Uruguay

Departmental and Local Social Councils (CSD)

City/State/Region
Begin – End: 2006 – ongoing
Name of organization in charge: Ministerio de Desarrollo Social (MIDES)División Descentralización y Participación Social
Type of organization in charge: government
Level: local regional

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: yes
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: yes
Output: yes
Policy Outcome: unknown

In 2005, the Ministry of Social Development (MIDES) was set up to establish areas of coordination and advice for civil society within its mandate. With this in mind, in 2006, the Departmental Social Councils were created to promote participation and dialogue between organized civil society and the State. Local "sub-councils" were also created over time. These have the objective of being a space for monitoring and follow-up of social policies of all kinds. The monitoring of policies at both the departmental and local level and the respective demands of citizenship are intended to develop recommendations to the State. The members of the Councils are representatives of different social organizations active in the field of social policy. The design of the Council and its integration may vary by department. At the highest point there were there were 22 Councils across the country and 34 sub-councils, but the number has varied over the years. There have also been national workshops for the exchange between the different Councils.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: only backed by a governmental program or policy
Frequency: regular
Mode of selection of participants: open
Type of participants: civil society
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields a non-binding decision
Co-Governance: yes

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation