There are considerable challenges involved in supporting people to exercise greater control over their own development. The nature and extent of these will differ according to the social, economic and political context. Certainly, the literature shows that context is all-important when it comes to designing empowerment and accountability interventions. For example, the overall political context shapes the way in which collective action may or may not produce democratic change. Political institutions shape both civic engagement as well as attitudes and beliefs about civic participation. The absence of accessible channels of political participation, for instance, will not only hinder some forms of participation, but also shape citizens’ perceptions about participation. Because patterns of political participation differ across settings, patterns of civic engagement will vary as well.
Cornwall, A., Robins, S. and Von Lieres, B. 2011, ‘States of Citizenship: Contexts and Cultures of Public Engagement and Citizen Action’, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Drawing on case studies from the Citizenship Development Research Centre, this paper contends that mechanisms aimed at enhancing citizen engagement need to be contextualised in the states of citizenship in which they are applied. It calls for more attention to be focused on understanding trajectories of citizenship experience and practice in particular kinds of states. It suggests that whilst efforts have been made by donors to get to grips with history and context, less attention has been given to exploring the implications of the dissonance between the normative dimensions of global narratives of participation and accountability, and the lived experience of civic engagement and the empirical realities of ‘civil society’ in diverse kinds of states. By exploring instantiations of citizenship in different kinds of states, the paper reflects on what citizen engagement comes to imply in these contexts. In doing so, it draws attention to the diverse ways in which particular subject-positions and forms of identification are articulated in the pursuit of concrete social and political projects.
Access full text: available online
An IDS Research Summary of this paper is also available.
Experience has shown that interventions designed to promote empowerment and accountability through greater participation are often skewed or limited by existing power relations. For example, attempts to democratise political systems face a number of difficulties in overcoming embedded social exclusion. Civil society actors are often criticised for being unrepresentative and elitist. A key concern is that for empowerment and accountability interventions to reach the poorest and most marginalised, a nuanced appreciation of the context and its power relations is needed. It is essential to consider who participates, on what basis and whose interests they represent.
Hearn, J., 2001, ‘The Uses and Abuses of Civil Society in Africa’, Review of the African Political Economy, No. 87, pp. 43-54
What are the implications of the development paradigm that aims to bring civil society into a closer relationship with the state? This article argues that donor influence in Ghana, South Africa and Uganda during the late 1990s resulted in a vocal, well-funded civil society that builds societal consensus for the state’s development strategy. The development agenda of ‘partnership’, in which civil society organisations work closely with ‘participatory and accountable governments’, undermines autonomy and can contribute to civil society in Africa helping to stabilise rather than challenge the social and political status quo.
Access full text: available online
Manor, J., 2004, ‘Democratization with Inclusion: Political Reforms and People’s Empowerment at the Grassroots’, Journal of Human Development, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5-29
Democratisation has not automatically benefited poor people. Many governments in developing countries have undertaken political reforms to promote the empowerment and inclusion of ordinary people, especially the poor. This article reviews these reforms and looks at how they can be measured and facilitated. Mechanisms are needed to promote downward accountability, bottom-up participation and greater responsiveness to ordinary people, and support from broad-based coalitions is required. Integrated local councils and user-committees are the best way to ensure that local residents or elected members have significant impact on decisions.
Access full text: available online
Haider, H., 2010, ‘Civil Society and Excluded Groups’, Helpdesk Research Report, GSDRC, Birmingham
There is little available systematic evidence that demonstrates that aid to CSOs is effective in reducing poverty as a result of CSOs? links to and targeting of the poor and vulnerable. This report thus relies on more general literature on civil society and thematic and country case studies, drawing out information and findings on positive impacts from civil society engagement with excluded groups. Findings highlight the variation in the extent to which civil society actually and effectively engages with and benefits marginalised groups. Organisations considered to have the greatest potential for benefiting excluded groups are those that: 1) adopt a solidarity approach and engage marginalised groups as equals; 2) emerge from the grassroots with leaders drawn from within marginalised groups; and 3) focus on a particular target group rather than a broader constituency.
Access full text: available online
Ideas about universal citizenship ignore the reality of unequal power, which can exclude people on the basis of race, class, ethnicity and gender. For example, ‘community’ participation often translates into ‘male’ participation, with women excluded from decision-making processes. Even the idea of a male consensus is misleading, and inevitably reflects the interests of particular group of men, since all men do not have a homogenous set of needs, interests and concerns.
Even where the opportunities to engage exist, certain policy decisions may be off limits to ordinary citizens due to structural barriers, cultural barriers, fear, dependency relations or lack of self-confidence. Women in particular often fail to benefit from such opportunities due to these barriers.
UNIFEM, 2008, ‘Chapter 2: Politics’, in Progress of the World’s Women 2008/9: Who Answers to Women? Gender and Accountability’, UNIFEM, New York
What progress have states made toward increasing political accountability to women and how can that progress be accelerated? This chapter argues that increased political accountability to women comes not only from increasing their numbers amongst decision-makers; it must be linked to improved democratic governance overall. Recommendations include: electoral reforms that afford voters more choice of representatives, increasing the likelihood of women gaining seats; quotas for women in party leadership; temporary affirmative action to remove other constraints on women’s access to office; and building state capacity to respond to women’s needs.
Access full text: available online
Hoodfar, H., 2009, ‘Against All Odds: The Building of a Women’s Movement in the Islamic Republic of Iran’, Concordia University
This paper outlines how women advocates in post-revolutionary Iran have worked towards mobilising women. It examines the evolving and diverse, multi-pronged strategies that focus on politicising everyday forms of social and legal discrimination against women, and rendering them unacceptable.
Access full text: available online
Clisby, S., 2005, ‘Gender Mainstreaming or Just More Male-streaming? Experiences of popular participation in Bolivia’, in Gender & Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.23-35
The Law of Popular Participation (LPP) in Bolivia represents the first significant attempt by policymakers in the region to mainstream gender into a national development initiative. The LPP aims to increase the prominence of women in local politics and development spheres. But has it in fact had the effect of displacing women from their traditional forms of political activism? This paper examines how a lack of effective, systematic gendered analysis of structural barriers to women’s participation and inadequate capacity building have impacted on the achievement of the LPP’s intended goal.
Access full text: available online
Tadros, M., 2010, ‘Introduction: Quotas – Add Women and Stir?’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 1-10
Is women’s empowerment directly related to the proportion of women in parliament? Have various forms of quota been successful in transforming gender relations? This article examines different pathways to women’s empowerment and the assumptions about gender, power, and politics that underlie quotas. It concludes that the focus on women’s representation in parliament is too narrow; gender hierarchies that have remained unchallenged in other power bases (such as key ministries) must be identified and targeted. Further, women’s representation must be viewed in terms of the agendas pursued and their influence.
Access full text: available online
Even within social movements intended to benefit the poor, uneven power relations can be replicated at the local level, resulting in the exclusion of the most marginalised citizens.
Waldman, L., 2005, ‘When Social Movements Bypass the Poor: Asbestos Pollution, International Litigation and Griqua Cultural Identity’, IDS Working Paper 246, Institute of Development Studies Brighton
Why was a successful legal case against a British asbestos mining company regarded by many of its South African claimants as a defeat? This paper explores the divergent interpretations of the case, focusing on two towns in the Northern Cape: Prieska and Griquatown. Griquatown’s geographical marginalisation from the process led residents to perceive the case in local religious and cultural terms rather than in terms of international justice. Social movement theory must include perspectives which integrate history, everyday experience and cultural values with modern mobilisation processes to address questions of local cultural interpretations.
Access full text: available online
For a more detailed discussion of power relations, see The Centrality of Power section earlier in this guide.
Promoting political inclusion and social accountability can undermine the status quo, and threaten vested political interests. As a result, initiatives to improve accountability by means of innovative accountability mechanisms are likely to encounter resistance. Some government representatives criticise donor-supported social accountability measures on the grounds that they divert attention and resources from building state capacity. There may also be trade-offs with promoting short-term political stability.
LeVan, A. C., 2011, ‘Power Sharing and Inclusive Politics in Africa’s Uncertain Democracies’, Governance, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 31-53
How should international policymakers respond to evidence of a ‘stolen’ election? This article argues that support for inclusive political institutions needs to take account of the distinction between strengthening states and strengthening democracy. When used in response to flawed elections, pacts guaranteeing political inclusion can promote short-term peace, but they undermine democratisation, accountability and effective government performance. Potential adverse effects of political inclusion can be assessed by: 1) contrasting extra-constitutional pacts with stable political frameworks; 2) differentiating between post-war contexts and low-level conflicts; and 3) weighing short-term benefits against long-term costs. The drawbacks of inclusive political institutions can be moderated by options such as sunset clauses, the even-handed prosecution of human rights violations, and by strengthening checks on executive authority.
Access full text: available online
Many donors still view governance through a state-centric perspective. Chapter 1 in the following book argues that they do not yet see governance as “a textured, embedded, networked process in which citizens and government officials argue, bargain, and, sometimes, come to agreement” (pp.5-6). This has important implications for the extent to which donors can encourage governments to be responsible to their citizens.
Lee, T., and Odugbemi, S., 2011, ‘How Can Citizens be Helped to Hold their Governments Accountable?’ in Accountability through Public Opinion: From Inertia to Public Action, eds. S. Odugbemi and T. Lee, World Bank, Washington DC, ch. 28
This book addresses some questions that are crucial to understanding accountability and for understanding why accountability is important to improve the effectiveness of development aid. We ask: What does it mean to make governments accountable to their citizens? How do you do that? How do you create genuine demand for accountability among citizens, how do you move citizens from inertia to public action? The main argument of this book is that accountability is a matter of public opinion. Governments will only be accountable if there are incentives for them to do so—and only an active and critical public will change the incentives of government officials to make them responsive to citizens’ demands. Accountability without public opinion is a technocratic, but not an effective solution.
Access full text: available online
In many developing countries, the state is not the primary provider of services. Non-state, private and informal service providers are often of poor quality, unaccountable and do not necessarily increase access for the poorest. In these context, finding real strengthen the services provided by existing public, voluntary and private sector providers rather than encouraging engagement from a broader range of organizations. For more on this, please see the section on Social Empowerment earlier in this guide. Accountability is also not limited to the state. One of the most complex challenges facing civil society organisations is the question of their legitimacy as social and political actors and their accountability to key stakeholders.
Brown, L. D., and Jagadanda, 2005, ‘Civil Society Legitimacy and Accountability: Issues and Challenges’, CIVICUS, Washington, D.C.
What are the challenges to the legitimacy and accountability of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and how can these be addressed? This draft scoping report from the World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) and the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations analyses existing systems and practices for responding to these challenges. It suggests steps for developing systems to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of CSOs and multi-organisation domains.
Access full text: available online