This paper analyses Afrobarometer survey data from 19 African countries to investigate associations between donor and non-state service provision and citizens’ sense of obligation to comply with tax authorities, the police and the courts. The findings suggest that service provision by donors and non-state actors strengthens, rather than undermines, the relationship between citizens and the state. The study also finds that citizens who are satisfied with their government’s provision of services and goods are more likely to be willing to defer to the tax department, courts and police than citizens who are dissatisfied with government service provision.
The paper investigates two hypotheses: whether citizens may be less likely to support their government with quasi-voluntary compliance when they credit non-state actors or donors for service provision; or whether the provision of goods and services by donors and non-state actors might strengthen citizens’ confidence in their government and their willingness to defer to governmental laws and regulations if citizens believe that the government is essential to leveraging and managing these resources. The study uses Afrobarometer data (fourth round, 2008) that surveys 26,513 Africans’ views towards democracy, economics, and civil society with random, stratified, nationally representative samples across 19 countries.
The study finds that citizens who believe that donors and non-state actors, including domestic and international NGOs and international businesses, are doing a lot to help their country, rather than a little, are more likely to be willing to defer to the tax department. No relationship was found between perceptions of the helpfulness of donors and non-state actors and citizens’ willingness to defer to the courts and police.
In addition, the study found that people who believe that donors and non-state actors are exerting too little, rather than too much, influence over their government are less likely to be willing to defer to the tax department, police, and courts. The opposite is true for those who perceive that donors and non-state actors exert too much influence over their government. This might be because citizens view the influence that donors and non-state actors exert over their government positively. Alternatively, citizens who believe that donors and non-state actors exert ‘too much influence’ might want to strengthen the state.
The study also finds that citizens who are satisfied with their government’s provision of services and goods are more likely to be willing to defer to the tax department, courts and police than citizens who disapprove of government service provision. In addition:
- There is evidence that the more competent, honest and fair a government is in serving its citizens, the more likely it is to produce a virtuous cycle of citizen compliance with its extractions, leading to better government and greater compliance.
- There is little evidence that the presence of infrastructure in neighbourhoods is linked to citizens’ legitimating beliefs.
The absence of behavioural and longitudinal data on compliance limits the conclusions that can be drawn. We know very little about how citizens’ reported willingness to comply with taxes, the police and the courts corresponds to their actual compliance behaviour. We know very little about how changes in service delivery over time affect citizens’ legitimating beliefs. We are also lacking a measure of the quality of governments’ regulation of foreign aid and non-state actor resources. Yet, this paper offers one of the few empirical tests of whether citizens’ perceptions of non-state actors and donors are associated with their beliefs about their government’s legitimacy.
