Important conceptual advances in understanding the politics of basic service delivery have centered on the role of actors, incentives and institutions in enabling or constraining reform. However, empirical research exploring how different forms of politics impact on service outcomes remains limited and fragmented, leaving little scope for systematic analysis or policy uptake. Comparative studies of the political factors that account for variation in service outcomes, either across sectors within a country or across regions within a sector, are relatively rare. Sector-level political economy analysis has tended to provide highly localised insights into specific blockages to reform.
This paper examines the evidence on the forms of politics likely to generate positive incentives for inclusive social provisioning and enable, as opposed to constrain, improvements in service outcomes. It focuses on the forms of politics that have underpinned eight relatively successful cases of delivery in a range of country contexts and sectors (roads, agriculture, health, education) where independent evaluations demonstrate evidence of improved outcomes. The paper traces the main characteristics of the political environment in which these cases evolved, from the national political context, to the politics of sector policymaking, to the micro politics of implementation. Piecing together these layers is constrained by the fragmented nature of the literature. However, the findings indicate that it is possible to identify connections between good performance and better outcomes at the point of delivery and the main forms of politics operating at local, sector and national levels.
A number of common factors underpinning successful cases of delivery emerge strongly but need to be tested through further research. In particular, the studies of what works support the prominence given to the role of the nature of the political regime, the political conjuncture, and the origins of elite incentives as key determinants of inclusive social provisioning. They illustrate the state may have strong incentives for inclusive provision where a particular service or good has historically been a key source of state legitimacy and an expression of the social contract. Calculations of political returns on the part of political actors, linked in some cases to the pursuit of political entrepreneurship, have also been critical in some cases where remarkable improvements in service provision have been achieved. The characteristics of a particular service – or the extent to which it is targetable, ‘visible’, measurable and easily credited – affect its political salience and in turn the likelihood of state responsiveness.
Resources alone do not determine outcomes on the ground: politics intervene (in either an enabling or constraining role) between policy intention and implementation. Modes of provision should be analysed as ‘spheres of politics’ that shape the opportunities for collective action and types of accountability relationships that emerge at the point of delivery. Some of the cases indicate that strong, top-down accountability reinforced by a legitimate state with some degree of moral authority can work, particularly if top-down control can ‘insulate’ delivery systems from the normal functioning of prevailing political institutions. At the local level, there are particular questions raised by the cases about the positive effects of social accountability systems that are genuinely locally-grounded and draw on moral and cultural norms. At the point of implementation, reciprocal terms of collaboration between state and non-state actors may be instrumental.
The paper concludes that future research might usefully examine service provision as a two-way process in which services are formed by, and formative of, state-society relations and processes of state building. As such, research should begin with the point of contact with citizens/users, and seek to add meaning to the concept of the social contract. It should adopt a ‘bottom-up’ approach that focuses on the relatively neglected arena of the politics of implementation, where policies are (re-)interpreted and blockages to performance often occur. A broad conceptual framework for researching the politics of service provision is proposed that emphasises the fundamental question of control – that is, how and by whom is control exercised over what services are delivered to whom. Further research into the politics of what works would enhance policymakers’ understanding of the reasons for variation in service outcomes, informing efforts to address widespread under-provision.
