What can be learned from social accountability initiatives in the Asia and Pacific region? This World Bank report summarises a review of such initiatives. It finds that social accountability tools are not confined to the public expenditure management cycle, and that initiatives that use advocacy and information strategies are more successful than those that do not. While governments sometimes take the lead in promoting accountability, different groups involved in social accountability mechanisms can link together in advocacy chains to hold the state accountable for pro-poor service delivery. Ultimately, government and civil society must collaborate.
Accountability is the ability to require that public officials, private employers, and service providers answer for their policies, actions, and use of funds. Social accountability is an approach, initiated either by civil society or the state, towards building an accountable, transparent and responsive government. The three main motivating factors for social accountability initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region are increased development effectiveness, improved governance, and empowerment (particularly of the poor).
Whereas most previous research on social accountability mechanisms has focused on the role of ordinary citizens and/or civil society participating directly or indirectly in exacting accountability, this stocktaking exercise found that many governments, for example, the Local Governance Development Fund Project in Sirajganj, Bangladesh, have taken the lead in setting up their own mechanisms to involve the public in promoting accountability. Joint state-civil society initiatives have also been undertaken, and many governments institutionalise innovations suggested by NGOs.
Many of the social accountability used fall into the public expenditure management cycle, such as budget analysis, budget formulation, budget expenditure tracking, and performance monitoring. However, other types of social accountability tools such as lifestyle checks, right to information, and social audits and those involving information and communication technology were also being used. Other findings include the following:
- Trying to understand what leads to successful social accountability initiatives is complex.
- One common pattern amongst successful social accountability initiatives is the use of advocacy and communication strategies.
- Inclusion of the poor varied depending on a number of factors including capacity development and social mobilisation, access to information and the internet.
- There is much synergy, complementary activity, and convergence among social accountability groups in India and the Philippines in particular.
Advocacy chains represent gains from pursuing synergy: different groups involved in social accountability mechanisms link together to hold the state accountable for its services that target the poor. These advocacy chains should include the following elements:
- NGOs that conduct fiscal research – Gathering robust and systematic data is imperative.
- Efforts to build the capacity of people’s organisations – Some groups demystify the findings of fiscal advocacy reports into bulletins, summary sheets, and briefing kits.
- Ties with the mass media – Activist groups should circulate demystified reports to the general public via the mass media.
- Internet presence – Making fiscal data and performance reports public by posting them on the Internet is vital. In cyberspace, social accountability is exercised not by a single NGO, but by the public at large.
- Use of public opinion surveys – Ultimately, members of parliament, governors, and mayors will have to make policy decisions, but as elected officials, they want to maximise their votes during elections.
- Lobbying and social mobilisation – It is not enough for civic groups to write their reports, for the media to release the findings to the public, and for survey results to be on the side of the reformers. Civil society movements also need to approach policy makers to present alternatives.
