Voice and accountability

Overview

Poor people and other vulnerable minorities are often excluded from participating in policy design and programmes that have direct impact on their lives. Frequently, central and local government institutions are neither responsive nor accountable to the poor. Citizen and civil society participation in the decision-making processes of the state are key to good governance and pro-poor development initiatives. Traditional accountability work focussed on strengthening state mechanisms such as political checks and balances, administrative rules and procedures, auditing requirements, and formal law enforcement agencies like courts and the police. The assumption was that citizens expressed their preferences through electoral politics, and the candidates they elected made representative policies and held the state accountable.  Because these state-based accountability methods have met limited success, attention has shifted towards strengthening the ‘voice’, or capacity, of ordinary citizens (especially poor citizens) to directly participate in policy-making processes. Citizenship is linked to rights to participate in decision-making processes and to demand greater accountability and responsiveness from public officials.

Increased voice will have little impact if the state is not responsive and accountable to the needs and interests of its people. Traditionally, citizen voice and public sector responsiveness reforms have been undertaken separately. To give poor and marginalised citizens a say in the decisions that affect their lives, programmes should focus both on empowering communities to demand change and on strengthening accountability mechanisms that enable the state to respond to these demands. These interventions are equally important and mutually reinforcing.

Greater emphasis is being given to creating more inclusive spaces for dialogue between citizens and the state, for example in Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS), Poverty and Social Impact Analysis (PSIA), and decentralisation reforms. Citizen-driven accountability measures, such as participatory budgeting, public expenditure tracking, social audits, community scorecards and budget watchdogs, are being implemented to complement and reinforce conventional mechanisms of accountability such as political checks and balances, accounting and auditing systems, administrative rules and legal procedures.

Page contents

• Terms and definitions
• The changing focus of V&A work
• Tools for citizen engagement
• Measuring impact
• Additional information

Terms and definitions

Voice
‘Voice’ is the capacity of individuals, communities and civil society to influence the government’s decisions on issues that affect their lives. Initiatives aimed at strengthening voice are intended to move citizen engagement with the state beyond consultative processes to more direct forms of influence over policy and spending decisions. Amplified voice will have little impact if the state is not responsive to the needs of its citizens and upholds their rights. 

Accountability
The World Bank defines accountability as: “the obligation of power-holders to account for or take responsibility for their actions."

DFID’s white paper ‘Making Governance Work for the Poor’ extends this definition to “the ability of citizens, civil society and the private sector to scrutinise public institutions and governments to hold them to account. This includes, ultimately, the opportunity to change leaders by democratic means.”

Accountability includes empowering citizens to check the laws and decisions made by government, encouraging free media and freedom of faith and association, respecting human rights and making sure the ‘rule of law’ is upheld.

The changing focus of V&A work

Participation and accountability initiatives have traditionally been state-centred, viewing citizens as clients or consumers of services and policies. The active involvement of citizens in the shaping of the policies that impact their lives is now being emphasised. ’Participation’ has changed from citizen involvement in community-level projects to citizen engagement in policy formation and implementation to influence and hold governments accountable. Citizenship is increasingly viewed as a social and political right, simultaneously implying social and political responsibilities.

Eyben, R. and Ladbury, S., 2006, ‘Building Effective States: Taking a Citizens’ Perspective’, Development Research Institute
How can a citizen-centred approach to development build effective states by improving relations between state and society? This paper from the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability, gives an overview of current debates and analyses citizens’ own views on these issues. It argues that a state’s legitimacy is strengthened by civic participation, which often grows up around local issues, and can be empowered through donor support.
Access full text: available online

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

Cornwall, A. and Gaventa, J., 2001, ‘From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers: Repositioning Participation in Social Policy’, IDS Working Paper 127, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Access full text: available online

Rowlands, J., 2008, ‘Chapter 1: The Right to Be Heard – An Overview’, in ‘Speaking Out: How the Voices of Poor People are Shaping the Future’, Oxfam GB, Oxford
How can poor and marginalised people become powerful enough to break through the material, organisational, systemic, and psychological barriers that prevent them from being heard? This paper from Oxfam argues that the right to be heard is about the right to be an active participant in political processes. It is ultimately about the development of societies that take seriously the active citizenship of all their citizens, not just the most privileged.
Access full text: available online

GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report, April 2010, ‘Mechanisms for Increasing Voice and Accountability’, GSDRC, Birmingham
There are relatively few evaluations of the impact of donor programmes in this area. Several studies conclude there is a need for more evidence of why certain accountability mechanisms work well in certain contexts. There does not appear to be any research available which seeks to compare the results of different mechanisms, or attempts to draw any overall conclusions about which mechanisms are the most effective and why. Rather, the available evidence is mainly in the form of reviews of the outcomes of specific mechanisms, in specific cases. This report includes a selection of such reviews, and is mainly focused on those mechanisms which are more commonly analysed in the literature – access to information, community score cards (CSCs), citizen report cards (CRCs), participatory budgeting/budget monitoring, and social audits.
Access full text: available online

GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report, October 2009, ‘Voices of the Poor in Southern Africa’, GSDRC, Birmingham
It is difficult to draw regional conclusions from the resources available. There is not enough material, and the research that has been done is not co-ordinated or comprehensive enough to be able to draw out reliable cross-country findings. However, multiple resources mention that: the poor view poverty as multi-faceted and feel that there are structural causes of poverty and general institutional obstacles to overcoming poverty; and that agriculture and land-related concerns feature highly among the concerns of the poor.
Access full text: available online

Aside from being understood as a good in itself, increasing voice and accountability is viewed as having a positive impact on pro-poor outcomes, particularly in relation to poverty reduction.

Cornwall, A., 2000, ‘Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on Participation for Poverty Reduction’, Sida Study, No. 2
Since the 1970s, there have been a series of high-level declarations of support for ‘popular participation’ by international development organisations. But what is actually meant by the ‘participation of all stakeholders’ in policy formulation on poverty reduction? This paper, written for the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), explores the changing perspectives on participation for poverty reduction over the last two decades. It argues that greater attention needs to be paid not only to enabling people to make and shape their own spaces for engagement, but also to enhancing local accountability and global institutions that affect people’s lives.
Access full text: available online 

DFID, OECD, World Bank, 2006, ‘Deepening Voice and Accountability to Fight Poverty: A Dialogue of Community Implementers’, Summary Note, Paris, March 30-31 2006
Access full text: available online

Donors have also taken on board the need to include civil society actors in development policy discussion and implementation, acknowledging that civil society is broader than just formal NGOs. Although principles of aid effectiveness such as country ownership have influenced the increased focus on southern civil society actors, there is considerable debate over both the most efficient and effective support mechanisms and the ‘value-added’ of working with civil society actors.

Giffen, J. and Judge, R., 2010, 'Civil Society Policy and Practice in Donor Agencies', Report commissioned by DFID, International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), Oxford
This paper provides an overview of the civil society policy of a range of multilateral and bilateral donors. It finds that donors have moved away from their initial tendency to equate civil society with NGOs. Donors are using a number of different approaches to reach out to a broader range of Southern civil society organisations. However, there may be a tension between the aid effectiveness agenda and donors' desire to support a diverse and vibrant civil society.
Access full text: available online

GSDRC, April 2010, ‘Civil Society and Excluded Groups’, GSDRC, Birmingham
The available literature suggests that there is much variation in the extent to which civil society actually and effectively engages with and benefits marginalised groups. Organisations that are considered to have the greatest potential for benefiting excluded groups are those that: (a) adopt a solidarity approach and engage marginalised groups as equals; (b) emerge from the grassroots with leaders drawn from within marginalised groups; and/or (c) focus on a particular target group rather than a broader constituency.
Access full text: available online

GSDRC, November 2009, ‘Civil Society Funding Mechanisms’, GSDRC, Birmingham
The literature identifies three principal mechanisms by which donors provide financial support to civil society actors: a) direct support to individual or umbrella organisations; b) via Southern governments; and c) via intermediaries – largely Northern NGOs. Each mechanism comes with its own risks for donors and recipients alike. Some of the common problems associated with funding civil society actors may include: concerns over the ‘centralisation’ of funding towards larger, more professionalised NGOs; the potential for resource dependency among regular recipients; and risks of channelling funds through Southern governments (such as potential mismanagement and governmental ‘co-option’ of civil society actors).
Access full text: available online

GSDRC, October 2009, Methodologies for Measuring the Value of Civil Society, GSDRC, Birmingham
A repeated theme in the literature and in the feedback from experts is that this is an extremely complicated area and that there is currently no consensus on the best tools to use. Instead, all the methodologies have limitations and the debate as to how one can accurately value civil society organisations has only really just begun.
Access full text: available online

Further information on accountability relations between donors and recipient countries can be found in the Accountability and responsiveness of the state, donors and civil society section of this guide.

Tools for citizen engagement

Engaging citizens in decision-making processes has traditionally been one-way, for example, citizen testimony at hearings. Recently, other approaches have evolved that focus on active dialogue between citizens and the state.

UNDP Capacity Development Group, 2006, ‘Mutual Accountability Mechanisms: Accountability, Voice and Responsiveness’, UNDP, New York
Access full text: available online

Malena, C., Forster, R. and Singh, J., 2004, ‘Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and Emerging Practice’, Paper No. 76, World Bank, Social Development Department
Access full text: available online

Lukensmeyer, C.J. and Torres, L.H., 2006, ‘Public Deliberation: A Manager’s Guide to Citizen Engagement’, IBM Center for the Business of Government
Access full text: available online

Irwin, B., Belay, S. and Macqueen, D., 2005, ‘Speaking For Ourselves: Pastoralist Development Dialogue’ Power tools series, SOS-Sahel Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Access full text: available online

Chambers R., 2008, 'Participatory Methodologies: Drivers for Change' in Revolutions in Development Inquiry, Earthscan, London, pp 169-190
How can the transformative potential of participatory methodologies be realised? This concluding chapter from Revolutions in Development Inquiry argues that participatory methodologies can provide entry points for confronting and changing relationships and power. They are frontiers for enquiry and drivers for personal, institutional, professional and social transformations, but many obstacles impede their recognition, evolution and adoption. Priorities are to: foster methodological diversity; make time for critical reflection, unlearning and innovation; identify and multiply innovators and facilitators; and make small, flexible grants over longer periods.
Access full text via document delivery

Student Partnership Worldwide and DFID-CSO Youth Working Group, 2010, 'Youth Participation in Development: A Guide for Development Agencies and Policy Makers', Student Partnership Worldwide/DFID-CSO Youth Working Group, London
This guide aims to assist donor agencies and policy advisors working with and for youth. It emphasises three issues that are critical to young people: 1) governance, voice and accountability; 2) post-conflict transitions and livelihoods; and 3) sexual and reproductive health and rights. Evidence from case studies demonstrates that effective youth participation leads to better results and greater awareness of young people's needs, capacities and aspirations.
Access full text: available online

Measuring impact and change

Despite the popularity of participatory approaches to development, also known as community-driven development (CDD) or community-based development (CBD), effective ways of measuring their impact lag behind. Projects that are predicated on community participation are often not effective at targeting the poor or leave out segments of the population and there is little consensus on how levels of participation, voice, accountability and empowerment can be measured. It is suggested that assessments should go beyond merely presenting financial accounts and physical achievements of CDD, towards developing indicators that capture the effect on the poor and their capacity to articulate their ‘voice’.

This requires sufficient baselines in order to capture ‘change’ and demonstrate the effectiveness and relevance of an intervention. The consequences of increased voice and accountability also have wider impacts upon the democratic process such as influence over the policy agenda, widened scope for citizen action and strengthened state responsiveness. It is important, however, to be aware of the potential for interventions designed to promote voice and accountability to have (unintended) negative outcomes.

Impact on voice and accountability

GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report, February 2009, ‘Voice and Accountability Indexes’, GSDRC, Birmingham
The literature on tools and indicators for measuring the impact of development interventions on voice and accountability is highly fragmented. With the exception of the 2007 joint donor evaluation of voice and accountability by the Overseas Development Institute, there has been little attempt to develop distinct methodologies and combined indicators to measure the impact of these various types of donor interventions on voice and accountability.
Access full text: available online

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
How can the effectiveness of voice and accountability (V&A) interventions be assessed? This paper from the Department for International Development (DFID) 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

Rocha Menocal, A. and Sharma, B., 2008, Joint Evaluation of Citizens' Voice and Accountability: Synthesis Report, Department for International Development, London
What works and what does not work in donor support to citizens’ voice and accountability (CV&A) interventions? Why? This report synthesises the findings of a major joint donor evaluation (2006-2008). The positive impact of CV&A interventions has so far remained limited. Donor expectations as to what such work can achieve are too high, and are based on misguided assumptions around the nature of voice and accountability, and the links between the two.
Access full text: available online

Holland, J., and Thirkell, A., 2009, ‘Measuring Change and Results in Voice and Accountability Work’, DFID Working Paper 34, DFID, London
How can the often intangible results of Voice and Accountability (V&A) interventions be measured? This paper adapts DFID’s 'Capability, Accountability and Responsiveness' (CAR) governance framework for use with V&A work. It maps existing indicators onto this adapted framework, developing a menu of V&A indicators and data collection instruments. Measures need to take account of the costs as well as benefits of poor people's voices being heard, and should reveal the obstacles to poor people's engagement. V&A indicator data can effectively combine observable and measurable changes in behaviour with perception scoring of the quality of those changes.
Access full text: available online

Jupp, D. and Ibn Ali, S., with Barahona, C., 2010, ‘Measuring Empowerment? Ask Them – Quantifying Qualitative Outcomes from People’s Own Analysis’, Sida Studies in Evaluation 2010:1, Sida, Stockholm
Access full text: available online

Assessing democratic outcomes

Mansuri, G. and Rao, V., 2004, ‘Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review’, The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-39
Does community participation in development projects improve the quality and targeting of public benefits? Does participation lead to the empowerment of marginalised groups and increase the capacity for collective action? What are the effects of external agents on the quality of participation and on project success and sustainability? This review from the World Bank Development Research Group (DECRG) examines the literature on the effectiveness of participatory development and makes recommendations for future research.
Access full text: available online

Gaventa, J., and Barrett, G., 2010, ‘So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement’, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
Access full text: available online

Additional information

Voice and Accountability is one of the six dimensions which comprise the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators. Further information about these indicators and individual country performance can be found on the website.

New additions