Citizens’ Demand for Better Governance Lessons from Asia and the Bank’s Cambodia program John Clark, Oslo Governance Forum
Governance is at root about Accountability i.e. about obligation of Power-holders for: – Their performance – Doing what they are supposed to do – Use of resources entrusted to them – For honesty, integrity, not abusing power
Two dimensions – upwards & downwards
Accountability – supply-side •
To state servants acting for us – – – – –
To managers and ministers To audit officers, financial controllers To Parliament (for implementing policies) To judiciary To Anti-corruption & oversight bodies
Accountability – demand-side •
Most systems allow more direct accty. – Citizen complaints, ombudsmen – Collective lobbying of MPs etc – Protests; direct action – NGOs, consumers unions, PTAs etc – Independent media – Think tanks and advice bureaus
How to enhance Accountability? • Better Rules and Regulations – administrative procedures, audits …
• Stronger Market Principles – privatization or contracting out …
• Independent Agencies – ombudsman, vigilance commissions …
• “Social Accountability” – make it effective
There has been varying success with these. What has been learnt is that success often depends on direct participation of the people
What is Social Accountability? • Set of tools/activities that allow a rigorous analysis to be formed by aggregating grassroots perspectives → hard evidence • Plural of “anecdote” is “data” • Citizens engaged - individually, or in CSOs • Driven from below, bottom-up messages • It complements formal accountability, especially where that is ineffective
e.g.
Textbook Watch, Philippines
• Parents concerned that schoolbooks weren’t delivered, were late, or were poor quality • TAN did survey: 40% books shipped from center could not be accounted for at district level (not all corruption) • Carefully tracked production and delivery of 15M books/year (+Boy Scouts) – found where errors occurred • Now virtually no books go astray; time from production to school desk was cut from 24 to 12 months; most children now get their books by the start of the school year • Cost per book has been cut by 55% • Educ. Secretary became a champion (then joined NGO)
Why Social Accountability is Important Social Account’y
Better Services
Good Govern’ce Empowerment
Social Accountability Toolkit • • • • • • •
Report cards on services; opinion polls Community score-cards Budget analysis Expenditure tracking Corruption monitoring and surveys Right to information campaigns Demystifying govt. information
Some used by specialists; others with citizens; others by NGOs
FOLLOWING THE MONEY: Participatory Public Expenditure Management Cycle Budget Formulation
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Performance Monitoring
Citizen Scorecards India and Philippines
Civic Engagement
Expenditure Tracking Uganda
Budget Review & Analysis Gujarat, India
Short and long routes of accountability
Conditions needed for S.Ac • Enabling legal environment for civil society and its watchdog roles • Tradition of freedom of information; citizens access to that information • Independent media; free from persecution • Openness of public sector; willingness to hear what constructive critics have to say
But needs from civil society too • Capacity to analyze policy issues, budgets • Credible parallel sources of information • Other capacity issues – management, research skills, resources, communications skills • Objectivity; being constructive • Ability to generate confidence (media, MPs) • Support of citizens, media, donors etc • Connection with public institutions
Capacity …. Credible …. Connected …. Conscientious …. Constructive ….
Cooperative
ro ve up sti s ga tiv De e m jou on rn str ali at sts or s
cy G
In
Missing Middle Constructive civic engagement
Ad vo ca
Ch ar itie
s Pu bli cS er vic De e Co ve lop nt ra m cto en rs tN GO s
SAc completes the Civil Society Spectrum
Hostile
Bridge-building skills • Easier to criticize & try to stop something than to promote an alternative way of working; hard work, can be thankless • Govt. can see it as meddling • Other CSOs can see it as selling out • But that is inherent in building a bridge … • Engineers know bridge building is all about managing stresses and tensions
Parallel with Consumers Movement • Independent, reliable product information • Rating user views • Comparison of products • Value for money audits • Producer integrity • Impartial grievance channels • Class action suits
• Community-level research on services • Public Opinion Polls • Citizen / community report cards • Tracking expenditures • Dialogue with Govt. • Citizen ombudsman, campaigns • Taking cases to MPs
Response of the public sector • Some see SAc as meddling, when there are “checks and balances inherent in the state • But for most clients there isn’t the separation of state powers, nor the real will to be clean • They often don’t want real checks & balances • Remember: the Private Sector is strongest in countries with strongest Consumer Movements • GAC strategies need the citizen demand-side • Is problem institutional failure, or intent failure?
e.g. 1) Budget
• • • • • • •
analysis; Gujarat, India
More funds directed to priority sectors Reduced errors in State accts (was ~ 600/yr) Professionalized scrutiny by State legislature Media publicity; public awareness Better flow of information among ministries DISHA model replicated in 12 other Indian states National budget now analyzed similarly
e.g. 2) Participatory
• • • • •
budgeting, Porto Alegre
Partic. budgeting helps balance the books Tax revenues ↑ 50% (people more motivated to pay taxes) Number of children in public schools doubled 1989-96 HHs accessing water rose 80 → 98% Over 80 Brazilian cities now follow the Porto Alegre model
e.g. 3) Public
expenditure tracking; Uganda
• After survey govt. required district grants to be published monthly in newspapers and on radio • Primary schools and district authorities required to post notices on all inflows of funds • Schools and parents now have access to info needed to understand and monitor budgets • Share of funds reaching schools ↑ 20%–80% • Primary enrollment 3.6M → 6.9 M from 1996–01
e.g. 4) Citizens
report cards; Bangalore
• Public agencies now respond to citizen concerns • “Worst” agency overhauled systems for service delivery and introduced public forums to consult • Electric Board initiated dialogue with residence associations to redress grievances • Public awareness on service quality rose greatly • Report cards enhanced CSO activism and citizen monitoring in Bangalore • Tool has been replicated in Indian and many countries (from Philippines to USA)
e.g. 5) Lobbying
on Corruption; Indonesia
• FITRA analyzed local spending in range of provinces • Debated in local and national parliaments • Identified better ways to monitor corruption • Citizens action enhanced formal accountability • FITRA head - now Dep. Speaker in Upper House
Cambodia • Well known problems of Corruption and governance failure; INT case, scandals • WB prepared a “Governance CAS” • Govt is not monolithic; some we can work with • Reformers seek to promote change • RGC’s Rectangular Strategy puts reform of governance at the center • Many CSOs prepared to help win reforms • But no tradition of or forums for constructive engagement
Cambodia - environment for SAc • Vibrant democracy; many parties, but weak Parl. • Policy environment relatively enabling for CSOs, independent media, professional assocs • But govt./PM unpredictable, hate criticism, brutal • Laws ambiguous or absent; odd laws used oddly • No FOI law, and no practice of sharing info • Civil Society capacity low, polarized in capital, unreliable with data/research, not strongly connected with grassroots, new to skills of SAc • Wild cards: High growth, discovery of oil, China
INFORMATION People mostly interested in local issues that affect them Citizens' priority interests w ith regard to public inform ation
% 80 70
75.3
71.7
60 50
54.7
40
49.2
48.1 41.4
30
33.9
20 10 0 Public security
Health
Livelihood know ledge (e.g. agriculture)
Community/ village life
Government Local activities development activities
NGO activities
INFORMATION ‌ but mostly get their info from national radio and TV %
Sources of information
100 80 79.8
78.2
60 40
40.8 32.8
20
32.1 18.4 8.3
0 Radio
TV
Village chief
Commune chief
Relatives, friends, neighbors
Newspaper
NGO
VOICE Citizens have little confidence their voice can effect change – but seen NGOs as powerful influencers Who is able to protect people from paying informal fees to authorities
% 30 25
27.8 23.2
20
21.9
21 17.6
15
13
10 5
7.3
0 Nobody
Central Authorities NGO government of higher intervention levels
Pow erful persons
Collective Don't know resistance
ASSOCIATION Rely heavily on local level leaders/authorities, & NGOs If you are dissatisfied w ith public service in your commune to w hom do you turn for resolution? Neighbors
13.2
NGO
13.2
Nobody
26.4
Commune chief
50.7 55.1
Village chief 0
10
20
30
40
50
60 %
Participation & Constructive Dialogue Citizens attend commune council meetings but participation is passive and unorganized. Activities during commune council meeting % As individual
90 80 70
Participation in commune council meeting
81.4
As representative of a group / organization
60 12%
50 40 30 20 10
9.3
0 Just listening
Making comments
Raising problems
Asking questions
Demanding action
88%
Who do you think can solve land issues? Net Confidence Hun Sen
50
The King
47
NGOs
43
CPP
37
Government
18
Sam Rainsy
15
SRP
13
National Assembly
8
National Committee for Resolving Land Issues
8
Senate
6
Prince Ranariddh
0
Foreign countries
-3
FUNCINPEC
-6
Judiciary
-17
Conclusions • Very weak connection between citizens and decision-makers • Short-route of accountability - in bad repair • Scant info about issues people care about • Hierarchical society, little social capital • Weak CSO presence at local levels • Little space or confidence for negotiation • Much to learn from Soc. Acct. elsewhere
DFGG Project – $20M IDA grant + + Concepts:
PROMOTE
• Disclosure, Demystification and Dissemination of information • Collective action
MONITOR
• Participatory monitoring • Budget analysis and tracking • Formal oversight
MEDIATE DFGG
RESPOND
• Service delivery innovations • Performance rewards and incentives • Participatory action plans
• Feedback • Consultation • Dispute resolution
DFGG Project Components 1. Window One: One
2. Window Two: Two
State Institutions
Non-state Actors
($12 million)
($4.5 million).
2a Parallel CS Program:
CS Capacity Build. ($2 million)
3.Window Three: Coord. & learning ($2 million)
Window One: Support to State Institutions 1. Min. of National Assembly & Senate Relations
Promotion: dissemination of laws & entitlements 2. Min of Information – Radio National Kampuchia Promotion: outreach of govt. progs / policies Mediation: “Talk Back Radio” 2. Min. of Labor – Arbitration Council Mediation: of worker/boss conflicts (garments) Response: clear decisions based on law 2. Ministry of Interior – “One Window Service” Response: provision of quality service delivery Mediation: grievance redress mechanism
Window Two: Support to Non-State Institutions 1. Small grants (up to $15K) which
For small CSOs to try Social Accountability tools that have worked elsewhere 2. Devel. Marketplace competition (up to $150K)
Larger grants for more established actors Support for Networks & Coalitions
3. Partnership Grants CSO progs developed with state institutions
Window 2a: Program to Enhance Capacity in Social Accountability - PECSA – Training, exchange visits, study tours – Mentoring by experienced NGO in Asia – Seed funds to test new SAc approaches – Networking and resource center – Monitoring, evaluation and learning
Window 3: Coordination & learning
Building partnerships
Pillar-1 Support to State Institutions
Pillar-2 Support to Non-State Institutions
Pillar-3 Creating a ‘ripple effect’ for others
Coordination, Learning, and Ripple effect
Promoting ‘learning by doing’
Lessons on Social Accountability - 1 • We’re new at it; don’t kid ourselves we know how to do it (“maindreaming”); work + others • Boundaries betw. Supply and Demand sides are fuzzy; both need each other • GAC isn’t a technical problem needing technical solutions; calls for political will & citizen demand • Build capacities (academe, CS, media) generally – as nat. institutions, not just around WB projects; DFGG itself should be demand-driven • Great leaps forward need pretext or catalyst (scandal, polit change, discovery of oil …)
Lessons on Social Accountability - 2 • Don’t just develop 2-3 yr WB SAc projects • Entails working in new areas for WB: political analysis; rights law; capacities of CS, media, think tanks etc. Long term; New tools • Our projects – esp. participatory ones – can be foundaries where the new tools are forged • In time they can foster the new institutions needed for checks & balances, but need time • So we must work together in WB X-discipline (COSU, PREM, SocD etc) to innovate, iterate & learn – hence idea of the Bangkok hub.