Short framing presentation by ECDPM
0 likes431 views
The document discusses the importance of domestic accountability (DA) in improving development outcomes and governance through a systemic lens. It emphasizes the role of donor agencies in promoting DA and highlights the need for greater citizen engagement and trust-building between the state and society. Furthermore, it presents examples of utilizing budget support as a means to enhance local governance and involve non-state actors in accountability processes.
Short framing presentation by ECDPM
- 1. Session 3.4 Decentralisation and improving domestic accountability EC advanced seminar on support to decentralisation and local governance Presentation by ECDPM
- 2. 3 key messages 1) Domestic accountability (DA) is a major OPPORTUNITY to get better development outcomes, governance and state-society relations (social contract) 2) Need to see domestic accountability as a SYSTEM 3) Donor agencies can promote DA through various strategies and instruments
- 3. 1) Where is the OPPORTUNITY? Voice and accountability may sound like European concepts…. But forget the label… worldwide citizens are increasingly asking for better public services and explanations about what happens with available resources …
- 7. Voice and accountability are essential ingredients of the domestic democracy agenda
- 8. 2) Need to adopt a SYSTEMIC VIEW on decentralisation and domestic accountability
- 9. Decentralisation as an ‘open system’ Global and Regional Context Overall process of Democratisation National state and development Modernisation wider strategies and Including public governance processes sector reform reforms Decentralisation Process Political Administrative Fiscal (elected) Local Local Governments Local Democracy and Governance development Municipal strategies development Citizen participation and processes Global and Regional Context
- 10. Local Institutional and organisational Governance set-up for local governance process Improvement local finances (including citizen’s willingness to pay taxes) Responsive and accountable Existence and quality of local accountability mechanisms governments Empowerment civil society (dialogue partners and ‘watchdog’) Mechanisms for exchange of information and dialogue
- 11. Decentralisation opens new spaces where the management of local power can be examined, and questionned…. It opens new challenges. Population: Decentralisation creates new local powers, in addition to those 1 that already exist (customary powers, religion, police, tax collectors…) 2 LOCAL ELITES: Decentralisa-on creates « new » elites and power holders ADMINISTRATION: Decentralisa-on means loosing part of their power. 3 NGOs in SERVICE DELIVERY: Local governments are now the legi-mate actors, 4 compe--on for resources…. 5 ECONOMIC AGENTS, PRIVATE SECTOR: Decentralisa-on mul-plies the actors to be taken into account in procurement….
- 12. Accountability is a Complex SYSTEM Source: Adapted from: Morazán and Koch 2010: Monitoring Budget support in Developing countries, A comparative analysis of national control mechanisms over 12 budget support in developing countries“. Sűdwind, p.57
- 13. The changing chain of ‘accountability’ Local Government Accountability Mechanisms Central Government Upward Quality of policy & legal accountabilit compliance & fiscal effort y & control Horizontal managerial accountability & Local control Elected Council Own Staff Local Sector Department Staff Quality of Upward policy & political Quality of planning general accountability decisions, & control administration management & Quality of overall service delivery governance Citizens, voters, taxpayers & users of services
- 14. Decentralisation does not automatically lead to improved public service delivery or to a system of local governance based on accountability • Why? – Elected governments are “lonely”: do not know legal framework and operate on the basis of their own values (over invested in their mission, clientelism, personal enrichment…) – Demand is weak: public service “users” do not see themselves as citizens with rights; mistrust the state – General disconnect: dialogue is deficient at all levels (local government/citizens; deconcentrated sectors/ elected governments; between public service delivery sectors…)
- 15. 1 1 1 a a Local governance Deconcentration practices ((by (civil servants) b 2 traditional chiefs, CSOs) b c c Decentralisation (elected agents) 2 1
- 16. 3) How to support it?
- 17. EXAMPLE 1 Use public service delivery as an entry door to build trust between state and people at local level and construct citizenship/state building from below • How? The experience of Laboratoire Citoyenneté – Empirical (anthropology) long-term (legitimate) analysis shared with actors – why do things work as they do? – Opening permanent dialogue forums (hosted by mayor) to discuss the service production chain with different actors, sometimes leading to action plans – Radio, theater to raise awareness on “issues” – Trickling messages up to decision makers at national/ sector policy making levels
- 18. Results? • Creating permanent dialogue spaces around the question of service delivery allows different actors to confront their expectations, build trust and find common solutions. • BUT: opening participatory spaces does not automatically lead to active citizenship and responsive governments. – Support to demand and support side for constructive interaction between state and society, knowing that backlashes are always possible
- 19. EXAMPLE 2 Can budget support be a driver for domestic accountability (DA)? YES !!!!!!!! BUDGET SUPPORT (as a”package” of incentives) IS A POWERFUL TOOL TO ENHANCE DOMESTIC ACCOUNTABILITY … WHOSE POTENTIAL HAS BEEN UNDERUTILISED IN THE PAST, amongst others BECAUSE “DOMESTIC ACTORS” (political society, local governments and non-state actors) WERE NOT ENOUGH INVOLVED YET PROMISING EXPERIENCES IN ASSOCIATING NON-STATE ACTORS (NSAs) and LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN EC BUDGET SUPPORT OPERATIONS FOR BETTER DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES AND GOVERNANCE DOMESTIC ACCOUNTABILITY SHOULD BE CORE PART OF THE NEW BUDGET SUPPORT “CONTRACTS”
- 20. Ethiopia (1) • Context of crisis: donors decided to suspend Budget Support • Concerns of possible impact on the progress at decentralized level • Programme Budget Support: to ensure and expand service delivery at local level • Increased resources to regional and district levels • Aim: Improve allocation and expenditure of public resources • Identified wide range of NSAs, roles, strengths and weaknesses 20
- 21. Ethiopia (2) • Social accountability component: Community Score Cards, Citizen report cards and participatory budgeting • Financial mechanism: Separate window of PBS managed by aid agency and tripartite steering committee: donors+Govt • Key features: – Flexibility financial mechanism to difficult contexts – not prevented to involve NSAs and state-society dialogue – Open to engage non-traditional NSAs 21
- 22. Main challenges for greater effec%veness in promo%ng domes%c accountability Integrating PE-analysis into the actual design of support programmes Focusing on incremental change through realistic, cumulative and combined support strategies Promo%ng domes%c Ensuring institutional accountability change on the donor side from the outside to deliver effective support in domestic accountability Building coalitions of reform-minded actors (social mobilisation) Investing in concrete processes and mechanisms for accessing, reconciling and enforcing rights and obligations
- 23. New roles for EC (donors) Mediating and negotiating the scope and modalities of LG participation Facilitating multi- Combining policy actor dialogue and political processes at dialogue different levels Reinforce Playing a conditions for Political proactive role domestic reform and harmonising agendas and facilitation donor accountability role approaches mechanisms towards LG