the budget procedure for this. Six percent of those surveyed claimed familiarity with the budgeting procedure and the timing of any necessary contributions they might make. Most respondents (94%) admitted they were unaware of the procedure and its importance. The main problem is that citizens will not be able to influence local decision-making if they are not given the tools they need to do so. Governments should prioritize the use of appropriate procedures and strategies, such as enabling, connecting with the people, and promoting the municipal-citizen relationship, in order to have a substantial participatory planning procedure and provide the decision-making authority to the community (Leduka, 2009).

Education campaigns through the media to urge and educate residents on the need of attending budget Izimbizo are also needed to enhance attendance. More community events and roadshows should be organized, not simply to inform people about IDP and the budget, but also to teach them about the municipality's budgeting process.

Respondents also indicated they did not know about meetings or were told about them too late, and they lacked awareness of the financial process. People then feel unprepared to address fiscal concerns in public or that they lack the necessary information to do so. Consequently, just 40% of individuals polled said they regularly knew about and visited the Izimbizo. Twenty percent of those polled said they were aware of the Izimbizo but had never there. Still other respondents (40%) claimed to have never heard of the Izimbizo. Some people claim that communities often skip public meetings because they believe their participation will not alter or affect the 'predetermined goals,' but rather would only lend validity to the proceedings.

However, experts like state that civic society is essential for democracy. South Africa's civil society is still in its infancy, and as a result, there is no tradition of constructive participation in the country's local sphere of governance. A number of citizens who responded to the survey expressed concern that their participation was being used more as a formality than an opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Priority activities will already be outlined in a budget before public input is sought. That's why it's not always feasible to incorporate new ideas brought forth during public meetings.

Citizens saw the public outreach activities (also known as Izimbizo) as only telling the public about what the KSD municipal authorities have developed, rather than as a participatory activity. In fact, respondents to the interviews claimed that the majority of the time at these outreach events is spent by the municipal officials making comments, followed by an open-ended question and answer period. When taking into account the comments, it becomes clear that the public is not successfully involved in the participatory budgeting exercise being conducted by the KSD Municipality.

Instead of leaving the prioritization of requirements to the technical staff, the KSD Municipality should involve the public in the process from the beginning of the draught budget stage onward. In order to identify the obstacles the KSD Municipality faces in meeting the needs of its projects, it is necessary to convene budget officials, council members, citizens, CDWs, and other stakeholders. Priorities for the budget can be derived from this pool of potential concerns. Citizens won't feel like they have a say in the budgeting process if this isn't implemented. Only 20% of citizens who responded to the survey believed that their opinions influenced the decisions made by the KSD Municipality in their wards, which makes sense given that the KSD Municipality technical staff (IDP/budget steering committee) brings a draught budget to the representative forum rather than conducting a joint listing of budget items prior to developing the draught budget.

In addition, residents who participated in the survey claimed that they were never updated by municipal authorities on the status of any given project after council approval of the budget. Council members all complained that they had not received enough feedback from city authorities to prepare adequately for the public meeting in their respective wards. The lack of input during the budget's actual execution is likely to blame for the current predicament. There have to be better lines of communication between city officials and council members so that the latter are always aware of where the budgeting process stands. These details are essential for the council members to make responses to residents during ward Imbizo. In addition, authorities, communities, and councilors might benefit from seminars and training sessions that emphasize communication in order to improve their interpersonal abilities in their roles.

KSD Municipality must also try out some untried, cutting-edge approaches to communicating with locals. As a result, communication between the administration, the council, and the neighborhoods should be enhanced. Sixty per cent of respondents said the services provided by the municipality were not aligned with the community's main requirements because of the overall deficit in engagement at the budget development and implementation phases. Additionally, 94% of responding citizens agreed that the municipality's approach to governance and service provision was top-down.

The KSD Municipality did not pass the Auditor General's audit. For the fiscal years in question (2013/2014, 2014/2015, and 2015/2016), the KSD Municipality was given a qualified audit opinion (Municipalities South Africa, 2018). A lack of public involvement is likely one of the causes of the municipality's poor performance. Wasteful and pointless spending, unclear employment practices, and failure to meet sensible targets and key performance indicators are just some of the issues that arise as a result, as noted by the budget officer. Transparency and accountability may be improved by participatory budgeting.

 To a large extent, participatory budgeting is not achieving this goal in the KSD Municipality, which is located in a historically impoverished and marginalized region. Improvements in material or infrastructure may be noticeable in low-income areas, but the KSD Municipality should do more to boost the likelihood of participatory budgeting procedures.

According to the report, the KSD Municipality authorities understand the importance of public input required by the law governing municipal budgeting. Aside from the IDP and the budget plan, the local municipal offices also have their own planning documents that serve as the legal underpinning for their own planning efforts. However, the data shows that the public perceives little to no input within the budgeting process.

Influence

This case study shows that public participation still needs to be improved. A survey showed that some 94% of people felt they lacked knowledge of the specific process of participatory budgeting（Masiya, Mazenda and Gwabeni, 2021）. Some citizens thought that they do not have enough information about the budget process and participation, which might influence their decision on participatory budget. According to the view of citizen and councilors, the found themselves lack the feedback from municipality officials (Mfenguza, 2007); the transparency and subsequent accountability in the participatory budgeting process is also flawed. One of the solutions to the problem is improving communication methods between councilors and public and municipality officials, and their interactive skills should be trained effectively. The participation of the poor and marginalized also needs to be increased (Souza, 2001). A study on Participatory budgeting by the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) [SALGA, (2015), p.48] about KSD showed that about 51% of respondents felt that the government needed to improve Participatory budgeting mechanism in order to make public participation more meaningful and effective (Masiya, Mazenda and Gwabeni, 2021. In addition, from the perspective of participants, it is necessary for municipalities to provide sufficient information on public affairs such as budgets (Leduka, 2009). Part of the reason for these problems may be the uniqueness of its political system, that among those governments influenced by former colonial administrations and structures, elected officials act their political power more limitedly, meanwhile the technical bureaucrats master more political power (Leduka, 2009). The lack of transport resources is also a constraint to the development of Participatory budgeting in the city. Some meetings are held away from residential areas, which also has a negative impact on public participation (Makhedama, 2004).

Participatory budgeting has brought many positive effects, but it still has some problems that need to be solved. It can promote information exchange and cooperation among stakeholders, and it also provides opportunities for the public to monitor and understand the implementation and politics of policies (Mfenguza, 2007). In the case of the KSD municipality, participatory budgeting has encouraged citizens to become more involved in public life, but the extent and effectiveness of citizen participation still need to be improved (Makhedama, 2014). This research has provided valuable practical experiences, which could be used in further research about the roles of government and the public.

Analysis of democratic good

Democratic good refers to the values and benefits that a democratic system of government provides to its citizens. These benefits include political and civil rights, such as the right to vote and participate in the political process, as well as economic and social benefits, such as economic stability and social equality (Ross, 2006). Participatory budgeting is a democratic process that allows citizens to directly participate in the allocation of public funds at the local level. In South Africa, this process has been implemented in several municipalities as a way to promote transparency, accountability and inclusivity in decision-making. However, the success of participatory budgeting in South Africa is contested, and its effectiveness in promoting democratic goods remains a topic of debate.

One of the main democratic goods promoted by participatory budgeting is the idea of citizen participation and empowerment. By allowing citizens to directly participate in the allocation of public funds, they are given a sense of agency and ownership over their local municipality. This can lead to increased civic engagement and a more informed and invested citizenry. Furthermore, by giving citizens a say in how public funds are allocated, participatory budgeting can promote greater accountability and transparency in the decision-making process. However, the effectiveness of participatory budgeting in promoting citizen participation and empowerment is contested. Some argue that the process is often limited to a small group of active citizens and does not truly represent the needs and desires of the entire community. Furthermore, the process can be complex and difficult for citizens to navigate, leading to low participation rates and a lack of diverse voices being heard (Lerner, 2011).

Another democratic good promoted by participatory budgeting is the idea of inclusivity and representation. By giving citizens a direct role in decision-making, the process can promote greater representation of marginalized groups and ensure that their needs are taken into account. Additionally, by giving citizens a say in how public funds are allocated, participatory budgeting can help to address issues of spatial inequality and ensure that resources are distributed equitably across the municipality. However, the effectiveness of participatory budgeting in promoting inclusivity and representation is also contested. Some argue that the process can be dominated by more affluent and educated citizens, leading to a lack of representation of marginalized groups (Shah, 2007). Additionally, the process can be limited by language barriers and a lack of accessibility for people with disabilities, further limiting the inclusivity of the process.

While participatory budgeting has the potential to promote democratic goods such as citizen participation and empowerment and inclusivity and representation, the effectiveness of the process in achieving these goals is debatable. To truly promote democratic goods, municipalities must ensure that the process is inclusive and accessible to all citizens, and that the needs and desires of marginalized groups are taken into account. Additionally, municipalities must work to address issues of low participation rates and a lack of diversity in the decision-making process. Overall, while participatory budgeting is a step in the right direction towards promoting democratic goods, there is still much work to be done to ensure that the process is truly inclusive and effective in promoting greater transparency and accountability in the allocation of public funds.

Lessons Learned

Participatory budgeting process has been implemented in many countries around the world, including South Africa, where it has been used as a tool for promoting good governance and community empowerment (Sintomer, Herzberg & Röcke, 2008)). The implementation of Participatory budgeting in South African local municipalities has provided valuable lessons for democratic good in relation to the participation of citizens in budgeting processes.

One of the most important lessons learned from Participatory budgeting in South Africa is the importance of community engagement and participation. Participatory budgeting allows citizens to have a say in how public funds are allocated in their local municipality, which promotes a sense of ownership and accountability among community members. This has been shown to lead to greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness in local government, as citizens are more likely to engage with the budgeting process and hold their representatives accountable for the use of public funds.

Another important lesson learned from Participatory budgeting in South Africa is the importance of inclusivity. Participatory budgeting has been used as a tool to empower marginalized groups, such as women, youth, and disabled people, to participate in the budgeting process and have their voices heard. This has been shown to lead to greater social inclusion and the empowerment of underrepresented groups, which can help to promote social cohesion and reduce inequality.

The implementation of Participatory budgeting in South Africa has also highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in local government. Participatory budgeting promotes transparency by allowing citizens to see how public funds are allocated, which encourages accountability among local officials. This can lead to greater trust and confidence in local government, as citizens are more likely to engage with the budgeting process and hold their representatives accountable for the use of public funds.

References;

1. Modise, L. J. (2017). The notion of participatory democracy in relation to local ward committees: The distribution of power. In die Skriflig, 51(1), 1-8.
2. Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766-776.
3. Marzuki, A. (2015). Challenges in the Public Participation and the Decision Making Process. Sociologijaiprostor/Sociology & Space, 53(1).
4. Ngubane, M. B. (2005). An evaluation of service delivery at eNdondakusuka Local Municipality (Doctoral dissertation).
5. Pretorius, D., &Schurink, W. (2007). Enhancing service delivery in local government: the case of a district municipality. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(3), 19-29.
6. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa No. 108 of 1996, Government Printers, Pretoria.
7. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998a) The White Paper on Local Government 1998, Government Printers, Pretoria.
8. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2000) Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000, Government Printers, Pretoria.
9. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2003) Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act No. 56 of 2003, Government Printers, Cape Town.

10. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2000) Local Government: t Act No. 32 of

1. Municipalities South Africa (2018) King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality (EC157) [online]
2. https://municipalities.co.za/financial/1032/king-sabata-dalindyebo-local-municipality (accessed 6 May 2018).
3. https://participedia.net/method/146Wampler, B., 2000. A guide to participatory budgeting.
4. 13.Masiya, T., Mazenda, A., & Gwabeni, T. N. (2021). Participatory budgeting in a South African local municipality. International Journal of Management Practice, 14(3), 325-342.
5. Langa, B., & Jerome, A. (2004). Participatory Budgeting in South Africa. Cahiers du SISERA/Secrétariat d'appui institutionnel pour la recherche économique en Afrique; 2004/1.
6. Mfenguza, N. (2007). An analysis of community participation in local government integrated development planning with reference to King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality. Unpublished thesis, department of public administration, nelson mandela metropolitan university.
7. Leduka, M. (2009). Participatory budgeting in the South African local government context: The case of the Mantsopa local municipality, Free State province (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).
8. Souza, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159-184.
9. Makhedama, M. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Integrated Development Planning Processes in the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality, Province of the Eastern Cape (Doctoral dissertation, University of Fort Hare).
10. South African Local Government Association. (2015). Community protest: Local government perceptions. Pretoria: SALGA.
11. Masiya, T., Mazenda, A., & Gwabeni, T. N. (2021). Participatory budgeting in a South African local municipality. International Journal of Management Practice, 14(3), 325-342.
12. Langa, B., & Jerome, A. (2004). Participatory Budgeting in South Africa. Cahiers du SISERA/Secrétariat d'appui institutionnel pour la recherche économique en Afrique; 2004/1.
13. Leduka, M. (2009). Participatory budgeting in the South African local government context: The case of the Mantsopa local municipality, Free State province (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch).
14. Souza, C. (2001). Participatory budgeting in Brazilian cities: limits and possibilities in building democratic institutions. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1), 159-184.
15. Makhedama, M. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Integrated Development Planning Processes in the King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality, Province of the Eastern Cape (Doctoral dissertation, University of Fort Hare).
16. South African Local Government Association. (2015). Community protest: Local government perceptions. Pretoria: SALGA.

26. Lerner, J. (2011). Participatory budgeting: Building community agreement around tough budget decisions. National Civic Review, 100(2), 30-35.

27. Ross, M. (2006). Is democracy good for the poor? American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 860-874.

28. Shah, A. (Ed.). (2007). Participatory budgeting. World Bank Publications.

29. Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International journal of urban and regional research, 32(1), 164-178.