• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • 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
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Working with members of parliament’s constituency funds

Working with members of parliament’s constituency funds

Helpdesk Report
  • Siân Herbert
March 2014

Question

We would like to know whether any donors have attempted to work with/leverage MP constituency funds for developmental outcomes. We would like to know which donors in what countries, what successes and what failures have been documented. If available we would be interested in evidence on why those efforts succeeded/failed. We are interested in examples from anywhere they may be found.

Summary

The key points from this rapid literature review include:

  • CDFs are a relatively recent phenomenon (with most being established from the 2000s onwards), and they are relatively few in number (Barkan & Mattes, forthcoming). As a result, little is known about them.
  • Countries that have used CDFs include: South Sudan; Philippines; Honduras; Nepal; Pakistan; Jamaica; Solomon Islands; Tanzania; Malawi; Namibia; Zambia; Uganda; Ghana; Malaysia; India; Bhutan; and Papua New Guinea.
  • CDFs are largely nationally or locally designed, funded, and implemented.
  • Only three examples were found of donors directly engaging with CDFs, and there are no evaluations of the successes or failures of these examples of engagement.
  • There is some evidence that donors indirectly engage with CDFs by funding foundations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), or civil society organisations (CSOs) that carry out: academic and policy research; and advocacy campaigns around CDFs.
  • Some donors collaborate with academic and policy researchers on CDFs.
  • Perceptions of CDFs vary. They are generally unpopular with donors, and with some CSOs in country. However, in the countries that use them, they tend to be popular with governments, members of parliament, and citizens. The arguments for and against CDFs can be used as proxies to understand why donors do not tend to like or engage with CDFs, and also why they tend to be popular domestically:
    – Arguments in favour of CDFs, tend to highlight the following: improving the relationships between the constituency and members of parliament; and improving local control over priorities and budgets.
    – Arguments against CDFs, tend to highlight the following: undermining of accountability and governance systems; and low levels of participation. They also raise concerns about the practical issues of implementing CDFs effectively.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • Australian Government

Related Content

Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
Local financing for infrastructure in Zambia
Helpdesk Report
2017
Implementing Public Financial Management Reform
E-Learning
2017
Decentralisation of budgeting process
Literature Review
2017
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more