This paper seeks to deepen understanding of what works and what does not work in donor support to CV&A interventions, and to uncover the reasons why.
In the first phase of evaluation, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) prepared a literature review, conducted an analysis of 90 Citizens’ Voice and Accountability (CV&A) donor interventions, developed an Evaluation Framework to assess CV&A interventions and piloted the Framework and its accompanying methodology in two countries, Benin and Nicaragua. In the second phase, the Evaluation Core Group (ECG) donors commissioned five country case studies in Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Indonesia, Mozambique and Nepal, from other independent organisations.
The synthesis report pulls together the findings of all the outputs from this evaluation and seeks to identify common themes and lessons, core principles and key recommendations for improved donor practice, and areas worthy of further research.
Key findings:
- CV&A are important dimensions of governance: it is widely acknowledged that citizens as well as state institutions have a role to play in delivering governance that works for the poor and enhances democracy.
- Citizens’ capacity to express and exercise their views has the potential to influence government priorities or governance processes, including a stronger demand for transparency and accountability.
- In their CV&A work, donors recognise the importance of context, and they tend to shape their choices and decisions about possible entry points, channels, actors and mechanisms in relation to that context.
- Context awareness however, has not proven sufficient to enable donors to grapple with key challenges posed by the interaction between formal and informal institutions, the prevalence of the latter over the former in many instances, and underlying power relations and dynamics.
- Some of the main entry points that donors have used for their CV&A work have included existing formal institutional frameworks in countries where these are available, political junctures, decentralisation, sectors and overall poverty and exclusion.
- When interventions have been targeted explicitly towards marginalised, socially excluded and otherwise discriminated against groups, such as women and ethnic minorities, there is some limited evidence to suggest that the interventions have been useful in empowering such groups. However, this focus has been the exception rather than the rule in the interventions included in this study.
- All case studies suggest that the effect on development of CV&A in particular, and democracy more generally is neither direct nor obvious, and no evidence can be found within the sample, of a direct contribution of CV&A interventions to poverty alleviation or the meeting of the MDGs.
- Voice is often treated as an unproblematic concept, and something that can be easily exercised by the poor and marginalised, without addressing the fundamental question of ‘whose voice’ is being heard. In reality, the voices of the poor (as well as those of other groups) are far from homogeneous – and these many voices may not necessarily be complementary, and may actually compete with one another.
Recommendations:
- Build or sharpen ‘political intelligence’ in developing CV&A policies and undertaking CV&A interventions on the ground.
- Work with the institutions you have, and not the ones you wish you had.
- Focus capacity building not only on technical skills but also on political skills.
- Place greater focus on CV&A mechanisms that address both sides of the equation within the same intervention.
- Improve key design and implementation features of CV&A interventions and aid effectiveness.
- Diversify channels and mechanisms of engagement and work more purposefully with actors outside donors’ ‘zone of comfort’.
