This research seeks to contribute to the evidence base on citizen-driven accountability measures, such as community scorecards, using political economy methods to understand how community scorecards have worked in Malawi and what some of the wider lessons might be.
The research finds that the scorecards programme is realising changes in service delivery in a number of ways. In particular, they have helped to facilitate forms of collective problem solving by actors across the supply and demand side and reignited communities’ own capacity for self-help.
Key findings:
- This study finds that the use of the scorecard process appears to be contributing to some powerful stories of change. Changes in how communities approach local service blockages, shifts in resources and evidence of greater responsiveness from some public officials (for example, in terms of market management) all suggest that the scorecard process has the potential to contribute to significant change even in this constrained environment.
- The study identifies a number of different types of change which can result from the scorecard process, rather than only one type. These range from greater capacity for local collaborative working and collective action problem solving to more systemic shifts. These can occur within existing incentives and power dynamics or, in some cases, in ways which begin to shift these incentives. Understanding the types of change which can be achieved reveals the need to revisit the underlying theory of change for the scorecards initiative, and to question some of the assumptions which take the link between greater accountability or empowerment and improved service delivery as a given.
- In the Malawi case, fieldwork and the research of others suggests that the levels and quality of local leadership, the capacities of the implementing partners (particularly in terms of their political skills and networks) and certain community characteristics (such as the capacity for ‘self-help’) are all likely to significantly shape the extent to which a scorecard process will effectively mobilise a range of stakeholders to take collective action and to address common problems.
- A key reflection is that not enough attention has been paid to date to how to influence systemic issues. This includes issues which are beyond the control of local actors, from issues of procurement to staff discipline within Ministries to resource allocations from the centre. Much more attention has been focused on addressing problems which can be solved at the local level – and the strength of the implementing partners has been particularly effective in this.
Recommendations:
- Revisit the theory of change, to place the creation of collaborative spaces and collective problem solving (at local and systemic levels) centre stage.
- Clearly distinguish between the types of issues and problems generated by the scorecards. This will allow for greater clarity on the expectations and types of change which can be linked to the use of scorecards.
- Invest more in working at the systemic level. At present, the CBMP has particular weaknesses in terms of how it engages with policy processes at the sector and national levels.
- Improve the process at both local and systemic levels. This can be achieved by: Identifying key champions of the programme and identifying whether any key stakeholders are currently missing.
- Invest more systematically in political skills and analysis. The research suggests that a number of staff involved in implementing the CBMP have strong political skills and understanding and that this helps to explain some of the key successes of the CBMP. However, there are risks of staff turnover which could undermine how systematically these skills and analysis are being captured.
