Attend Spring Meetings on development topics from Apr 18-23. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Who ends up being more accountable - governments or citizens?

Stuti Khemani's picture

In our (justifiable) enthusiasm for transparency, we rarely ask whether information provision leads private citizens to help themselves, thereby relieving governments of their responsibilities. If so, we may not be quite there (yet) in finding tools that improve government accountability.

Take the case of community radio, a classic tool for information sharing for accountability in Africa. It is supposed to organize communities and (literally) give voice to the opinions and needs of the marginalized. It also carries public interest messages, communicating the importance of health, education, and democratic values. New data from Benin, a country with a vibrant community radio network, show that people in poorer and far-flung regions are able to access news and information, and share views, because of this medium.

But these data yield some surprising results.

In villages with greater access to community radio, where people are more informed about the value of services, they are more likely to invest their own, private resources in health and education. More informed households are more likely to purchase bed nets from government officials, paying for this public health good to combat malaria, even though nets are supposed to be distributed free. More informed parents contribute tuition for their children’s education and buy textbooks, even though policy changes have formally eliminated tuition payments in primary schools.

That is, community radio has an important impact—it informs citizens about the value of health and education, and effects beneficial changes in their behavior, making them more accountable to themselves for taking appropriate actions towards development. Because of this, a final development outcome—child literacy rates—is higher in villages with greater access to community radio.

However, community radio does not enable citizens to receive greater benefits from public spending—more informed citizens do not receive more inputs for the village public school, nor do they receive more bed nets from the country’s malaria eradication program. In the case of household payments for bed nets, the data are not sufficient to examine whether local officials retain the payments as rents, or finance other improvements in local health services.  Other research has interpreted the evidence that local officials do not follow centrally-set rules as a sign of “local capture”.  Such an interpretation is possible here, as well, since international donors, who are significant sources of bed nets provided by African governments, prefer free distribution to the poor. These results are surprising, however, since they point to greater divergence from centrally-set rules precisely in locales where citizens are better informed.
An earlier example of citizens fending for themselves in procuring health and education, and letting governments off the hook, seems topical now. In Nigeria, when the local government failed to pay the salaries of  community-based health workers, health service provision did not decline. Instead, through the private effort of health workers and with the support of the community, health services were provided outside of the public health facility.

How can information initiatives be tailored to improve government accountability? Even rigorous impact evaluations don’t provide sufficient answers to this question, because they neither focus on the “mechanisms” of impact (“why did the outcome happen?”), nor on the design of the intervention. In addition to impact evaluations, we need more basic research underpinning the design of interventions—what accountability problem is being addressed, and how will it be overcome?

Without this, we won’t have evidence-based tools to improve government accountability and address citizen disaffection. And we won't know how to manage policy reforms in a climate of popular protests.


Submitted by Suvojit on
There is often a demonstrated preference for private provisioning of 'public services' - say my awareness about the important of education and health leads me to private schools and hospitals without waiting for the government to provide them to me for free. The same probably holds for public transport, water supply, electricity etc. Dont the study results prove the above?

In the Benin study, services were still being provided through the public sector. Greater information, through greater exposure to mass media, simply persuaded households to spend more of their private resources to avail of these public services. Similarly, in the Nigeria study, communities were supporting the public health system. So these results should not be interpreted as bypassing of state-provided services. However, your intuition does seem to apply to other settings, such as in India. Indeed, in another study in India (link below), we found that greater information about the quality of education led to communities bypassing the village public school and improving learning among children through private, volunteer-led remedial classes.

Submitted by Rachel Kasumba on
Interesting findings. Indeed increased access to information has led to increased participation of the communities - those who are able preferring to fend for themselves and social unrest (strikes, crime rate, etc) for the unable. Either way, the rise in awareness of what is there can no longer be ignored by governments that want a better future for their citizens and development partners too need to step up when it comes to ensuring that their donations and projects do actually reach the intended beneficiaries.

Add new comment