Demand-side governance and social accountability approaches (“SAcc”) have steadily gained prominence as a perceived means for achieving and improving a range of development outcomes. Today, most development agencies invest in the promotion of SAcc under the guise of “citizen participation”, “citizen demand”, “voice”, “transparency and accountability”, or, more broadly, “good governance”. While the concept of SAcc remains contested, it can broadly be understood as a range of actions and strategies, beyond voting, that citizens use to hold the state to account.
This paper seeks to address two main knowledge gaps: limited understanding of what aspects of the context matter and how they matter; and the few systematic attempts to help practitioners tailor SAcc to contextual variation.
The paper draws on recent evidence and conceptual literature, case-study material and consultations with experts and practitioners to test and modify the ideas developed.
Contextual dimensions that emerge as important in shaping the form and effectiveness of SAcc are:
- Civil Society (Technical and organisational capacity; Capacity to build alliances across society and with the state; Authority, legitimacy, and credibility with citizens and state actors; Willingness to challenge accountability status quo; Capacity and willingness of citizens to engage in SAcc)
- Political Society (Willingness and capacity of political/elected elites, political parties and state bureaucrats to respond to and foster SAcc; Democratisation and the civil society enabling environment; The nature of the rule of law)
- Inter-Elite Relations (The developmental nature, inclusiveness and organisational and political capabilities of the political settlement; Elite ideas/norms of accountability underpinning the political settlement)
- State-Society Relations (The character and form of the social contract; History of state–citizen bargaining; State-society accountability and bridging formal / informal mechanisms; The nature and depth of state-society pro-accountability networks)
- Intra-Society Relations (Inequality; Social exclusion and fragmentation)
- Global Dimensions (Donor-state relations; International power-holder accountability; International political and economic drivers)
The author proposes a preliminary, “meta” Theory of Change that might underpin SAcc and change:
‘If pro-accountability and pro-poor networks in society are adequately resourced and build coalitions with pro-accountability networks in political society through rounds of state-society bargaining and interaction; and If these coalitions are able to: (1) negotiate changes with anti-change actors; (2) generate sufficient countervailing power to change governing elite incentives; and/or (3) activate legitimate accountability mechanisms … then, this might result in: (1) coercion – a backlash from existing power-holders; (2) cooptation and collaboration – incremental improvements in accountability relations and developmental gains within the existing political settlement; and/or, (3) change – more fundamental change leading to the formation of a new political settlement or social contract.’
The key findings indicate that there is no straightforward, linear relationship between the context and the opportunities for SAcc. However, SAcc can shape the context within which it emerges, and SAcc design factors that have contributed to positive change include the following:
- Demand-driven accountability change has often been—at least in part—underpinned by a political process.
- SAcc interventions seem to have greater prospects for success in places where the lead implementing actors are seen as locally authoritative, legitimate, and credible.
- SAcc is more likely to be effective when it promotes change in both “supply” and “demand.” It is the quality and strength of pro-accountability networks across state and society that often account for success rather than the characteristics of individual actors.
- The use of high-quality and relevant information appears to be a key ingredient, and the media may play a role in this regard. However, information alone is unlikely to bring about change—action and sanctions are needed.
- A SAcc initiative tends to have more traction in places where the problems and issues it focuses on are perceived as important.
- SAcc processes appear more likely to bring about sustainable reform when they support “organic” domestic pressures for change.
- SAcc appears more likely to be effective when it builds on locally legitimate formal and/or informal accountability mechanisms.
- SAcc interventions that take a multipronged approach, working on answerability and enforcement aspects, have been found to be more effective.
- The conditions for effective SAcc tend to take a long time to emerge, which suggests that SAcc interventions would be wise to take a longer time horizon.
The findings suggest that there is a case to refocus–even radically rethink in some areas—the way in which SAcc has often been understood and operationalised. The four main aspects of this rethink are:
- Putting formal and informal political and power relations at the forefront of understanding and operationalising SAcc.
- Focusing on inter-elite and state-society relations, coalitions, and bargaining rather than on individual actors, civil society alone, or state-citizen dichotomies
- Putting inequality and exclusion issues at the centre of SAcc design
- Exploring and expanding opportunities for “best-fit” or “hybrid” SAcc approaches.