Problems and Purpose

Participatory budgeting is used when resources are allocated to a usually localised group of people to tackle a problem that is specific to them in the hope of minimising issues and allocating those resources in a way that is common with the group's will. In this case, the aim is to divert control away from those in local and central governments towards a more inclusive approach, as they have been known to partake in corrupt practices, restricting the resources that go to civilians.[i] This would also be an attempt to restore trust in the government once again after the failed promises of previous governments.

Background history and context

The participatory budgeting process in Busia County has been ongoing since 2013, after amendments to the 2010 constitution laid the groundwork for it to become a regular occurrence. The story of the problems faced by Busia County and Kenya as a whole goes back much further than 2010; however, the regime in place before was incredibly overcentralised.[ii] Such power in the hands of so few people in the central government led to rampant corruption; elites in Nairobi were the only people with a say in almost every matter of the state.[iii] Recognition of this prompted the 2010 constitutional change and the following mandatory participatory budgeting.

That being said, the participatory budgeting process has changed in the years since its introduction. Most of the improvements come from Busia County, which is improving by “making more budget documents publicly available”.[iv] This will allow for a more informed participation in the participatory budgeting process by the public, which logically results in higher-quality decisions. While part of this improvement may be the increase in the percentage of the population that has access to the internet during this time, there also needs to be credit given to the local government for actively uploading documents to public government sites for people to read and inform themselves.

Organising and supporting entities

Busia County Local Government

Their involvement is mandated by the 2010 constitution and the 2012 Public Finance Management Act to address issues with the previous centralised government. They do so with the “hope to close the gap between government institutions and the public by involving residents in the budgetary process”.[v] The local government played a key role in designing the three-tier system and the participatory process. This is everything from the participation forums to scheduling who votes and when.

Community Empowerment and Development Centre (CEDC)

As a non-governmental organisation, the CEDC were brought in to “strengthen the otherwise curtailed public voice”.[vi] In other words, they created spaces where only those who didn’t usually have a say would get one, allowing a more diverse range of voices than Busia County was used to.

Kenya Red Cross

The Kenya Red Cross employs a Community Engagement and Accountability Approach (CEAA). Through community leaders, they operate a feedback line, feedback desks, and other feedback mechanisms.[vii] It is because of them that any improvements made to the participatory budgeting process were identified in the first place.

International Bodies:

Population Reference Bureau (PRB)

Through its Policy, Advocacy and Communication Enhanced (PACE), they advocate for increased funding for health services.[viii] After this was seen as a key aim of the publicly discussed parts of the participatory process, they were keen to get involved. They were also there to build the administrators' capacity to give the public more information through the participatory process by helping administrators “understand, interpret, and use health data.”[ix] Through this data, they advocate for greater participation in the budgeting process, as they can point to real-world improvements.

UNICEF

Like the PRB, UNICEF is there for the health benefits. They help establish a “nutrition MSP,” which brings stakeholders together to address malnutrition.[x] In this endeavour, they will also build Busia County's capacity to implement better health reforms of participatory budgeting, indirectly increasing its effectiveness. These reforms apply primarily to children's healthcare through the Early Childhood Development (ECD) program.

DANIDA

DANIDA's primary role has been “to increase counties’ engagement and capacities in carrying out devolved service delivery through accountable and democratic processes.”[xi] Their main path to doing this is financial, as they have given approximately $50,000 USD in funding through government grants.[xii] This money was used to train staff and promote accountability in the appropriate use of public funds.

How did they interact with each other?

The County Government of Busia acts as a central hub from which all other entities can branch off. It alone prepares the budgets and organises the official public forums. It interacts with CSOS like CEDC through its “created spaces,” which are set up only when the official spaces are deemed too restrictive due to their adherence to broader central government policy.[xiii] Donors like DANIDA were there to offer the Country Government financial aid, technical support and training to improve service delivery and public budgeting.

Civil organisations like the CEDC would interact with the County Government by pushing for more participation and transparency. Much like the County Government, they also received money from donors like DANIA, albeit in smaller quantities, thanks to their more minor role in the participatory budgeting process.

The donors mainly act to build capacity through grants and training for the central government. They communicate most with each other, as they must coordinate and possibly co-fund projects when they align. This will usually result in collaboration on a project's administrative and implementation side.

How were the leaders chosen?

The county government will be partly made up of elected officials, most relevant to this case study, the members of the County Assembly. Some committee members, however, will be appointed by the Governor and then vetted by the elected County Assembly. However, many who implemented the plan were career civil servants hired using more traditional competitive recruitment methods.

DANIA's leader is appointed through the Danish Foreign Office and the foreign minister at the time of an open DANIDA position, meaning that the central Danish government has total control over DANIA’s budget and operations.[xiv]

The UNICEF Executive Director is “appointed by the Secretary-General after consultation with the UNICEF Executive Board”.[xv] The Executive Director then makes recommendations for Deputy Executive Directors, who will then go on to appoint regional and country-based executives themselves. [xvi]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The initiative was technically “allows everyone to participate,” but there was no formal system in place for ensuring equal representation across demographics, for example.[xvii] In practice, “Many citizens who took part in the County participation initiatives volunteered to do so”.[xviii] This means they were not randomly selected and recruited, with most hearing about the participatory system informally through peers, their local chief, or community leaders. This led to an uneven turnout across groups, which means that generally, relatively better-off individuals and those with the will and the time to involve themselves. It can be assumed that this is the case because there is no mention of financial compensation to participants in official documentation. Most people participated because they were driven by “their shared experiences of exclusion and altruistic goals of pursuing service improvement”.[xix]That is not to say there was a lack of awareness, as local administrative structures such as ward administrators would have made some aware of the participatory process. It is just that there was no standardised awareness system to ensure all groups were informed of it to the same extent.

Although experts are not officially mentioned in the official discussion spaces for participatory budgeting, as previously mentioned, CSOs did invite experts into their own participatory spaces.

Methods and tools

Participatory budgeting is a democratising process in which ordinary community members get the power to allocate a section of public spending, usually in their local area. The idea of implementing participatory budgeting is to encourage a more inclusive and empowering decision-making process in the local community.[xx]

Implementation tools

Verbal public feedback on the development needs and priorities during the open forums

Written submissions (used only by CSOs) that present a more structured version of the oral feedback

The county website was used to post some budget documents online

Local chiefs and ward-level administrators were used mainly to mobilise people to participate

Standardised budget templates laid out in the CIDP serve as a formula into which you should put public input.

Small group discussion usually at the village or ward level

Public forums are typical of participatory budgeting, and participants are occasionally grouped by villages, which resembles the small group discussion typical of a participatory budgeting process. This is used with the verbal and written feedback of the official and CSO spaces, respectively. Therefore, the tools used are tailored for participatory budgeting, but they are not reinforcing each other in the expected way for a robust participatory system.

There are, however, a wide variety of trade-offs that come with this particular blend of circumstances:

Because there is no structured facilitation, there is a high chance of more vocal people being able to dominate the spaces for discussion

A result of their being completely open forums and an inconsistent outreach in those that are aware and turn up means that the representation of the discussive groups will be uneven, particularly concerning marginalised or minority groups.

Limited deliberation resulted from people being grouped by village, because there is no official mention of expert involvement, unless people were to look up the details on their own. This will limit the depth of the debate as people will be less informed overall, as most are unlikely to go out of their way to look up facts and figures beforehand.

Because there is no formal voting system, the idea is to use a consensus-based approach. Participants will either agree on something or fail to agree, in which case all suggestions will be treated equally.

There is no official feedback line, which means that changes are slow to come about. The only feedback given regarding the participatory process is given by the Kenyan Red Cross, which, as an external body, can advise the County Government on what could be improved.

What went on

All the tools mentioned earlier were applied using a four-stage approach, although “the real participatory budgeting takes place at the ward level.”[xxi] This was the second stage of the 4-stage approach, but is the most relevant one to the what went on section. Citizens were “grouped according to the villages that comprise each ward”, meaning the discussions would have occurred with people who lived geographically close to each other.[xxii] Each ward had its public discussion forum, meaning there were 35 separate ward-level discussions between January and March 2024. While “citizen engagement being applied to the CIDP” is a must, they are not regulated in how it improves the areas defined.[xxiii] The areas stated are “water, electricity,roads, water, bridges and ports, health services and education facilities”, which were especially pointed out as areas of concern for the government.[xxiv] This was a consistent criticism of the process, as one participant said, “How can they even hear me out when they don’t involve us in coming with a program that guides discussions?” pointing the blame directly at the need to follow the recommendations of the CIDP.[xxv]

Organisers were partly there to mobilise the public to participate in the first stage of the discussion.[xxvi] During the talks themselves, they were there to administer them. Still, there are many criticisms of them failing to do so, with claims that “certain participants abuse their influence to strengthen and legitimise positions driven by particularistic interests.”[xxvii]

While the process was designed to result in a formal decision, due to the participatory element of the decision-making being at the lowest tier of approval, the final say was left to the country government officials and not those who were selected to represent their ward. There was an explicit encouragement for people to “reach consensus on their proposals”, but this was only at the ward level, as experts and politicians mainly comprised the higher levels of authority in this system.[xxviii] There were complaints about citizens not being “given enough time to discuss their priorities during participatory forums”, suggesting that while officially all positions and opinions were collected and noted, many felt they did not hear enough of what others had to say.[xxix] As a result of the consensus based approach, there was no secret voting, instead it was the job of members to “persuade one another with arguments that make sense to others” This means that projects would only have been elevated to the next level if all of those representing their ward deemed it relevant and suitable to do.[xxx]

Influences outcomes and effects:

Did the initiative achieve its intended results?

The true answer is partially. Some of the intended goals have been achieved, most noticeably, creating forums for public input into the budgeting process. Meanwhile, some parts of the process still need improvement to realise the vision established in the 2010 constitution fully.

Citizens' awareness has increased with the number of citizens volunteering to participate in participatory budgeting.

Establishing discussions with citizens (especially at the ward level) has led to a structured space for public participation.

There was also alignment with the CIDP document, which forms the guidelines for all Kenyan participatory budgeting under the 2010 constitution.

Has the participatory budgeting influenced any areas?

Concerning public policy, the CBEF has validated public inputs and integrated them into the official budget cycle. However, there is limited transparency into the impact these public decisions have on final budgetary decisions on a county-wide level.

Many NGOS have shifted their strategies to fit the participatory budgeting process in Busia County. The best example is that they are “forced to submit memoranda in their own created spaces.”[xxxi] This means that NGOS are forced to submit their own records when they are excluded from the official government-run discussions.

One area that has had a strong effect on the community is the strengthening of social cohesion. These have been described as “citizenship schools,” in which people learn the skills to deliberate, advocate, and negotiate with each other in an official environment.[xxxii] By association, there has been a notable change in people's behaviour, as they are now used to being participating citizens. This means that citizens are much more likely to challenge government proposals and expect more significant levels of accountability from their government.

To an extent, people have acted outside official government policy, using participatory spaces, saying, “We occasionally give priority to projects that have stalled.”[xxxiii] This not only shows a capacity for villages to organise themselves, but it also shows a potential for local consensus to be reached, presumably through deliberation.

While participatory budgeting in Kenya did not start with Busia County, it has spread nationwide since the 2010 constitutional change. Other counties, like Makueni and Baringo, followed the model used in Busia County. The most significant influence of Busia County was in the real world, with ward-level discussions that had limitations, like a limited feedback loop.[xxxiv]

Analysis and lessons learned

The participatory budgeting process in Busia County met some democratic goals. Still, to analyse them, we must understand that “the extent to which these goods are realised enables us to judge the democratic legitimacy and practical feasibility.”[xxxv] In other words, Smith is saying that the ability of a project to meet the democratic goods constitutes its legitimacy and feasibility. This means that the goods themselves should be treated as questions that should be asked when studying a specific case study. The lack of lengthy, regimented deliberation implies that a crucial part of considered judgments can never be met. At the same time, the necessity of this is debated. This segment of the entry will focus on the extent to which the participatory budgeting in Busia County fulfils the criteria set by Smith when describing the six democratic goods and the areas in which it falls short.

In terms of the six goods as we know them, some are directly related; to this end, I will evaluate the project's inclusiveness and popular control. In some sense, the project excelled at leaving the ward-level discussions open to all, with anyone in the same village being able to participate. In practice, however, many people would leave these ward-level discussions without contributing, as socially connected or loud individuals dominated them.[xxxvi] This goes hand in hand with sufficient public control, as the perception of control is necessary to ensure engagement and continue participatory budgeting.[xxxvii] In this subject, the Busia County participatory budgeting does not devolve enough power to the participants, mainly due to the government having to follow the guidelines in the 2010 Constitution and the CIDP guidelines.[xxxviii] Smith associates a “fair discussion and reason-giving in the cultivation of considered judgement” with a proper use of participatory budgeting.[xxxix] In Busia County, there is not enough discussion of the project that citizens deemed worthy of the public funds due to the local government's agenda-setting capacity. This led to fair discussion being silenced frequently enough for the CEDC to create its own open agenda discussion spaces that would allow anything to be discussed. While this does solve the problem, it should be noted that as a CSO, the CEDC cannot enforce the results of their participatory process. At the same time, they transcribe the meetings to back up any potential project suggestions, the government does not have to consider this for their final judgment.

The democratic goods of considered judgement and transparency are related to the quality of people’s participation and their understanding of the initiative. According to Smith, “considered judgment requires that citizens are not limited by their private interests”.[xl] This means that people can understand the actions of others even when their backgrounds and interests are incredibly different from their own. While separate from considered judgment, transparency enhances it as, at the root of transparency, is being open to scrutiny.[xli] Naturally, being open to scrutiny within a debate will allow for more considered judgment. However, openness outside the discussion is also helpful, ensuring a fair debate. In a sense, Smith provides his counterargument to complete transparency under the fear that it will overload participants with information, such that some are “not always able to cultivate considered judgement”.[xlii] To this end, the participatory budgeting in Busia County is shadowed by the fact that there seems to be no formal discussion and deliberation spaces that were given enough time for participants to communicate effectively with each other and reach considered judgments. According to Smith’s definition of considered judgement, citizens can accommodate more than their private interests in their decision-making, but that is mainly because the people who volunteer to participate already have a socially beneficial inclination. However, this is not the consensus among academics, with people like Brian Wampler saying that the most important part of participatory budgeting is that it “delegates specific decision-making authority to citizens” and that deliberation is not necessarily needed to be a successful attempt to implement it.[xliii] To this extent, the Busia County participatory budgeting meets this democratic good in that it has direct access to voting via the voluntary spaces set up by the county government. However, this ignores citizens' lack of knowledge on the discussed topics due to the lack of expertise in the discussions.[xliv] Although this does bring up the question of what about those that have the will to participate but cannot physically show up at a given location at a given time, however, every method of voting has drawbacks; online voting could be exclusive to those who do not have access to the internet and so on. The disagreement in academia ensures that it depends on the type of project being discussed and the amount of funds allocated to determine the need for deliberation. As for transparency alone, “the county does not provide feedback to citizens,” which limits external knowledge of the participatory process, meaning no single party can be fully informed enough to judge its usefulness.[xlv] While NGOs like the CEDC provide feedback, transparency mirrors considered judgment in that the currently available resources for the participatory process do not allow it to be enabled to the fullest extent.

The last two democratic goods address the practicality of the participatory budgeting experiment: efficiency and transferability. Given that these goods “embody practical considerations of feasibility”, in some ways, they are the most essential democratic goods as they alone determine whether it will happen again.[xlvi] Smith emphasises that political commitment is crucial to ensuring a sustainable participatory budgeting example, which was the case with Busia County and Kenya; it is part of the constitution.[xlvii] This allows the transferability of the project to be high, as is seen with other Kenyan Counties using the same participatory framework as Busia County. This leads back to the lack of efficiency, as the scale of the participatory budgeting will allow for an economies of scale type effect in which the cost to do each one will decrease.[xlviii] While there is no public cost breakdown available, having to use DANIDA’s $50,000 grant to train staff does cast a shadow over the commitment of the central government to properly equip the local councils to perform participatory budgeting to a good standard. Then, the cost to the participants must be considered. With no financial reward for participation, it is unlikely that the poorer members of society will be able to spare the unpaid time to participate in the process. The project's longevity is also questioned by the amount of control over discussions retained by the local councils. This is a result of the lack of “adequate policy transfer”.[xlix] Essentially, this means that the government does not give citizens the power for fundamental transformation, which will result in a lack of enthusiasm over time for the project, as it will not have the capability to fix the underlying issues.

Ultimately, the participatory budgeting experience in Busia County reflects Smith's observation. That “it is difficult to imagine any innovation or combination of innovations that can fully realise all six goods”, which Busia County embodies by not realising them or realising the ones it does to different extents.[l] While technically an inevitability, according to Smith, there is always an ideal that provides an aim to strive for. Therefore, it is in the interests of all for the participatory process in Busia County to be improved, as this will allow the government to come closer to the promises made by the 2010 constitution and enable citizens to see more evidence of their power as a collective.

Lessons learned:

What worked, what didn’t work?

The main success of Busia County's participatory budgeting is the successful implementation of a three-tiered participatory model. This implementation is also seen in the repeatability of this scheme, as they have been using the same framework since 2013.

The social success of participatory budgeting is that the people of Busia County have learned to debate more effectively and negotiate with each other.[li] While these skills would be expected in the context of participatory budgeting, they are beneficial and transferable, with the potential to help in people’s professional and personal lives.

The most significant failing of the participatory elements was that they did not have enough time to hear everyone’s opinions. The fact that complex ideas are presented and discussed in a way that could be described as “hurriedly done” will likely result in a degradation in the overall quality of the debate.[lii] Not only were these debates rushed, but there is an inequality in them, as “many participants thus leave participatory forums without making contributions”, meaning a few participants with loud voices and domineering personalities dominated discussions.[liii] There is also the problem of the decisions reached in these counties not being binding; the government is not obligated to follow the conclusion reached in the ward level discussions, as the 2010 constitutional change still gave the government the power to set its agenda.

Could these shortcomings be addressed in the future, or the successes expanded upon?

The primary way to expand the project's success, especially at the ward level, would be to introduce voting into discussions. As the current consensus method does not leave room for there to be a prioritisation of multiple projects that could be taken to the next level of discussion before they are potentially presented to the local government; doing so would mean that even if the government were to reject the top proposal consistently, there would be a higher chance of something discussed in the participatory budgeting to be enacted.

There is a need for the lack of inclusion to be discussed, whether fixed through an invitation/random sampling system, moderators, or compensation for taking part, is not the focus of this piece to decide. Still, marginalised people are not currently included in the discussion.

Another key area in which the current formula is lacking is reporting to participants on the status of their suggestions. There is currently nothing in place to tell people if their recommendations will be implemented; this would likely result in broader participation as well, as people would hear of the real-world effects of the participatory budgeting program more quickly, drumming up interest around it. This would allow not only a more informed public but also give minorities an extra reason to participate.

Were participants satisfied?

Overall, the results are mixed. A group of citizens were pleased when they were told that the construction of a solar-powered borehole was “a result of participation in the budgeting process” They were glad to see such a direct association with participation.[liv] However, most citizens who have taken part complain of the County Government's ability to “decide the order of business in the entire process”, resulting in citizens not having enough control over the topics discussed.[lv] This pairs well with the problem mentioned above, that they were only given “a few minutes” to discuss the contents of the documents they were presented with.[lvi] These factors combined led to 63.7% of residents agreeing that public cynicism around participatory budgeting exists.[lvii] Although much of this is based on previous governments' broken promises and corruption, it is not something to blame the current organisers for.

Can other literature tell us anything about this?

The Swedish Centre for Local Democracy tells us that deliberation is “particularly effective for equitable decision-making”, therefore, a fuller implementation in Busia County would be optimal.[lviii] Compared to Busia County as a baseline, “Each group in our study outperformed” (regarding satisfaction and willingness to partake again) using a more robust deliberative framework.[lix]

A good comparison of this, in which the goal is the same, but the means are different, is Scotland’s Just Transition Scheme and its related participatory budgeting. They introduced a system of online voting to reduce the cost of participation and used expert-led presentations to inform participants about the projects being discussed.[lx] This resulted in a much more vigorous feedback system than in the Busia County example, with participants saying that “this seems like a process that could and should go from strength to strength”.[lxi] Satisfaction was much more universal than in Busia County, mainly due to more accessible voting systems and a more direct feedback loop between participants and organisers.

A system with similarities in the inputs but not the outcomes is that of Makueni County, also in Kenya. Operating under the same constitution and therefore the same restrictions, they have implemented a voting system and “community based monitoring systems” to increase transparency and trust in the government.[lxii] This has led to it being described as an example of participatory budgeting in which “the government became an agent of the people”, instead of people still being subservient to the local county government, like in Busia County.[lxiii]

See also

For more Kenya PB, see: https://participedia.net/case/implementation-of-the-makueni-county-participatory-budgeting-framework-fy-2015-2016

And https://participedia.net/case/marsabit-county-public-budget-participatory-process

And https://participedia.net/case/west-pokot-county-participatory-budget-hearings-kenya

Bibliography:

Achiambo, R. (2022). Strategic leadership in the implementation of County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) in Busia County. International Journal of Business Management & Finance, 2(1), 217. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378521062

Best practices brief. (2021). In prb.org (p. 3). Population Reference Bureau. https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/04.02.21_Kenya-Lessons-Learned-Brief-Digital.pdf

County quarterly budget implementation report Q3 21-40 (D) 0-20 (E) www.internationalbudget.org annual development plan approved programme-based budget county fiscal strategy paper county budget review & outlook paper citizens budget county quarterly budget implementation report Q1 county quarterly budget implementation report Q2. (2023). In Internationalbudget.org (p. 2). Internationalbudget.org. https://internationalbudget.org/publications/kenyas-county-budget-transparency-survey-2022/

DANIDA. (2021). Danida. Kenya.um.dk; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. https://kenya.um.dk/en/about-denmark-in-kenya/danida-en?utm_=

Grillos, T., & Touchton, M. (2024). Policy Brief No. 33. In Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy (pp. 1–3). Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy. https://icld.se/wp-content/uploads/ICLD_Policy-Brief_33-web.pdf

Just Transition participatory budgeting: pilot phase, 2022/2023 (pp. 7–11). (2023). Scottish Community Development Centre. https://25516750.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/25516750/JTPB%20Fund%20Yr%201%20Summary%20pdf.pdf

Kenya – PACE. (2022). Thepaceproject.org; Population Reference Bureau. https://www.thepaceproject.org/country-programs/kenya/

Kudryavtsev, E. (2000). Senior-level appointments in the United Nations, its programmes and funds. In Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations’ Systems (p. 12). United Nations. https://www.unjiu.org/sites/www.unjiu.org/files/jiu_document_files/products/en/reports-notes/JIU%20Products/JIU_REP_2000_3_English.pdf

Makueni County Public Participation Policy. (2022). In Public Policy Repository (pp. 35–37). Governemnt of Makueni County. https://repository.kippra.or.ke/items/9cfb0771-c137-4117-ab29-3e42db5c2256

Nyadera, I. N., Agwanda, B., & Maulani, N. (2020). Evolution of Kenya’s political system and challenges to democracy. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp. 2–4). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3997-1

Nyong’a, E. M., & Gachanja, P. M. (2021). Public participation in the policy making process: An evaluation of Makueni County, Kenya. International Journal of Current Aspects, 5(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.35942/ijcab.v5i2.169

Omusugu, A. I. (2024). Participatory budgeting, opportunities and challenges: The case study of Busia County (pp. 4–32). University of Nairobi Press.

Osogo, J., & Kioko, C. (2025). Decentralisation and inclusion in Kenya from pre-colonial times to the first decade of devolution. In Kabarak (p. 9). Kabarak University Press. https://kabarak.ac.ke/images/downloads/docs/decentralisation_and_inclusion_in_kenya.pdf

Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation (pp. 6–200). Cambridge University Press.

Strategic framework -Kenya 2021-2025 strategic framework Denmark-Kenya partnership 2021-2025. (2020). In kenya.um (p. 19). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. https://kenya.um.dk/danida-en//en/-/media/country-sites/kenya-en/danida/strategic-framework-kenya.ashx

The Busia County citizens’ budget: FY 2020-2021. (2020). In busiacounty.go.ke (pp. 4–5). County Government of Busia. https://www.busiacounty.go.ke/assets/documents/uploads/BUSIA%20COUNTY%20CITIZEN%20BUDGET%20FY%202020-2021-1C8Jv.pdf

Update on the context and situation of children. (2024). In Unicef (p. 4). Unicef. https://www.unicef.org/media/152251/file/Kenya-2023-COAR.pdf

Waigumo, G. (2024, August 8). Nourishing hope | Kenya Red Cross. Kenya Red Cross | Always There; Red Cross. https://www.redcross.or.ke/nourishing-hope/

Wampler, B. (2007). Participatory budgeting in Brazil: contestation, cooperation, and accountability (p. 2). Pennsylvania State University Press, Cop.

External links

Busia County official page: https://busiacounty.go.ke/

CEDC official page: https://cedckenya.org/

Kenya Red Cross official page: https://www.redcross.or.ke/

PRB’s involvement in Kenya: https://www.prb.org/projects/promoting-evidence-on-early-childhood-development-in-east-and-southern-africa/

UNICEF official website: https://www.unicef.org/

DANIDA official website: https://um.dk/en/danida

[i] (Nyadera et al., 2020)

[ii] (Osogo & Kioko, 2025, p. 9)

[iii] (Nyadera et al., 2020)

[iv] (“County Quarterly Budget Implementation Report Q3 21-40 (D) 0-20 (E) Www.internationalbudget.org Annual Development Plan Approved Programme-Based Budget County Fiscal Strategy Paper County Budget Review & Outlook Paper Citizens Budget County Quarterly Budget Implementation Report Q1 County Quarterly Budget Implementation Report Q2,” 2023)

[v] (Omusugu, 2024)

[vi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[vii] (Waigumo, 2024)

[viii] (Kenya – PACE, 2022)

[ix] (“Best Practises Brief,” 2021)

[x] (“Update on the Context and Situation of Children,” 2024)

[xi] (“Strategic Framework -Kenya 2021-2025 Strategic Framework Denmark-Kenya Partnership 2021-2025,” 2020)

[xii] (“The Busia County Citizen’s Budget: FY 2020-2021,” 2020)

[xiii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xiv] (DANIDA, 2021)

[xv] (Kudryavtsev, 2000)

[xvi] (Kudryavtsev, 2000)

[xvii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xviii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xix] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xx] (Smith, 2009, p. 65)

[xxi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxiii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxiv] (Achiambo, 2022)

[xxv] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxvi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxvii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxviii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxix] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxx] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxxi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxxii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxxiii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxxiv] (“Makueni County Public Participation Policy,” 2022)

[xxxv] (Smith, 2009, p. 6)

[xxxvi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xxxvii] (Smith, 2009, p. 178)

[xxxviii] (Achiambo, 2022)

[xxxix] (Smith, 2009, p. 174)

[xl] (Smith, 2009, p. 173)

[xli] (Smith, 2009, p. 25)

[xlii] (Smith, 2009, p. 176)

[xliii] (Wampler, 2007, p. 2)

[xliv] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xlv] (Omusugu, 2024)

[xlvi] (Smith, 2009, p. 200)

[xlvii] (Smith, 2009, p. 70)

[xlviii] (Center for Urban Development Studies, 2003, as cited in Smith, 2009)

[xlix] (Smith, 2009, p. 181)

[l] (Smith, 2009, p. 193)

[li] (Omusugu, 2024)

[lii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[liii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[liv] (Omusugu, 2024)

[lv] (Omusugu, 2024)

[lvi] (Omusugu, 2024)

[lvii] (Omusugu, 2024)

[lviii] (Grillos & Touchton, 2024)

[lix] (Grillos & Touchton, 2024)

[lx] (Just Transition Participatory Budgeting: Pilot Phase, 2022/2023, 2023)

[lxi] (Just Transition Participatory Budgeting: Pilot Phase, 2022/2023, 2023)

[lxii] (“Makueni County Public Participation Policy,” 2022)

[lxiii] (Nyong’a & Gachanja, 2021)