Can the delivery of basic services help to promote lasting stability and peace in fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS)? Drawing on 40 case studies, this paper argues that successful delivery of basic services can contribute to broader political legitimacy and stability. Donors, government and non-state actors can provide a virtuous circle of improving services, increasing public expectation and creating greater will to avoid violent conflict. However, to avoid aggravating conflict, service delivery improvements must form part of an informed process of activities that address the inequities created by conflict. A key lesson is to nurture strong leadership that is committed to security, justice and equity.
The framework Making Services Work for Poor People of the 2004 World Development Report summarises accountability relationships between policymakers, service delivers and citizens. It highlights that in FCAS the long route of accountability (influencing policymakers and politicians) is likely to be weak. Improvements in service delivery can create short-route accountability (influencing service providers directly) through changing broader perceptions and improving expectations. There are of course enormous practical challenges to improving service delivery in FCAS; the lack of basic infrastructure, personnel shortages and the need to address the exclusion of certain groups. Quick and efficient service delivery interventions can address structural inequities as well as improving humanitarian conditions. These need to be nurtured alongside a sustained commitment to security and justice.
The case studies identify factors for success in service delivery models in diverse FCAS, with analysis of specific sectors: health, education, justice and social sectors. There is an analysis of lessons for improving engagement with non-state actors and of Community Driven Development programmes which can, with sufficient financial sustainability, form part of a broader social protection programme. The suitability of a particular model will depend on the level of pro-poor political support and close analysis of the country’s historical and political context.
The state must perform certain key functions, particularly in setting policy, in financing and in regulation. These include:
- Core financial and economic functions (which are especially important where resource constraints are high and demands limitless)
- Provision of security and law, which are as vital to the poor as social services; the building up of police and judicial capacity is crucial
- Addressing broader political constituencies, particularly inequities created by the conflict
- Co-ordination of inter-sectoral service delivery outcomes to achieve development goals
- Leadership in tackling corruption, building justice and equity, and in ensuring that funds are used as intended; employing non-state actors in oversight where appropriate.
A country-specific approach to service delivery in FCAS must identify state and non-state capacity, recognise the needs of victims and perpetrators, and include sound political economy and institutional analysis. Donors can improve the effectiveness of service delivery programmes by:
- Nurturing strong leadership that is committed to security, justice and equity. This can come from national leaders, local governments, tribal and village councils, or civil society and community groups. It may be stronger in some sectors than others, and may ebb and flow, but it needs to be nurtured to provide a sound base for gauging and responding to people’s needs.
- Operating within a deep understanding of the country context, especially the political context, and identifying functioning systems and working to strengthen these.
- Perhaps taking greater risks which balance short-term humanitarian pressures with longer-term institution building.
- Considering Transitional Results Frameworks or Multi Donor Trust Funds, for example, where fiduciary risk is high.
- Providing funding that is sustained and predictable.
- Providing technical assistance that draws on local expertise first and avoids undermining limited government capacity.
