• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
Home»GSDRC Publications»Evidence for the Development Impact of Inclusive Service Delivery

Evidence for the Development Impact of Inclusive Service Delivery

Helpdesk Report
  • Oliver Walton
October 2012

Question

What is the evidence (with examples) to show that making service delivery more inclusive (i.e. by extending services to under-served groups) brings development returns? Focus on outcomes relating to the millennium development goals and growth and focus on the education, health and WASH sectors. Please comment on the robustness/scope of the evidence.

Summary

This paper assesses the evidence of the human development and economic impacts of efforts to make services more inclusive. These interventions mostly involve extending access to under-served groups, but may also focus on improving utilisation or the quality of services delivered to marginalised groups.

Attribution issues hamper examination of the contribution of efforts to make service delivery more inclusive. However, many qualitative country case studies provide detailed, long-term assessments of efforts to make services more inclusive and improve progress towards the MDGs. The majority of these studies demonstrate a strong positive effect, although some highlight shortcomings. Most also acknowledge that success has been underpinned by broader improvements in governance and in social and economic development. These findings are generally supported by impact evaluations of specific programmes. Some of these evaluations, however, find that these programmes did not create broader health or economic benefits, and that lack of impact was usually the result of poor implementation.

More systematic analysis of the evidence has been conducted in the health sector. Two systematic reviews in the field of health suggest that the evidence for most mechanisms for improving access is generally of poor quality and that where the evidence is good (as in the case of conditional cash transfers (CCTs), success is often underpinned by contextual factors (such as the existence of a functioning health system).

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

War Economy in North East Nigeria
Helpdesk Report
2020
Impacts of Covid-19 on Inclusive Economic Growth in Middle-income Countries
Helpdesk Report
2020
Inclusive and Sustained Growth in Iraq
Helpdesk Report
2018
The Impact of Entrepreneurship Training Programmes
Helpdesk Report
2018
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2022; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2022; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2022