ABSTRACT
Effective, accountable and transparent institutions, that engage in inclusive and participatory governance, are crucial for the sustainability of global development investments. However, there is a debate about whether effective approaches to improving governance processes operate from the bottom up (e.g. by enabling citizens to hold service providers accountable) or the top down (by enabling service providers to be held accountable by the State). This paper systematically reviews participation and accountability mechanisms in a range of sectors, drawing on principles of realist evaluation to develop and test middle-range theory using framework synthesis and statistical meta-analysis. We show that interventions promoting citizen engagement through participatory priority setting or accountability mechanisms are often effective in stimulating active citizen engagement in service delivery and realising improvements in access to services, where they facilitate direct engagement between service users and front-line service providers, such as in health care. However, citizen engagement interventions alone are not effective where services are accessed independently of service provider staff, for example road infrastructure. Interventions promoting participation by increasing citizens’ pressures on politicians to hold providers to account are also not usually able to influence service delivery.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development, via NORC [project number 7554.070.01].
Disclosure statement
The authors are not aware of any conflicts of interest, financial or intellectual, that affected the research process and outputs.
Declaration
The research topic was conceptualised with the funder, but the funder but had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, nor in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Notes
1. The theory of change built on the 2004 World Development Report (World Bank Citation2004), which articulated the importance of pro-poor governance practices that actively engage end users for effective outcomes, and Rahman and Robinson (Citation2006) who articulated the importance of local ownership and long-term support. The assumptions and moderating factors drew on insights from Fox (Citation2014), Page and Pande (Citation2018), and the 2017 World Development Report (World Bank Citation2017).
2. The technical report on which this is article is based is published in Campbell Systematic Reviews (Waddington et al. Citation2019).
3. This required detailed information about both the governance intervention and standard public services access in the control or comparison, together with any cointerventions provided, information which is often scant in impact evaluations. For example, one study appeared to be an evaluation of an eligible participation mechanism (Andres et al. Citation2017), but was excluded after the full-text screening stage due to co-interventions that were not reported clearly in the evaluation, which were discovered in additional documentation (2009 World Bank Implementation Completion and Results Report) identified through targeted searches. The report described co-interventions that would likely have impacted the outcomes covered by the evaluation, including significant technical engineering assistance, infrastructure, and capacity building.
4. Hence, for negative (undesired) outcomes like corruption or mortality, transformations were made by multiplying SMD by −1.
5. Meta-analysis and meta-regressions were estimated with inverse-variance weights using the metan and metareg command in Stata (Harbord and Higgins Citation2008).
6. Studies and intervention components of studies were excluded for various reasons. The most common reason was that they were unable to estimate the marginal effect of the eligible PITA component of the intervention – in other words, where the evaluation measured the effect of a complex intervention including a PITA component packaged with other interventions. Most evaluations of community-driven development (CDD) were excluded for this reason (e.g. Casey, Glennerster, and Miguel Citation2012), as well as the CDD versus control arms in studies that were eligible for inclusion in the review (Beath, Christia, and Enikolopov Citation2013; Humphreys, de la Sierra, and van der Windt Citation2014). Other CDD studies that were included evaluated social mobilisation prior to roll-out of the block grants application process (Giné, Khalid, and Mansuri Citation2018) or applied enhanced citizen engagement to standard CDD (Fiala and Premand Citation2018). Studies were also excluded where they acted to reduce citizen engagement, such as a ‘recentralisation’ intervention which reduced participation (Malesky, Nguyen, and Tran Citation2013), or if they only measured immediate outcomes (civic engagement and provider responsiveness) rather than access to or use of services or wellbeing (Finkel Citation2012; Gottlieb, Citation2016; Grossman, Humphreys, and Sacramone-Lutz Citation2014; Grossman et al., Citation2016; Sexton Citation2022; Sheely Citation2015; Yanez-Pagans and Machicado-Salas Citation2014).
7. Findings from the replication of Björkman and Svensson (Citation2009) (Donato and Garcia Mosqueira Citation2016) were also included in analysis.
8. The full list of variables collected under each outcome category is presented in the study protocol (Waddington et al. Citation2018, Citation2019).
9. Underlying the figure are meta-analyses for outcome sub-groups, which are presented in Waddington et al. (Citation2019).
10. Banerjee et al. (Citation2018) also argued that providing information about eligibility and prices created common knowledge.
11. For example, searches of the Experiments in Governance and Politics (EGAP) registry yielded 22 studies under ‘participation’ and 34 under ‘accountability’ (https://egap.org/registry/accessed 11 March 2021).
World Bank. (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, D.C: The World Bank Group. Rahman, H. Z., and M. Robinson 2006. ”Governance and State Effectiveness in Asia.” IDS bulletin 37: 130–149. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006. Fox, J. (2014). Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? GPSA Working Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Page, L., and R. Pande. 2018. “Ending Global Poverty: Aid and the State.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 32 (4): 173–200. doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.173. World Bank. (2017). World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law. Washington, D.C: The World Bank Group. Waddington, H., A. Sonnenfeld, J. Finetti, M. Gaarder, D. John, and J. Stevenson. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Public Services in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Mixed‐methods Systematic Review of Participation, Inclusion, Transparency and Accountability (PITA) Initiatives.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 15 (1–2): e1025. doi:10.1002/cl2.1025. Andres, L., S. Deb, M. Gambrill, E. Giannone, G. Joseph, P. Kannath, M. Kumar, P. Kuruvila Kurian, R. Many, and A. Muwonge. 2017. “Sustainability of Demand Responsive Approaches to Rural Water Supply: The Case of Kerala.” Journal of Water Sustainability 8 (3): 73–97. Harbord, R. M., and J. Higgins. 2008. “Meta-Regression in Stata.” The Stata Journal 8 (4): 493–519. doi:10.1177/1536867X0800800403. Casey, K., R. Glennerster, and E. Miguel (2012). The GoBifo Project Evaluation Report: Assessing the Impacts of Community-Driven Development in Sierra Leone. Impact Evaluation Report 3. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3 ie). Beath, A., F. Christia, and R. Enikolopov (2013). Randomized Impact Evaluation of Afghanistan’s National Solidarity Program: Final Report. World Bank Report No. 81107. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. Humphreys, M., R. S. de la Sierra, and P. van der Windt (2014). Social and Economic Impacts of Tuungane: Final Report on the Effects of a Community Driven Reconstruction Program in the Democratic Republic of Congo. New Delhi: 3ie. Giné, X., S. Khalid, and G. Mansuri. 2018. “The Impact of Social Mobilization on Health Service Delivery and Health Outcomes - Evidence from Rural Pakistan.” In World Bank Group, Development Research Group, Finance and Private Sector Development Team and Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-8313. Fiala, N., and P. Premand (2018). Social Accountability and Service Delivery: Experimental Evidence from Uganda. Policy Research working paper No. WPS 8449, Impact Evaluation Series. Washington, D.C: The World Bank Group. Malesky, E., C. Nguyen, and A. Tran. 2013. ”The Impact of Recentralization on Public Services: A Difference-In-Differences Analysis of the Abolition of Elected Councils in Vietnam.” The American Political Science Review 108 (01): 144–168. Doi.org/. doi:10.1017/S0003055413000580. Finkel, S. E. (2012). Voter Opinion and Involvement Through Civic Education VOICE. The VOICE Impact Evaluation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Final Report. Prepared by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems for USAID. Washington, D.C: USAID. Gottlieb, J. 2016. ”Why Might Information Exacerbate the Gender Gap in Civic Participation? Evidence from Mali.” World Development 86: 95–110. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.05.010. Grossman, G., M. Humphreys, and G. Sacramone-Lutz. 2014. ““I Wld Like U Wmp to Extend Electricity 2 Our Village”: On Information Technology and Interest Articulation.” The American Political Science Review 108 (3): 688–705. doi:10.1017/S0003055414000331. Grossman, G., K. Michelitch, and M. Santamaria. 2017. “Texting Complaints to Politicians: Name Personalization and Politicians.” Encouragement in Citizen Mobilization. Comparative Political Studies 50 (10): 1325–1357. doi:10.1177/0010414016666862. Sexton, R. 2022. “The Unintended Effects of Bottom-Up Accountability: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Peru.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 17 (2): 223–257. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/100.00020079. Sheely, R. 2015. “Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya.” World Development 67 (March): 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.024. Yanez-Pagans, M., and G. Machicado-Salas. 2014. “Bureaucratic Delay, Local-Level Monitoring, and Delivery of Small Infrastructure Projects: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Bolivia.” World Development 59 (C): 394–407. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.02.004. Björkman, M., and J. Svensson. 2009. “Power to the People: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment on Community-Based Monitoring in Uganda.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2): 735–769. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.735. Donato, K., and A. Garcia Mosqueira. 2016. Power to the People? A Replication Study of a Community-Based Monitoring Program in Uganda. 3ie. New Delhi. Waddington, H., J. Stevenson, A. Sonnenfeld, and M. Gaarder. 2018. “PROTOCOL: Participation, Inclusion, Transparency and Accountability (PITA) to Improve Public Services in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 14 (1): 1–69. doi:10.1002/CL2.205. Waddington, H., A. Sonnenfeld, J. Finetti, M. Gaarder, D. John, and J. Stevenson. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Public Services in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Mixed‐methods Systematic Review of Participation, Inclusion, Transparency and Accountability (PITA) Initiatives.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 15 (1–2): e1025. doi:10.1002/cl2.1025. Waddington, H., A. Sonnenfeld, J. Finetti, M. Gaarder, D. John, and J. Stevenson. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Public Services in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Mixed‐methods Systematic Review of Participation, Inclusion, Transparency and Accountability (PITA) Initiatives.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 15 (1–2): e1025. doi:10.1002/cl2.1025. Banerjee, A., R. Hanna, J. Kyle, B. A. Olken, and S. Sumarto. 2018. “Tangible Information and Citizen Empowerment: Identification Cards and Food Subsidy Programs in Indonesia.” The Journal of Political Economy 126 (2): 451–491. doi:10.1086/696226. Additional information
Funding
The work was supported by the United States Agency for International Development [7554.070.01].