Social accountability: What does the evidence really say?

This study reinterprets both the empirical evaluation evidence and the analytical concepts involved in social accountability (SAcc), in order to help to address the “what next?” question. The paper first identifies limits to the conceptual frameworks usually applied to SAcc. Second, a meta-analysis assesses the SAcc impact evaluation literature. This exercise draws primarily on 25 quantitative evaluations, with an emphasis on field experiments that are widely considered to be iconic in the field, based on their uptake by mainstream practitioners.

The study then proposes a series of grounded conceptual propositions to analyse the dynamics of SAcc strategies, informed by the “state-society synergy” approach to institutional analysis. The study concludes with an emphasis on pro-accountability coalitions that bridge the state-society divide.

Key findings:

The challenge facing social accountability strategies is how to break low-accountability traps by triggering virtuous circles in which enabling environments embolden citizens to exercise voice, which in turn can trigger and empower reforms, which can then encourage more voice.

The SAcc umbrella of diverse citizen-state engagement interfaces involves two qualitatively distinct sets of approaches: tactical and strategic. The impact evaluation evidence indicates that while the tactical approach has led to mixed results, strategic approaches are more promising. Tactical approaches are bounded, localized and information-led – yet information alone often turns out to be insufficient. More innovation, experimentation and comparative analysis will help to determine what kinds of information are most actionable for pro-accountability stakeholders, as well as the channels for dissemination that can motivate collective action, empower allies and weaken vested interests. Strategic approaches to SAcc, in contrast, bolster enabling environments for collective action, scale up citizen engagement beyond the local arena and attempt to bolster governmental capacity to respond to voice.

Both SAcc advocates and sceptics have tended to assume that citizen voice, by itself, is supposed to be able to do the work of the state’s own horizontal accountability institutions. Few voice-led initiatives are well-coordinated with relevant public sector reforms that encourage government responsiveness (i.e., audit/anti-corruption investigative bodies, information access reforms, ombudsman, access to courts, etc.). At the same time, ICT-led SAcc initiatives are increasingly framed in terms of “closing the feedback loop” – in other words, getting institutions to listen to citizen voice. Yet in practice, this institutional response capacity often remains elusive and feedback loops rarely close.

Both practical and analytical work on SAcc needs to take scale into account. When voice spreads horizontally, the excluded can gain representation. When voice is projected vertically, it can gain clout. When authorities listen, they can both build trust and create incentives for more voice. Yet this process is easier said than done, and the dynamics that drive it will not be well-understood if mainstream development agencies continue to treat “government failure” as a strictly local, “end-of-the-pipe” problem. This leads to the case for combining vertical integration with the horizontal spread of civil society oversight and advocacy capacity. This combination of scaling up with “scaling across” can make possible the combination of voice with representation that is crucial for significantly changing the terms of engagement between excluded citizens and the state.

Summary