Page 59

CGH13_ebook

E f f e c t i v e a n d a c c o u n t a b l e s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2013/14 58 Other factors affecting accountability in service delivery Beyond the existence of four relevant dimensions of democratic accountability, it is necessary to highlight and briefly discuss the importance of the structural constraints that are likely to undermine the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms in the long run. These constraints include broader institutional characteristics such as: a strong military tradition weighing down a new democracy; the proliferation of sector-specific policy actors, for example, trade unions, business lobbies, or external donors and creditors, that set boundaries on potential reforms and can limit the capacity of governments to respond; and sector-specific rigidities, including technical challenges for the provision of specific services such as water or drainage. The magnitude of these factors and their relevance to service delivery or provision need to be explored in greater detail in the specialist literature. The recurrent use of informal or traditional practices such as clientelism is also likely to undermine or bias the impact of democratic accountability on service provision. As is discussed above, the provision of discrete and visible goods that can be provided in the short run is likely to be a concrete form by which elected politicians effectively deliver to their constituents while maximising their political fortunes. Conversely, the provision of long term or more diffuse ‘outcomes’ such as health care reforms will present greater challenges and lead to disincentives to provide government services. Finally, it is necessary to recognise that not all the dimensions vary in the same direction, and that there are important trade-offs to be made between them when it comes to providing government services. In some cases, an exclusive focus on ‘rigid’ accountability mechanisms, such as the adoption of rules, standards and sanctions, may crowd out the adoption of ‘soft’ mechanisms that focus on answerability and responsiveness. Thus, it is necessary to recognise the complementarity of approaches and their country-specific attributes in order to predict and anticipate the impact of democratic accountability on service delivery outcomes. Conclusions and policy implications This paper argues that effective social and political accountability mechanisms can contribute to government responsiveness and improved service delivery in young democracies. The association between accountability and service provision is complex, context-specific and difficult to measure. Nonetheless, the fundamental premise holds true: government officials who are subject to demands from organised voters equipped with legal provisions, political motivation and credible sanctions are more likely to respond to citizens’ demands than those who are not. From the perspective of democracy promotion, compared with traditional models the four dimensions discussed offer a more balanced approach to identifying conditions for effective accountability. A state-centred approach to strengthening accountability may encourage the adoption of new legislation and the creation of special offices or information disclosure protocols, without sufficient attention being paid to the demand side of accountability or the political incentives of government officials. Our findings have four major implications: 1. Understanding country politics matters. Our research shows that social activism and mobilisation initiatives are likely to be diluted unless they clearly engage with defined rules, sanctions and political incentives to convert social activism into effective government action 2. Promoting selective social interventions. Our research acknowledges and documents the valuable contributions of citizens and organised civil society organisations demanding government responsiveness and better service delivery. The number of government agents, their temporal ambitions and political arenas in which they compete have a direct impact on citizens’ ability to hold governments to account 3. Facilitate positive feedback. Effective democratic accountability is a public good that can have positive implications for government officials. There is much to gain from focusing on the potential electoral benefits of delivering effective government services 4. Effective sanctions are important. One of the challenges emerging from this paper is how to align political motivation with legal or formal sanctions. The empirical evidence reported in this review demonstrates that cases of poor government performance are also likely to correspond with a lack of credible incentives for, and effective sanctions on, politicians: a. Effective work can be done to help governments set up, fund, capacitate and strengthen control and oversight institutions, such as supreme audit institutions like accounts tribunals, ombudsman offices or corresponding legislative committees b.Development co-operation actors can also promote and convene multi-stakeholder meetings to gather consensus or public commitments around transparency and accountability initiatives References Carey, J.M., Legislative Voting and Accountability (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009). De Renzio, P., Azeem, V. and Ramkumar, V., ‘Budget Monitoring as an Advocacy Tool: Uganda Debt Network’, Lessons from Civil Society Budget Analysis and Advocacy Initiatives (Washington, D.C.: International Budget Project, 2006).


CGH13_ebook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above