Conceptualising empowerment and accountability

• Empowerment
• Accountability
• The centrality of power
• Citizenship, rights and participation
• Transforming relations between citizens and the state
• Additional resources

There is little consensus about the definitions of ‘empowerment’ and ‘accountability’. While there is recognition that the two overlap, empowerment and accountability approaches have been understood and operationalised in a variety of ways.

Empowerment

Empowerment has been defined in many ways, but in general it refers to people’s (increased) ability – through the development of resources, assets, capabilities and transformed institutions – to make choices and decisions regarding their development. This is a relational approach, recognising that development is about power and the ability of ordinary people to influence the institutional arrangements that affect their lives. Some definitions of empowerment, for example, emphasise the role of changed aspirations, suggesting that empowerment occurs when people “are able to imagine their world differently and to realise that vision by changing the relations of power that have been keeping them in poverty” (Eyben et al 2008).

The concept of empowerment is historically associated with the Brazilian educational theorist Paolo Freire, who, in the 1970s, advocated for the liberation of the oppressed through education. Empowerment, including the use of the term itself, has also been a central tenet of the feminist movement, and as a result, many organisations still use the term in relation to gender issues. However, over the last 15 years, conceptions of empowerment have come to encompass a broad spectrum of ‘capabilities’ – from challenging power relations through collective action, to the consciousness of individuals and their ability to express choice and act on it. Thus, empowerment can refer to change occurring at multiple levels (individual, family, community, or polity), and across various domains (state, market, or society) or dimensions (political, social, cultural, economic, and legal).

Whether empowerment is a concrete outcome or ‘state’, or a process is unresolved – it is often understood as both. However, the lack of precision around this question has led to both confusion and concerns over the breadth of the concept: does empowerment have intrinsic value, being desirable in itself, or is its value instrumental – as a means to another end?

Luttrell, C. et al., 2009, ‘Understanding and Operationalising Empowerment’, Working Paper 308, Overseas Development Institute, London
What are the implications of the various concepts of empowerment for development practice? This paper argues that a failure to define empowerment can weaken its value as an agent for change and as a tool for analysis. Empowerment can be broadly defined as a progression that helps people to gain control over their own lives and increases their capacity to act on issues they themselves think are important. A multidimensional approach to empowerment must consider both individual capacities and collective action to address inequalities that cause poverty. Awareness of the different forms of power and their dynamic nature can help to identify the strategies needed to shift unequal power relations.
Access full text: available online

Various World Bank publications have offered a conceptual framework that sees empowerment as a process of poor people increasing their power to make choices and then transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes. This process is shaped by the interaction between ‘agency’ and ‘opportunity structure’:

• Opportunity structure: This includes the institutional climate and social structures within which poor groups have to work to advance their interests. This can include the opportunities available to disadvantaged groups through information, inclusion, accountability and local capacity.
• Agency: This is about people’s ability to act individually or collectively to further their own interests. Individual and family assets can be material, human, social, political or psychological. Collective assets include voice, organisation, representation and identity.

Some organisations focus on agency, whereas others stress the importance of reforming structures and political institutions. However, it is commonly argued that empowerment is a dynamic process affected by changes in norms, values and rules. Therefore it is argued that the separation between structure and agency should not be over-emphasised and that attention should be paid to a combination and sequencing of both forms of approach.

World Bank, 2011, ‘Promoting Women’s Agency’, in World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development, ch. 4
What gender gaps exist in women’s and men’s capacity to exercise agency—defined as the ability to make effective choices—both in the household and in society more broadly? This chapter looks at how economic growth, formal and informal institutions and markets interact to enable or constrain women’s agency.
Access full text: available online

Alkire, S., 2008, ‘Concepts and Measures of Agency’, Working Paper No. 9, Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, Oxford
This paper uses Amartya Sen’s concept of agency to examine some of the different ways of measuring agency at the individual or household level. Sen describes agency as a person’s ability to act on behalf of what he or she values and has reason to value. Alkire makes four conceptual distinctions in order to broaden measurement of agency beyond traditional proxy measures such as literacy, members of organisations, and land ownership.
Access full text: available online

The following publications offer similar frameworks which aim to capture the multidimensionality of empowerment and the interrelationships between the different dimensions of power.

Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. F. and Holland, J., 2006, ‘Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to Implementation’, World Bank, Washington DC
Access full text: available online

Alsop, R. and Heinsohn, N., 2005, ‘Measuring Empowerment in Practice: Structuring Analysis and Framing Indicators’, World Bank, Washington DC
How can we determine whether and how projects and policies aimed at empowering stakeholders reach their intended goals? Empowerment is recognised by the World Bank as one of the three pillars of poverty reduction, and is found in the documentation of hundreds of its projects. This paper presents an analytic framework that can be used to measure and monitor empowerment processes and outcomes. It argues that the framework is useful both within single countries and for cross-country comparison of degrees of empowerment.
Access full text: available online

Some donors, such as the World Bank and the OECD-DAC, have taken a growth-based approach to empowerment, arguing that empowerment is a key component of pro-poor growth and of overall development effectiveness. This approach also recognises the centrality of accountability and demand-side governance in transforming the institutional context within which poor people must negotiate empowerment.

DFID’s conceptual framework for empowerment and accountability envisages a series of ‘step changes’ that may lead to poor people exercising more choice and greater control over their own development.

DFID, 2011, ‘Empowerment and Accountability Summary Note’, DFID, London
How do DFID define empowerment and accountability and what conceptual framework do they use? This paper outlines how and why DFID aim to enable poor people to exercise greater choice and control over their own development and to hold decision-makers to account.
Access full text: available online

Narayan, D. and Petesch, P., 2007, ‘Agency, Opportunity Structure and Poverty Escapes’, in Narayan, D. and Petesch, P, Moving Out of Poverty, World Bank, Washington DC, pp 1-44
Why are some people able to move out and stay out of poverty while others remain in chronic poverty? There is little consensus on the underlying causes of poverty and processes determining access to economic opportunity and mobility. This introductory chapter looks at different approaches to analysing poor people’s mobility. It recommends an empowerment approach that seeks to understand underlying factors of exclusion and inequality.
Access full text: available online

Empowerment also occurs across various domains, spheres and levels. The paper below proposes a framework for understanding the complex and mutually dependent processes that development actors can support and facilitate to achieve empowerment for the poor. It identifies three kinds of empowerment that are inter-connected and iterative:

• Economic empowerment is the capacity of poor women and men to participate in, contribute to and benefit from growth processes on equitable terms which are commensurate to the value of their contributions. Areas to focus on include: a) the promotion of the assets of poor people; b) transformative forms of social protection; c) the ‘decent work’ agenda’; and d) voice and organisation for economic citizenship.
• Political empowerment refers to increasing equity of representation in political institutions and enhancing the voice of the poor and marginalized communities so that they can engage in making the decisions that affect their lives.
• Social empowerment is taking steps to change society so that one’s own place within it is respected and recognised on the terms on which the person themselves want to live, not on terms dictated by others.

Eyben, R., Kabeer, N., Cornwall, A., 2008, ‘Conceptualising Empowerment and the Implications for Pro-Poor Growth’, Paper prepared for the DAC Poverty Network by the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
This paper proposes a framework to enable the empowerment of the poor to be conceptually understood and operationally explored. It examines the different facets of ‘social’, ‘economic’ and ‘political’ empowerment. International development actors often lack awareness of much that is already known about these issues. These are the conceptual tools for identifying complex and mutually dependent processes that development actors can support and facilitate for achieving pro-poor growth.
Access full text: available online

Fraser, E., 2010, ‘Empowerment, Choice, and Agency’, Helpdesk Research Report, GSDRC, Birmingham
There are over 30 definitions of ‘empowerment’ in current use amongst development scholars and organisations, and a similar proliferation of definitions of ‘agency’. Similarities and differences in the ways in which the terms are understood include whether empowerment is viewed as just a process, or as both a process and outcome; whether agencies focus on agency or on reforming structures and political institutions; and whether organisations believe that empowerment is a ‘self-help’ process or one in which outsiders have a role. A key factor in operationalising empowerment is the extent to which development agencies are able to understand and address the power dynamics embedded in social relations. Organisational culture and marginalised people’s psychological barriers also require attention.
Access full text: available online

The empowerment discourse within international development theory and practice has been subject to some critique. There are concerns, for instance, that the varying ways in which empowerment and its associated concepts have been defined, has resulted in a problematic malleability. The authors cited below have observed that empowerment is not only a “buzzword”, but a “fuzzword” with multiple meanings. While this fluidity allows room for greater creativity, and ownership at the national level, it also makes it more difficult to operationalise, results in a lack of coherence, and undermines accountability among the donor, their partners and target groups.

Cornwall, A. and Brock, K., 2005, ‘Beyond Buzzwords: ‘Poverty Reduction’, ‘Participation’ and ‘Empowerment’ in Development Policy’, UNRISD, Geneva
What do ‘poverty reduction’, ‘participation’ and ’empowerment’ really mean? Has their use influenced mainstream development policy? This paper argues that the terms we use are never neutral. Different configurations of words frame and justify particular kinds of development interventions. Terms are given meaning as they are put to use in policies, and the policies influence how those who work in development come to think about what they are doing. ‘Poverty reduction’, ‘participation’ and ’empowerment’ have been emptied of meaning by a lack of specificity that masks differing opinions. This ‘one size fits all’ apolitical approach undermines their ability to deliver the aspirations that they promote. Significant difference could be achieved in policies and actions if greater attention were paid to specificity in choosing words.
Access full text: available online

Accountability

It is argued that lack of accountability keeps poor people from taking equal advantage of opportunities, benefiting from basic services, and achieving a decent standard of living. In addition, increased citizen voice will have little impact if the state and other powerholders are not responsive and accountable to the needs and interests of its people. Accountability thus involves officials and politicians being answerable for their actions and being held to account for delivering on their commitments and responsibilities. Accountability mechanisms can be formal top-down processes (e.g., elections, hearings, consultations) or bottom-up strategies (e.g., citizen juries, popular protests, participatory budgeting).

Traditionally, accountability work has focused on strengthening state mechanisms such as political checks and balances, administrative rules and procedures, auditing requirements, and formal legal institutions. The underlying logic of these interventions was that electoral politics would allow citizens to express their preferences, and their elected candidates would make representative policies and hold the state accountable. These state-based accountability methods have met with limited success. Recognition of this led to a shift in the late 1990s towards new measures of horizontal accountability, involving oversight of state agencies by independent public agents or ombudsmen, and the development of ‘participatory development’ approaches, more recently, there has been an increasing focus on strengthening the capacity of ordinary citizens (particularly the poor and marginalised) to engage with citizen-led forms of accountability) so that they can exercise voice beyond elections, and participate directly in policymaking.

Accountability is also deeply rooted in social relationships and power structures. A relational accountability approach involves understanding the ways in which people perform in their roles as social actors, and how the quality of relationships influences the character of accountability.

Moncrieffe, J., 2011, ‘Relational Accountability: Complexities of Structural Injustice’, Zed Books, London
This book examines the concept of accountability – what it is and the best route to achieving it. Using empirical data (from Jamaica, Haiti, Ethiopia and Uganda), Moncrieffe argues that the traditionally narrow interpretation of accountability obscures relationships, power dynamics, structures, processes and complexities.
See book details on publisher’s website

Goetz, A. M., and Jenkins, R., 2002, ‘Voice, Accountability and Human Development: The Emergence of a New Agenda’, Occasional Paper, United Nations Development Programme, New York
This study examines the multiple dimensions of accountability and surveys the experiments that have sought to implement a new, expanded accountability agenda. The new agenda seeks a more direct role for ordinary people and their associations in demanding accountability across a more diverse set of jurisdictions. It uses a broader repertoire of methods, and is based on a more exacting standard of social justice. However, this agenda must be actively shaped if it is to have a positive impact on human development.
Access full text: available online

Lindberg, S., 2009, ‘Accountability: The Core Concept and its Subtypes’, Africa Power and Politics Programme Working Paper no.1, Overseas Development Institute, London
The concept of accountability has become increasingly popular in diverse fields, including development policy. This paper argues that new meanings and dimensions risk diluting its content and creating conceptual confusion – with significant implications for empirical analysis. A classic approach to concept formation is required, which suggests that accountability refers to a class of concepts under the category ‘methods of limiting power’. It is important to distinguish between accountability and responsiveness.
Access full text: available online

A central element of both empowerment and accountability is the promotion of citizens’ responsibility, power, participation, and engagement at local levels in order to encourage more accountable and responsive government. The report below considers the framework of relationships between the client, provider and policymaker, including the ‘long’ and ‘short’ routes of accountability.

World Bank, 2003, ‘Making Services Work for Poor People, World Development Report 2004’, World Bank, Washington D.C, Chapters 3, 5 and 6
How can countries accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals by making services work for poor people? How does the integration of poor people into determining the quality and quantity of services they receive ensure higher success rates? The 2004 World Development Report from The World Bank looks at successful innovations and failures to guide policymakers on improving the delivery of basic services.
Access full text: available online

UNIFEM, 2008, ‘Chapter 1: Who Answers to Women?’, in Progress of the World’s Women 2008/9: Who Answers to Women? Gender and Accountability’, UNIFEM, New York
This chapter examines how women, including the most excluded women, are strengthening their capacity to identify accountability gaps and call for redress. Women’s efforts to remedy their situation when their rights are denied have ranged from ‘voice’-based approaches that emphasise collective action, representation of interests and the ability to demand change, to ‘choice’-based approaches that promote changes in the supply of responsive public services or fair market practices. For ‘voice’ and ‘choice’ solutions to work, they must take into account the specific challenges that different groups of women face in asking for accountability. Gender-responsive accountability institutions must ensure that decision-makers answer to the women who are most affected by their decisions.
Access full text: available online

The centrality of power

The concept of power is central to discourses around empowerment and accountability. Power dynamics are embedded in formal and informal relations, processes and institutions, and empowerment and disempowerment result from the complex interplay between these. Power relations are also a product of differing political and social cultures and histories – which must be adequately understood in order to meaningfully address issues of citizen voice and accountability.

VeneKlasen and Miller (2002) (cited below) outline different types of power, demonstrating how it is expressed in different ways:

• Power over – the power of an ‘upper’ over a ‘lower’, usually with negative connotations such as restrictive control or denial of access;
• Power to, or agency – effective choice, the capability to decide on actions and carry them out;
• Power with – collective power where people, typically lowers, exercise power together through organisation, solidarity and joint action; and
• Power within – personal self-confidence.

Such a conceptualisation allows for a more nuanced understanding of power as diffuse, and of shifts in power as not always ‘zero-sum’. Cited elsewhere in this guide, Eyben, Kabeer and Cornwall (2008) argue, for example, that power should not be viewed “as a resource that can be possessed, acquired or lost, but rather as part of all social relationships and institutions, shaping the limits of what is possible for people to do or to envisage themselves doing”.

VeneKlasen, L., with Miller, V., 2002, ‘Power and Empowerment’, in A New Weave of Power, People & Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation, Practical Action, Rugby, ch. 3
How can a deeper understanding of power and empowerment contribute to citizen-centred advocacy? This chapter looks at power as an individual, collective and political force that can facilitate, hasten or halt the process of change. It draws on practical experience and theory related to poverty and women’s rights and includes a number of exercises and frameworks for exploring power and empowerment.
Access full text: available online

Chambers, R. 2006, ‘Transforming Power: From Zero-sum to Win-Win’, IDS Bulletin Vol. 37, No. 6, pp.99-110
Current approaches to power transformation are limited because they restrict the extent to which the powerful are included. There is a tendency in the development arena to discuss transformations of power with a zero-sum mindset. However, there is extensive unrealised potential for win-win solutions through ‘uppers’ using their power to empower. Top-down transformations of power, when used in certain ways, can result in gains for the powerful as well as for those who are empowered.
Access full text: available online

The creation of new spaces for public participation is intended to enable more direct forms of citizen engagement in policy making. However, simply creating new spaces for participation does not guarantee greater inclusion, nor does it automatically enable the most marginalised segments of the population to articulate their voices and demand accountability. The outcomes of participatory approaches are affected by power and power relations, which shape participatory spaces and can create exclusion and inequality.

Mosse, D., 2004, ‘Power Relations and Poverty Reduction’, in Power, rights and poverty: concepts and connections, ed. R Alsop, The World Bank, Washington D.C., pp.51-67
The concept of power is central to social science, but receives relatively little attention in development policy analysis. This paper presented at a joint World Bank/DFID workshop argues that power inequalities have a significant impact on the achievement of poverty reduction goals. Examples from DFID partner states in India show that the politicisation of poverty is necessary for the empowerment of the poor. Formal decentralisation may fail to challenge informal power relations and be ineffective in addressing the needs of the poor.
Access full text: available online

In an article cited below John Gaventa (2006) argues: “Power relations help to shape the boundaries of participatory spaces, what is possible within them, and who may enter, with which identities, discourses and interests”. Therefore, power needs to be understood in relation to how spaces of engagement are created, the levels of power that exist within them, and the different forms of power that flow across them. It is essential to consider who participates, on what basis and whose interests they represent.

Gurza Lavalle, A., Houtzager, P., and Castello, G., 2005, ‘In whose Name?: Political Representation and Civil Organisations in Brazil,’ Working Paper 249, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Civil organisations (COs) have become representatives of particular segments of the population in design, implementation and monitoring of public policy. But who are they representing, and how is this representation constructed? This Institute of Development Studies working paper examines the dilemma of how an organisation engaged in representational activities establishes that representativeness: Elections, membership, or something else? Findings from a survey of COs in São Paulo, Brazil, demonstrate that their representative function is principally one of mediation between the poorly or under-represented, and the State.
Access full text: available online

Simply getting female (or other marginalised) individuals or organizations into existing political structures and formal institutions does not guarantee space for meaningful participation in politics. Achieving true participation may require changing political systems to make them genuinely inclusive.

Cornwall, A. and Goetz, A.M., 2005, ‘Democratising Democracy: Feminist Perspectives’, Democratisation, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 783-800
Increasing numbers of women have gained entry to formal political spaces. To what extent has this translated into their political influence, or into gains in policies that redress gendered inequities and inequalities? This article explores the factors that affect and enable women’s political effectiveness in different democratic arenas. It argues that women’s political interests are not necessarily influenced by their sex, but by their “political apprenticeship”, or pathway into politics. To enhance the potential of women’s political participation, democracy itself must be democratized; including building new pathways into politics.
Access full text: available online

Citizens’ ability to demand accountability and the capacity and willingness of the state and service providers to respond to calls for accountability also assumes relations of power between the state, civil society and market actors.

Newell, P. and Wheeler, J., 2006, ‘Taking Accountability into Account’, in Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability, Zed Books, London
It is widely assumed that a notion of accountability is crucial for ensuring that political and business actors respond to the needs of poor people. This chapter from Rights, Resources and the Politics of Accountability explores the relationship between power and accountability. The changing relations between state, civil society and market actors both create and restrict new forms of accountability as new power dynamics evolve.
Access full text: available online

However, the extent to which development agencies are able to understand and address power relations varies. For example, the concept of power does not appear in various donor definitions of empowerment. However, there are a range of analytical tools and approaches that have been developed by donors and academic researchers that aim to help build a dynamic understanding of how power operates, how different interests can be marginalised from decision-making, and the strategies that are needed to increase inclusion.

Gaventa, J., 2006, ‘Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis’, IDS Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp.23-33
Development actors are increasingly aware of the need to understand and engage with power relations as a means of promoting pro-poor change. So where should they target their efforts and which strategies should they use? This article explores an approach to power analysis known as the ‘power cube’. If the development community wants to change power relationships to make them more inclusive, it must reflect on power relationships in all of its dimensions. The power cube may represent the first step in making power’s most hidden and invisible forms more visible.
Access full text: available online

Bjuremalm, H., 2006, ‘Power Analysis: Experiences and Challenges’, Swedish International Development Agency, Stockholm
What can be learned from Sida’s use of power analysis? Power analysis can help donors to understand underlying structural factors that impede poverty reduction as well as incentives and disincentives for pro-poor development. Such analysis must consider the ability of the poor to articulate their concerns; the institutional channels and arenas for voicing these concerns; and the legal basis of poverty reduction.
Access full text: available online

For further information on this, please see the Social exclusion as a process section in the GSDRC’s Social Exclusion guide.

Citizenship, rights and participation

Rights-based approaches (RBAs) emphasise that every citizen has an inherent right to engage in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. RBAs share with empowerment approaches the belief that people can act as agents of change given the right circumstances or environment. RBAs and accountability approaches also share a concern with the relationship between citizens and institutions – namely that rights holders have both entitlements and obligations, and should be able to demand that their entitlements are realised.

Miller, V., VeneKlasen, L., and Clark., C., 2005, ‘Rights-based Development: Linking Rights and Participation – Challenges in Thinking and Action’, IDS Bulletin Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 31-40
Rights-based development aims to combine the community-level, participatory focus of development organisations, with the legal and institutional expertise of human rights organisations. There is much potential for increasing the impact of both human rights and development programmes by integrating these very different approaches. However, greater clarity on the objectives, strategies and limitations of rights-based approaches to development is needed. This article identifies a need for strategies and approaches that seek to build consensus and legitimacy about newly emerging rights and forms of participation.
Access full text: available online

However, the process of demanding increased rights, or change, cannot be expected to emerge spontaneously. In contexts where entrenched inequalities exist, a focus on ‘power within’ is needed to change individuals’ own perceptions about their rights, capacities and potential in order to tackle internalised power relations.

Chapman, J. et al, 2005, ‘Rights-based Development: The Challenge of Change and Power’, Global Poverty Research Group
This paper explores the benefits and challenges of a rights-based approach for strengthening the voice and power of marginalised sectors of society. The positive outcomes of rights-based approaches depend largely on linking them with lessons about participation, empowerment and social change. Rights-based approaches hold considerable potential for putting politics and power back into development. However, RBAs need to be grounded in more careful analysis of power in all its forms, and in a more nuanced understanding of how change happens and is sustained.
Access full text: available online

Kabeer, N., 2005, ‘The Search for Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions in an Interconnected World’, in Kabeer, N. (ed), Volume 1: Inclusive Citizenship – Meanings and Expressions, IDS Series on Claiming Citizenship: Rights, Participation and Accountability, Brighton
What does ‘citizenship’ mean for excluded groups around the world? This chapter considers how debates around citizenship, rights and duties can be interpreted in the light of the values associated with citizenship. Values that marginalised groups associate with citizenship include the following: (i) justice: when it is fair for people to be treated the same, and when it is fair for them to be treated differently; (ii) recognition: of the intrinsic worth of all people, but also of their differences; (iii) self-determination: people’s ability to exercise some degree of control over their own lives; and (iv) solidarity: the capacity to identify with others and to act with them in their claims for justice and recognition. These perspectives challenge state-centred views of citizenship. The chapter discusses the emergence of an explicit rights-based approach in the development agenda.
Access full text: available online

A number of donors have made an explicit connection between rights based approaches and empowerment, where empowerment is understood in terms of a process through which marginalised and disadvantaged people are able to realise their rights.

Department for International Development (DFID), 2000, ‘Realising Human Rights for Poor People’, DFID, London
Access full text: available online

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), 2001, ‘Handbook in Human Rights Assessment: State Obligations, Awareness and Empowerment’, Norad, Oslo
Access full text: available online

For further information please see the Right Based Approaches section in the GSDRC’s Human Rights Topic Guide.

Transforming relations between citizens and the state

It is widely agreed that citizen and civil society participation in the decision-making processes are key to good governance and pro-poor development initiatives. Traditionally, efforts to promote citizen voice and government accountability and responsiveness have been undertaken separately. Development efforts to build citizen engagement have centred on promoting either bottom-up or top-down mechanisms, and isolated forms of public consultation between citizen and state. The DAC evaluation of donor Voice and Accountability interventions (cited below) finds that these – by themselves – have had little effect on policy or deeper change.

O’Neil, T., Foresti, M. and Hudson, A., 2007, ‘Evaluation of Citizens’ Voice and Accountability: Review of the Literature and Donor Approaches’, Overseas Development Institute, London
This paper reviews the strategy and policy documents of seven DAC donors in order to contribute to the design of a V&A evaluation framework. Donors need to give higher priority to evaluation research and the development of performance measures to generate more systematic evidence about the effectiveness of their activities.
Access full text: available online

Over the last ten years, DFID has commissioned a range of research programmes to consider questions around citizenship, power and state-society relations. The key findings of these programmes – which include the Citizenship Development Research Centre, Centre for the Future State, and the Africa Power and Politics programme – have contributed to shaping current discussions on empowerment and accountability. One of their key findings has been that it is not enough to raise citizens’ voice or to increase local government responsiveness. Rather, it is essential to work on both sides of the equation – that is – by working simultaneously on both citizens’ ability to participate and the state’s ability to respond. These interventions are equally important and mutually reinforcing.

Citizenship DRC, 2011, ‘Blurring the Boundaries: Citizen Action Across States and Societies’, Citizenship DRC, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
What does ‘citizenship’ mean for excluded groups around the world? What do these meanings tell us about the goal of building inclusive societies? This introductory chapter from ‘Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and Expressions’ outlines some of the values and meanings associated with citizenship. It considers how debates around citizenship, rights and duties can be interpreted in the light of these values, and discusses the emergence of an explicit rights-based approach in the development agenda.
Access full text: available online

The Centre for the Future State’s publication ‘Upside Down View of Governance’ (below) highlights the importance of state-society bargaining and of informal relationships in creating accountable public authority. The author argues: “in the short-to-medium term informal arrangements and relationships can help stimulate investment, improve services, connect citizens to the state and facilitate the transition to more inclusive, rules-based governance” (p. 70).

Unsworth, S. (ed.), 2010, ‘An Upside Down View of Governance’, Centre for the Future State, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
How can effective, accountable public authority be increased? This paper synthesises research findings from the Centre for the Future State. It explores how public authority is created through processes of bargaining between state and society actors, and the interaction of formal and informal institutions. Findings highlight the need for a fundamental reassessment of existing assumptions about governance and development. Informal institutions and personalised relationships are pervasive and powerful, but they can contribute to progressive as well as to regressive outcomes. Rather than focusing on rules-based reform, policymakers should consider using indirect strategies to influence local actors.
Access full text: available online

The above document notes that to help identify ways of supporting more constructive bargaining between public and private actors, analysts need to ask five key questions:

• What shapes the interests of political elites? (Sources of revenue are likely to be critical.)
• What shapes relations between politicians and investors? Are there common interests among and between public and private actors which could produce ‘win/win’ outcomes?
• What might stimulate collective social action to demand better services, or to support or resist public policy?
• What informal local institutions are at work and how are they interacting with formal institutions?
• Where does the government get its revenue from? Is there scope for productive bargaining around taxation?

Empowerment and accountability have emerged as important agendas for DFID in particular. The UK government’s ‘Big Society’ initiative, for example, reflects – and arguably, informs – current efforts to transform ‘top-down’ relations between state and citizens. A Cabinet Office policy note (below) explains that the Big Society initiative seeks “to give citizens, communities and local government the power and information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and build the Britain they want.”

The following note outlines the core elements of the approach as:

• Giving communities more powers (to bid to take over local state-run services, for example)
• Encouraging people to take an active role in their communities
• Transferring power from central to local government
• Supporting co-operatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
• Publishing government data.

Cabinet Office, 2011, ‘Building the Big Society’, Cabinet Office of the UK Government, London
Access full text: available online

There are reservations about the Big Society initiative, however, including doubts over whether transferring power and responsibility to communities will lead to pro-poor outcomes, and concerns that the proposed transference of power is a way of ‘window dressing’ cuts to public services.

Additional Resources

For further information on social exclusion and power, please see Identifying Exclusion section of the GSDRC’s Social Exclusion Topic Guide.

For more information on citizenship, participation, and the state please see the following:

• Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability
• Centre for the Future State
• Africa Power and Politics Programme