Multiple rationalities of participatory budgeting in indigenous communities: evidence from Indonesia

Abstract

PurposeThis paper analyses participatory budgeting (PB) in two Indonesian indigenous communities, illustrating how the World Bank sponsored neo-liberal model of “technical rational” PB is overshadowed by local values and wisdom, consisting of sophisticated, pre-existing rationalities for public participation.Design/methodology/approachAdopting a qualitative and interpretive case study approach, the study draws on data from semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and periods of participant observation. The paper utilises Weber's characterisations of rationality to analyse the PB process in indigenous communities.FindingsThe co-existence of both formal (technical) and substantive rationalities leads two Indonesian indigenous communities to execute participatory budgeting pragmatically. The formal budgetary mechanisms (Musrenbang), cascaded down from central and local governments, are melded with, and co-exist alongside, a tradition of public participation deriving from local cultural values and wisdom (Rembug warga). Reciprocal relationships and trust based on a pre-existing substantive rationality result in community members adapting budget practices while also preserving their local culture and resisting the encroachment of neo-liberal initiatives. The paper offers deeper analysis of the unintended consequences of attempting to implement technical rational accounting reforms and practices in indigenous settings.Originality/valueThe paper provides important insights into the way the interplay between formal and substantive rationality impacts on accounting and budgeting practices in indigenous communities. Our study also presents a unique case in emerging economy contexts in which neoliberal initiatives have been outmanoeuvred in the process of preserving indigenous values and wisdom. The informal participatory mechanism (Rembug warga) retained the community trust that neoliberalism systematically erodes.

Guest editorial

“…The debates on learning (Arun et al , 2020) and collaborative (Jayasinghe et al , 2020c) accountability perspectives emerged as a way forward to good governance in emerging economies. Third, the role of critical accounting research in analysing broader global events such as colonization and industrialization in dividing countries that either belongs to the proverbial “first” or the “third” world with the former enjoying enormous financial and cultural power over the latter (Neu et al , 2009; Hopper et al , 2009, 2012a, b and c; Lassou and Hopper, 2016; Jayasinghe and Uddin, 2019; Lassou et al , 2019; Jayasinghe et al , 2020a, b). Even after a massive development of the financial sector, the unravelling of the complexity of financial products and markets remained as a major concern regarding the financialisation process and a vast majority of the world's population is still struggling for access to financial markets and products (Arun, 2016).…”

“…local governments (e.g. Jayasinghe et al , 2020a) and also local community members (Jayasinghe et al , 2020b). These findings thus indicate the importance of the state's role in emerging economies to stand against the onslaught of corporate and technological power of the developed world and its alliance with “epistemic community” and local elites.…”

“…Apart from the state, an important role played by local community/stakeholders who are enlightened enough to “resist” against the financialisation and intellectual colonization of the developed world and the power of the local elites (e.g. Jayasinghe et al , 2020a, b).…”

Calculative measures of organising and decision-making in developing countries: the case of a quasi-formal organisation in Ghana

“…The findings of such studies are consistent in illustrating how such Western-led calculative measures have failed to appreciate the specific local, cultural and contextual factors with significant unintended consequences. While some studies demonstrate how such calculative measures have remained ineffective in practice and are merely layered with the existing measures, others emphasise their adverse impacts, such as a rise in corruption, patronage politics and neopatrimonialism (Bakre et al , 2017; Goddard and Mkasiwa, 2016; Goddard et al , 2016; Nyamori et al , 2017; Jayasinghe et al , 2020). For instance, Kuruppu et al (2016) illustrate how participatory budgeting in a Sri Lankan urban council has resulted in political domination and symbolic violence.…”

“…These studies illustrate how the application of accounting measures may lead to unintended consequences in societies where Western capitalistic structures are underdeveloped. A second strand of research, represented by scholars such as Gallhofer and Chew (2000), Walker and Llewellyn (2000), Jayasinghe and Wickramasinghe (2007), Wickramasinghe and Hopper (2005), Alawattage et al, (2017) and Jayasinghe et al, (2020), has investigated the use of particular accounting practices and measurements beyond formal structured organisations, in informal settings such as rural and indigenous communities. The third strand of research pays attention to the application of private-sector rational accounting practices within formalised and bureaucratic public sector entities, predicated upon efficiency and effectiveness in improving governance and accountability and imposed at the behest of international organisations and development partners, as part of governance and accountability reforms.…”