Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As A Politics - The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives
As A Politics - The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Development Policy Review, 2013, 31 (S1): s3-s28
1 Introduction
Transparency and accountability initiatives (TAIs) have taken democratisation, governance,
aid and development circles by storm since the turn of the century. Many actors involved
with them – as donors, funders, programme managers, implementers and researchers – are
now keen to know more about what these initiatives are achieving. Different pressures and
interests lie behind different actors’ curiosity, but the consensus is clear: it is high time that
we understood better the impacts and effectiveness of TAIs.
This article arises from a review of the impact and effectiveness of TAIs, conceived
1
and conducted in response to this challenge. Based on an extensive gathering and detailed
analysis of the available literature and documentation, the review drew conclusions and
formulated recommendations for improving the state of the evidence and enhancing impact
and effectiveness.
The article is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a background to social
accountability. Section 3 discusses the range of aims, claims and assumptions underpinning
TAIs. Section 4 summarises what we know about their effectiveness and impact, and
Section 5 discusses how we know what we know – the methodological approaches behind
assessments of their impact. Section 6 pinpoints factors that seem to determine impact, and
∗Fellows in the Participation, Power and Social Change team at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS),
University of Sussex. John Gaventa ([email protected]) is currently on leave from IDS, and is Director of the
Coady International Institute and Vice President, International Development, St. Francis Xavier University,
Canada. They are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for thought-provoking questions and reminders of
relevant literature.
1. The review was commissioned by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). It aimed to
inform the governance programmes of DFID and other members of the Transparency and Accountability
Initiative, a donor collaboration that includes the Ford Foundation, the Humanist Institute for Cooperation
(HIVOS), the International Budget Partnership, the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations, the
Revenue Watch Institute and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Its outputs consist of a synthesis
report and five sector-specific background papers, all of which are available at http://www.transparency-
initiative.org/workstream/impact-learning.
© The Author 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Inc., Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK.
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s4 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
Section 7 concludes with a summary of gaps in current knowledge and practice, and
recommendations as to how these can be addressed.
Transparency and accountability (T and A) have emerged over the past decade as key ways
to address both developmental failures and democratic deficits. In the development and aid
context, the argument is that, through greater accountability, the leaky pipes of corruption
and inefficiency will be repaired, aid and public spending will be channelled more
effectively and development initiatives will produce greater and more visible results. For
scholars and practitioners of democracy, following the twentieth-century wave of
democratisation it is time for democracy to ‘deliver the goods’, especially in terms of
material outcomes. For many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and social
movements, demanding and securing accountability is a path to people’s empowerment, or
at least to enhanced effectiveness in responding to the needs and voices of those they claim
to serve.
Development, democracy and empowerment are obstructed, the argument goes, by a
series of accountability failures. The traditional ways of delivering accountability are often
referred to as state-side, supply-side or institutional. Political accountability mechanisms –
such as elections – and bureaucratic accountability mechanisms – such as intra-government
controls – are increasingly found to be limited in scope. Administrative bottlenecks, weak
incentives or corruption in state-centred political and bureaucratic accountability
mechanisms restrict their effectiveness, particularly from the perspective of the poor and
marginalised people who need accountability most, but who lack the means to work around
such obstacles (World Bank, 2004).
In response to the diverse inadequacies of both political and bureaucratic forms of
accountability, an array of mechanisms and approaches has emerged in which citizens can
hold states to account in ways other than elections and bureaucratic procedures (Peruzzotti
and Smulovitz, 2006; Joshi, 2008). Supplanting or supplementing traditional forms, these
‘demand-side’ initiatives are led by citizens and social actors who engage with more
powerful actors located either within the state or in private-sector entities contracted by the
state, across a range of interfaces, which are social rather than political, institutional or
bureaucratic. These interfaces go beyond the formal democratic institutions of elections,
recall of representatives or internal government audits, although they sometimes serve to
trigger these political and institutional mechanisms (Claasen and Alpín-Lardiés, 2010;
Houtzager et al., 2008; McNeil and Malena, 2010).
Variously termed ‘social’, ‘citizen-led’ or ‘demand-side’ accountability, this emerging
field combines initiatives designed to improve transparency and access to information with
other ways of holding to account the state and its agents (often, for example, private-sector
service providers). We refer to them collectively as TAIs. They have fast moved into the
mainstream of development and aid, to the point where ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’
are at risk of becoming buzzwords (Cornwall, 2007), full of euphemism and normative
resonance but emptied of their original meaning. The TAI field has evolved as multiple
sub-fields with overlapping principles, origins and methods or approaches.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s5
Service delivery is perhaps the field in which TAIs have been longest applied. The
introduction of accountability took root as a central theme in service delivery when the
2004 World Development Report (WDR) identified service-delivery failures as
accountability failures. Showing how the ‘long route’ to accountability – via elected
politicians and public officials through to providers – was failing the poor, the WDR
advocated strengthening the ‘short route’ – direct accountability relationships between
users and service providers. A spate of subsequent work examined ways to do this by
amplifying voice and increasing transparency. This has spawned many innovations, ranging
from more institutionalised forms of co-governance to particular TAIs such as Public
Expenditure Tracking Surveys, citizen report cards, score cards, community monitoring and
social audits.
By the late 1990s, moves to improve public finance management the world over led to
the development of budget accountability and transparency as a sector in its own right. It
spread rapidly, and several driving factors have made budget work the best-developed field
of citizen-led T and A: the 1990s’ democratisation and good-governance agenda, the
political momentum gathering around ‘participatory budgeting’ which originated in Porto
Alegre in the mid-1980s, a spreading recognition of the centrality of state budgets in
reflecting government policy preferences, and donors’ growing interest in budget
transparency as general and sectoral budget support have grown within their aid portfolios.
An array of citizen-led budget TAIs has developed, relating to various stages of the
budget process, from the revenue phase, to planning and execution, to audit and ex-post
oversight. Central among these approaches are participatory budgeting (Goldfrank, 2006);
sector-specific budget monitoring (for example, gender budgeting, children’s budgets);
public-expenditure monitoring through social audits, participatory audits and tracking
surveys; and advocacy for budget transparency (for example, the International Budget
Partnership (IBP)’s Open Budget Index). Many of these initiatives focus ‘downstream’ on
how public funds are spent; less work focuses on T and A in revenue-generation, although
this is growing with recent work on tax justice, the ‘Robin Hood Tax’ initiative and
exposure of tax havens. Large donor-supported global networks such as the IBP and
Revenue Watch Institute have been constituted, to build capacity, test and advocate for new
approaches, and share learning between the many budget groups emerging around the
world.
The way TAIs in the service-delivery and budget fields increase accountability is
often by increasing access to information. Elements of social accountability in service
delivery therefore overlapped from the start with developments in the Freedom of
2
Information (FOI) sector. While FOI advocacy has a long history, support for FOI
legislation has accelerated in the past twenty years, with the number of countries with
legislation in place exploding from 12 in 1990 to around 80 today (Calland and Bentley,
this volume). The FOI field is thus well-developed, and a broad range of arguments are
advanced in favour of it. At one level, it is a basic ‘lever’ (Calland and Bentley, this
volume) at citizens’ disposal for holding states to account and pursuing other rights, and
can be crucial for delivering deeper and more participatory forms of governance. At another
2. We note that Freedom of Information is no longer the favoured terminology of many actors working in this
sphere, who now tend to refer to it as (the right of) Access to Information. Nonetheless we use Freedom of
Information in keeping with the language of the review on which this article draws.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s6 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
level, attainment of FOI can be understood as an end in itself, which alters the balance of
power between the right-bearer and the duty-bearer.
One application of FOI legislation is to the governance of natural resources such as
land, water, forests, fish stocks and minerals. Most approaches involving citizens in
governing natural-resource use are micro-level and take forms such as fishery and forestry
committees, monitoring and advocacy on mining or land use. Rising concern over the
‘resource curse’ as a development and governance problem has generated new mechanisms
for establishing transparency and accountability in extractive industries, often at national
and international levels. These include the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI), which seeks to secure verification and publication of company payments and
government revenues from oil, gas and mining. Other groups such as the Revenue Watch
Institute also campaign for disclosure (for example, through the Publish What You Pay
campaign), monitor the implementation of the EITI and seek to extend these approaches
into new areas such as forestry.
Concerns about the management of public finances, already referred to in relation to
budget TAIs, apply as much to the management of international aid as they do to public
funds generated through tax revenue. Hence a strand of aid accountability and transparency
has also evolved, sharing many of the same principles, approaches and methods as TAIs in
the service-delivery, FOI and budget sectors. This aid accountability and transparency
strand has converged – in name, if not always in emphasis – with the accountability
discourses and practices arising throughout the 1990s and 2000s in official, NGO and
humanitarian aid agencies in response to concerns about the fundamental inequality of aid
relations.
The past five years have seen the rise of a wave of TAIs across this full range of
sectors that deploy information and communication technologies such as the Internet,
mobile telephony, Global Positioning Systems and social media. The very latest
development has been mounting concern in the climate-change sector about huge volumes
of international climate funding pouring into mitigation and adaptation funds without a
sufficient purpose-built architecture in place to govern their use. This is leading climate-
change actors to borrow models and ideas from the international aid sector, the governance
of which is known to be far from perfectly accountable and transparent (Eyben, 2006;
Hayes and Pereira, 2008). Consequently, attempts are under way to develop suitable
3
climate-change TAIs (E3G Research Team, 2010).
A decade on from their inception, and notwithstanding a growth in litigation-based
social accountability that invokes popular mobilisation and democratic rights, there is much
to suggest that TAIs in aid and development are increasingly being used within an
efficiency paradigm, with scant attention to underlying issues of power and politics. Many
TAIs focus on the delivery of development outcomes, neglecting or articulating only
superficially the potential for deepening democracy or empowering citizens, over-
emphasising tools to the detriment of analysis of context, of forms of mobilisation and
action, and of the dynamics behind potential impact. Many TAIs focus on achieving
3. Given the scope of the review on which this article is based, our charting of these developments reflects
principally what was going on in the global South, stimulated, mirrored and supported by Northern donor
countries’ aid programmes, but many of the approaches mentioned were also introduced and continue to
operate in the global North.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s7
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s8 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
An initial scan of the T and A literature to date revealed little meta-literature on issues of
impact and effectiveness of TAIs. The literature which did address impact and effectiveness
– sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, and to varying extents – was widely scattered.
This being the state of the evidence, we framed our study to start by describing and
systematising the available evidence (amounts and kinds of evidence documented, methods
4. It is difficult to back this assertion with figures at a general level. In particular, many donor agencies’
classifications of their aid programmes do not distinguish accountability and transparency programme
spending as a category distinct from their governance (or other sector) spending.
5. The research was carried out between May and August 2010, led by a team at IDS with participation of
researchers in the US, South Africa, Brazil and India. For each of the five sectors covered in depth (service
delivery, budget processes, FOI, natural-resource governance and aid), specialist researchers scanned published
and unpublished literature on T and A programmes and initiatives in the sector, and in some cases interviewed
key informants. The review was conducted under constraints of time and resources. We cannot claim to have
been exhaustive in our identification of sources, nor to capture in this article all the considerable advances
made in thinking and writing on this subject since the review was completed in late 2010. We will have missed
some studies; some of those reviewed would stand up to deeper analysis; and our coverage of the issues
reflects the unevenness of the material as well as time constraints. Most initiatives we looked at are located in
the global South, with a few exceptions. Our work did not attempt to evaluate any TAIs; rather, it sought to
draw broad lessons about effectiveness and impact. Nor did we attempt to review intra-governmental or
internal organisational accountability approaches, and only mention these insofar as they interlink with, or are
complemented by, citizen-led initiatives.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s9
Working within this broad definition, other commentators have emphasised different
aspects. Houtzager and Joshi are particularly interested in the collective nature of social
accountability, considering this almost a defining feature, when they describe it as ‘an on-
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s10 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
going and collective effort to hold public officials and service providers to account for the
provision of public goods which are existing state obligations, such as primary healthcare,
education, sanitation and security’ (2008: 3).6 Still more recently, Claasen and Alpín-
Lardiés fuse other analysts’ various emphases on the social and the citizen, stating that
social accountability ‘is about how citizens demand and enforce accountability from those
in power’ (2010: 3). While social accountability has emerged as a core concept in the
accountability field, only recently are studies emerging that assess its effectiveness or
impact. Yet the assumptions and claims made for the T and A agenda point beyond the
proximate question of whether they are effectively implemented, or even the intermediate
question of the approaches’ relationships to one another. The aims and claims of TAIs
extend to impacts involving enhanced well-being, democratic governance, citizen
empowerment and aid efficiency. It is useful at this point to distinguish between the
different aims, claims and assumptions embodied in them: in order to discuss the impact of
TAIs – what they have achieved – we need to be clear about their aims, that is, what they
sought to achieve.
At the simplest level, some TAIs attempt to improve standards of accountability and
transparency as ends in themselves, and others do so as a means to attain second-order
objectives. At a more sophisticated level, there are three arguments commonly put forward
for social accountability as a means to certain ends, neatly summarised in one of the few
reviews of literature on the subject (Malena et al., 2004):
6. With hindsight, many social accountability initiatives and instruments have evolved, which in fact operate at
individual, not collective, levels; but these authors’ contention that the interests of the poorest are most
successfully upheld by collective action may well hold.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s11
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s12 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
(or sometimes even the proximate) objective is not always spelt out in the initiatives
themselves or assessments of them. In some sectors, such as aid transparency and natural-
resource governance, T and A work is too recent to have achieved or demonstrated any
long-term impacts, but where short-term outputs or intermediate outcomes are detectable,
they are not always framed as intermediate steps within a further-reaching logic.
To sum up, the literature available generally does reflect the three kinds of expected
impact – developmental, democratic and empowerment-related – outlined above. But it also
reveals how many initiatives are not underpinned by a clear articulation of exactly what
outcome or impact is sought, or of how the actions and inputs contemplated are expected to
generate that outcome or impact. That is, the assumptions underlying the causal chain, from
inputs to outcomes and impact, are absent, vague or only implicit. Some whole sectors of T
and A work appear to lack coherent and cohesive theories of change, notably service
delivery and aid accountability (Joshi, this volume; McGee, this volume), while in other
sectors, particular TAIs appear to lack them. Thus, while the broad claims made for TAIs
may hold intuitive and logical appeal, few initiatives provide concrete evidence of
advancing them.
What can we say about TAIs’ impact? Existing evidence shows that, under some
conditions, some TAIs create opportunities for citizens and states to interact constructively,
contributing to five kinds of outcome: better budget utilisation; improved service delivery;
greater state responsiveness to citizens’ needs; the creation of spaces for citizen
engagement; and the empowerment of local voices.
In Table 1 we present findings sorted by these five types. We opt to use these rather
than the categories ‘developmental’, ‘democratic’ and ‘empowerment’. This is partly
because the five are more specific. It is also because the categories of ‘developmental’,
‘democratic’ and ‘empowerment’ are not mutually exclusive: some of these five outcomes
that at first glance clearly have material developmental dimensions can have significant
democratising implications too (for example, better budget utilisation). Others, which seem
to be pre-eminently democratic in nature, can have significant developmental and also
empowerment implications (for example, greater state responsiveness).
Citizen report cards can have considerable impact on local service India (Ravindra, 2004)
delivery in some settings.
Community monitoring of services, when combined with other Uganda, India (Björkman and
factors, can contribute to more responsive delivery of services, Svensson, 2009; Duflo et al., 2008)
such as increased teacher attendance in schools.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s13
Social audits can contribute to exposure of corruption and India (Singh and Vutukuru, 2010)
enhanced effectiveness in programme implementation.
Participatory budgeting initiatives can – but do not necessarily – Multiple, but largely Brazil or
contribute to multiple outcomes, including improved public Latin America (Goldfrank, 2006)
services.
Budget monitoring initiatives can contribute to enhanced resources Multi-country case studies
and efficiency in expenditure utilisation. (Robinson, 2006)
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys, when combined with public Uganda, Tanzania (Reinikka and
information campaigns, can contribute to reduced leakages and Svensson, 2005; Sundet, 2008)
thereby to improved delivery of services, though other studies point
to additional causal factors. While the main source is a study in
Uganda, other studies, such as in Tanzania, show less impact.
Community-based FOI strategies, which go beyond simple South Africa (ODAC, 2010)
information and disclosure, can be instrumental in leveraging other
rights, such as those related to housing and water.
The International Aid Transparency Initiative and related Multi-country (Martin, 2010)
initiatives such as public databases, ‘infomediary’ ventures and
civil-society campaigning can contribute to stronger aid tracking
and thereby potentially to better aid delivery and improvements in
aid-funded services. It is too early in the history of these relatively
new initiatives to conclude whether they enhance aid effectiveness
more broadly.
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys, when made public and Uganda (Reinikka and Svensson,
linked to public information campaigns, can contribute to reducing 2005)
leakages in delivery of service-sector budgets locally.
Complaint mechanisms about service provision can contribute to India (Caseley, 2003)
reduction of corruption, by linking citizens directly to managers
who can then hold managers to account.
Social audits can contribute to exposure of corruption and greater India (Singh and Vutukuru, 2010)
effectiveness in programme implementation.
Participatory budgeting initiatives can – but do not necessarily – Multiple, but largely Brazil or
contribute to multiple outcomes, including redirection of resources Latin America (Goldfrank, 2006)
to poor communities.
Budget monitoring initiatives can contribute to improved budget Multi-country case studies
transparency and awareness, as well as enhanced resources and (Robinson, 2006)
efficiency in expenditure utilisation.
Budget advocacy initiatives can contribute to better management of Pakistan, South Africa (IBP 2010a,
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s14 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys when combined with public Uganda, Tanzania (Reinikka and
information campaigns, can contribute to reduced leakages, though Svensson, 2005; Sundet, 2008)
other studies also point to other factors. While the main source is a
study in Uganda, other studies, such as in Tanzania, show less
impact.
The Right to Information legislation in India has been found India (RAAG/NCPRI, 2009)
through ‘Peoples’ Assessments’ to contribute to perceptions of
satisfaction in a range of areas, including decline in corruption and
curtailing wasteful public expenditure, exposing misuse of power
and influence, and redressing grievances.
Aid transparency initiatives are credited with contributing to a Multi-country (Christensen et al.,
decrease in corruption in aid-recipient countries, though this is 2010)
based on a number of assumptions and estimates not yet tested.
Community score cards monitoring service delivery can contribute India (Misra, 2007)
to better user satisfaction.
Freedom of Information can contribute to improved government UK (Hazell and Worthy, 2009)
decision-making, public understanding, and increased trust between
government and public.
Freedom of Information requests can contribute to responsiveness 14-country study (OSJI, 2006)
of public officials, though not always, and highly dependent on
status of person submitting request and civil-society pressure.
The World Bank Inspection Panel, designed to make World Bank Multi-country (Clark et al., 2003)
lending more transparent and accountable, led to a variety of
impacts including policy reforms and withdrawals of Bank funding
for certain projects. The Panel also contributed to some negative or
more perverse effects, such as backlash against claimants and risk
aversion in Bank lending. This case is about institutional
responsiveness, with an inter-governmental institution as the
accountability-bearer, rather than state responsiveness at national
level.
Information provision about education-related entitlements has India (Banerjee et al., 2010, Pandey
been found by one study to have little impact by itself on the level et al., 2009)
of engagement with school systems by citizens claiming
accountability. In another study, when tied to a community-based
information campaign, positive impacts were found.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s15
Participatory budgeting initiatives can – but do not necessarily – Multiple, but largely Brazil or
contribute to multiple outcomes, including new civic associations Latin America (Goldfrank, 2006)
and strengthened democratic processes.
Freedom of Information can contribute to improved public UK (Hazell and Worthy, 2009)
understanding, enhanced public participation, and increased trust.
The Right to Information campaign in India led to new legislation India (Jenkins, 2007)
and widely mobilised constituencies to use information for
developmental purposes.
Community-based FOI strategies, which go beyond simple South Africa (ODAC, 2010)
information and disclosure, can be instrumental in leveraging other
rights, such as those related to housing and water.
The Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)’s self- African EITI countries (Eads and
evaluation credits it with building a platform for public Kråkenes, 2010)
engagement.
The World Bank Inspection Panel, designed to make World Bank Multi-country (Clark et al., 2003)
lending more transparent and accountable, led to policy reforms
favourable to more public involvement and changes in staff’s
perceptions of WB compliance and responsiveness, but also to
some backlash against claimants, which could close down spaces
for citizen engagement.
Downward aid accountability mechanisms by NGOs can lead to an Multiple countries linked to
internalisation of principles of the NGO, sharing of power with ActionAid and Concern (David et
partner organisations (the ‘citizens’ or accountability claimants in al., 2006; Jacobs and Wilford,
this case). 2010)
Budget monitoring initiatives can contribute to improved budget Multi-country case studies
transparency and awareness. (Robinson, 2006)
The Right to Information campaign in India led to new legislation India (Jenkins, 2007)
and widely mobilised constituencies to use information for
developmental purposes.
The Right to Information legislation in India has been found India (RAAG/NCPRI, 2009)
through ‘People’s Assessments’ to contribute to perceptions of
satisfaction in a range of areas, including decline in corruption and
curtailing wasteful public expenditure, exposing misuse of power
and influence, and redressing grievances.
The EITI can contribute to the public’s capacity to analyse fiscal Multi-country (Rainbow Insight,
policy in countries which previously lacked transparency. 2009)
Downward aid accountability mechanisms by NGOs can lead to the Multiple countries linked to
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s16 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
The EITI risks the negative effect of empowering elite groups, Nigeria (Shaxson, 2009)
technocrats and policy-makers with new information, rather than
empowering broader public stakeholders, who are more likely to
use it to shift power balances rather than entrench them.
As Table 1 demonstrates, a number of studies do begin to suggest that TAIs can make
important differences to the various kinds of outcome of interest, at least in certain settings.
However, we must also caution against hastily drawn general conclusions from the existing
evidence base, for a number of reasons.
The available evidence of impact is uneven and sparse, considering the amount of
attention and donor funding focused on this field. Studies seem to be slightly more robust in
sectors which have a longer history, especially service delivery and budget transparency,
but even here there is much to be done. In newer areas, such as the emergent sector of aid
transparency, where some key initiatives are currently unfolding, there is even less of a
knowledge base from which to draw general conclusions about impact and effectiveness.
The FOI sector is rather anomalous – while work in this area has been going on for some
time, there are surprisingly few studies which illustrate its impacts; this might reflect the
preponderance of initiatives in this sector that pursue FOI as a right in itself, of self-evident
worth, rather than as an outcome that needs to be demonstrated. In some cases, the
initiatives reviewed are very new, and accompanying impact studies are still under way or
just beginning, making it too early to detect or explain resulting impacts. Many of the
studies focus on only one initiative in one locality, precluding general conclusions, or
permitting tentative conclusions based only on limited anecdotal evidence. As seen in the
table, the studies of impact that we were able to locate are not at all evenly spread across
the globe but are concentrated in certain countries or regions, such as India (service
delivery) or Latin America (budget processes).
Most work to date tends to focus on the effectiveness of the initiatives themselves.
Less has been able to show the links from the initiatives to broader development,
governance and empowerment goals. At the intermediate level, some studies – but
remarkably few – shed light on assumed connections between transparency, accountability
and citizen engagement, assumptions that, explicitly or otherwise, are at the heart of all of
this work. Many initiatives do not show a clearly articulated theory of change, making it
more difficult to trace whether these assumptions actually hold true. Where we find positive
evidence in one setting, this is often not corroborated – and sometimes even contradicted –
by findings in another setting where different, or even similar, methods have been used.
The evidence base is not large enough to begin to assess overall trends – there are simply
not enough good impact studies.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s17
The evidence above has been gathered using a range of approaches and methods, often in
multiple or layered combinations. They are shown in Table 2, along with a specific salient
example of each method’s application.
Note a: The various methods, methodological designs within which they are deployed, and their strengths and
weaknesses for the assessment of TAIs, are discussed in greater depth in McGee and Gaventa, 2010.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s18 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
Confusion around the terminology used to describe T and A research and evaluation
methodologies makes it difficult to identify mutually exclusive categories to compare
different designs and approaches. A few studies reviewed in the aid-transparency, budget
and FOI fields, for example, deliberately mix qualitative and quantitative methods in their
design. These sometimes go under the broad label of ‘surveys’, but are in fact more
complex methodological designs, harbouring widely varying methods of data collection.
The most diverse we encountered, located in the FOI field and used to assess the progress
and impact of India’s Right to Information legislation, combines activities as diverse as
survey questionnaires, focus-group discussions and FOI claims filed in action-research
mode – all on a scale of tens of thousands of participant–respondents (Calland and Bentley,
this volume). On a smaller scale, but valuable for its deliberately mixed methodological
design as well as its comparative perspective, is Robinson’s (2006) study on civil-society
budget advocacy (see Carlitz, 2010). There is also the well-contextualised mixed-design
African Development Bank (2009) comparative study on debt relief and social-service
outputs (see McGee, 2010).
Tensions and debates characterise methodological strategies and choices in the field of
TAIs. Many of them arise in other fields of development or social-change initiatives too,
but in relation to T and A work they have hardly been articulated, let alone systematically
explored. The principal methodological challenges and issues are:
• the amount and quality of evidence currently available and, relatedly, the limited
availability of comparators or counterfactuals;
• untested assumptions and poorly articulated theories of change;
• tensions between observing correlation and demonstrating causality, attributing
impact and establishing contribution made by one among several actors in
complex and not entirely controllable contexts;
• the challenges of developing suitable indicators and baselines, especially given
that what we want to measure (for example, people’s perceptions of what
constitutes improvements in governance) may differ from what realistically can be
measured; and
• issues of ethics and positionality: the question of whose knowledge counts in
impact assessment, and the situated nature of knowledge.
The range of methods in Table 2 may seem fairly wide, but a study commissioned by
DFID’s Research and Evaluation Division (Stern et al., 2012: ii) claims that, even if a wide
range crops up in a wide-reaching review, a ‘narrow range of mainly experimental and
statistical methods and designs’ dominates the field of impact evaluation of ‘“complex”
programmes’ (which includes transparency and accountability programmes and initiatives).
The study also points to some of the same problems that our report highlighted, in terms of
the scant use of mixed methodological designs, reasoned choices of methods or elaboration
of theories of change firmly rooted in programme attributes. Where the list of methods
above diverges from experience in other fields (including some other areas of governance
work) is that innovative approaches such as Outcome Mapping (Earl et al., 2001), Most
Significant Change (Davies and Dart, 2005), narrative techniques (Eyben, 2008) and
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s19
participatory approaches (Jupp et al., 2010), despite having much to offer here, are only just
starting to find their way into the T and A field.
None of the qualifications and caveats we have raised about the state of the evidence
base, we hasten to add, constitute arguments against T and A. But they do constitute
arguments that a more robust evidence base is needed to make the case convincingly, and
they do raise questions about whether existing initiatives are as effective as they might be.
To deepen the quality of the evidence base, we must grapple with the methodological
challenges of assessing such initiatives. To increase the impact of TAIs, we need to
understand further the complex factors which contribute to their success and navigate those
better in the design and implementation of the initiatives.
Despite the unevenness and limits of the evidence base, some common factors apparently
shape the impact of TAIs. Grasping these involves understanding accountability work not
only as formal mechanisms and tools – widgets, in the words of Joshi and Houtzager (2012)
– but also as relationships between state and society, infused with power dynamics and
patterned by attitudes and behaviour.
Context is crucial. It determines which T and A objectives are feasible or desirable in
the first place, and which initiatives are appropriate in pursuit of them. How transparency,
accountability and citizen engagement interrelate in a given case is contextually shaped: for
instance, greater accountability may not be achieved by transparent information alone but
may require media competition, citizen capacity to process the information and the
resources to act on it (Kolstad and Wiig, 2009; Fung et al., 2007). Impact depends not only
on internal effectiveness, but also on the initiative’s interaction with the context in which it
unfolds. The impact of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, with the city’s long history
of citizen engagement and (at the time of the innovation) a political leadership highly
committed to its success, sets it apart from other contexts which lack these contextual
conditions.
Thus, enquiring into the impact of TAIs in a de-contextualised way is not very useful.
We need to ask the more nuanced question of which factors, both enabling and disabling,
shape the possibility of TAIs achieving their stated goals in a particular context. This
connects impact to both the broad context in which the initiative unfolds, and its underlying
theory of change.
7
Major existing studies of impact of voice and accountability work, as well as pointing
to various contextual factors, also highlight characteristics of the state and of ‘civil society’
or the citizenry, and specific dimensions of accountability relationships. Space constraints
preclude detailed consideration of these studies’ findings here: suffice it to say that overall
our findings echo the factors highlighted by these previous studies. On the state or ‘supply’
side, three important explanatory variables emerge:
7. O’Neil et al.’s (2007) review of bilateral donor agencies’ voice and accountability programmes; Malena et al.’s
(2004) overview of World Bank-supported accountability programmes; Agarwal et al.’s (2009) review of
World Bank social-accountability initiatives; Goetz and Jenkins (2005); Mulgan (2003).
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s20 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
An important area of consensus in most recent work, reinforced by our own, is that
while citizens’ and states’ characteristics are each clearly relevant, to understand the factors
causing impact, one needs to look at both sides of the governance equation (Gaventa,
2004). Features of their interaction may be more relevant still, as might the nature of the
boundaries between them, which are increasingly understood to be blurred rather than
clearly demarcated (Development Research Centre, 2011; DFID, 2010).
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s21
This points to the diversity and interdependence of state and society accountability
actors, and urges us to bring into the TAI arena new thinking on governance to inform
further research on what makes TAIs work. The ‘networked-governance’ approach (Witte
et al., 2005; Hajer and Versteeg, 2005) takes governance to be a set of cross-cutting state
and non-state networks and coalitions. It could shed much light on understandings of
accountability, not least the notion that, in a world of globalised governance, accountability
cannot be understood or secured by addressing any one level of governance, but needs to be
grasped as the ‘vertical integration’ or interaction of accountability actors or coalitions at
multiple levels, including the private sector as significant but non-state actors. As early as
2001 this point was made convincingly – and the term ‘vertical integration’ coined – by
Fox in relation to decentralised governance and policy processes (Fox, 2001).
Most promising are the recent tendencies towards ‘bringing the political back in’ to
governance work (see, for example, DFID, 2010). While one approach to TAIs sees them in
instrumental or technical terms, with assumptions that certain inputs (initiatives) will lead
to other outputs and outcomes, in fact, their success often depends on how these are
mediated through power relations, and the interactions involved are often highly political.
Yet we have very little evidence, for instance, on the interaction of civil-society-led, or
even state-initiated, TAIs with parties, electoral politics or other powerful actors, or on how
the dynamics of TAIs are affected by broader political economies and regimes.
In sum, we can obtain some clues from existing studies on factors that make a
difference to the impacts of TAIs, but more research is needed on how they engender
change, drawing especially on more recent thinking on governance and state-society
relations that goes beyond traditional ‘state–civil society’, ‘supply–demand’ and ‘voice–
responsiveness’ dichotomies. A more sophisticated understanding of the factors that make a
difference and the interfaces at which changes happen would, in turn, inform the theories of
change that guide the strategies and designs of new TAIs, as well as refreshing the nature of
evidence and indicators that are collected to understand their impact. It would go further
than enabling better demonstration of TAIs’ impact: it would enable us to enhance
demonstrable impact in practice.
While the evidence base on accountability and transparency may be underdeveloped, this
does not mean that either it or TAIs themselves are not important. The methods and insights
already emerging from this dynamic, relatively young, but rapidly expanding field now
need to be built on in order to deepen existing evidence.
Noteworthy in our review were the silos which currently characterise the transparency
and accountability field. Both the literature and the key actors working in the fields of
service delivery, budgets, information, natural resources and aid appear isolated from one
another. From a practical and strategic point of view, there are synergies to be gained from
developing more cross-cutting strategies and networks across these initiatives; and from an
impact-assessment point of view, far more comparative and holistic analysis is needed of
how the ensemble of TAIs now available can interact with one another to maximise the
scope for change.
On the methodological side, the review suggests a number of strategies or innovations
which could help to strengthen the quality and depth of the current evidence base. At one
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s22 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
level, as argued previously, we need more of the same. A number of good, specific studies
exist, using a range of methods, but there are not enough of these, across enough settings
and methods, to begin to point unequivocally to overall patterns or to draw higher-order
conclusions. In addition, the state of the evidence could be improved in various ways: more
systematic and rigorous design of the initiatives themselves; more early attention to holistic
‘baseline’ or initial context analysis, theories of change, sought outcomes and impacts;
periodic updating of the context analysis; and the adoption of appropriateness (of the
questions to which answers are sought) as the key criterion in selecting impact-assessment
methods.
The review also points to routes to enhancing TAIs’ impact. Better insights are needed
into the relationships between transparency, accountability, citizens’ voice and
participation, the conditions under which they interact positively, and what stimulates
collective social action for accountability. The connections across various TAI ‘fields’ need
to be strengthened to maximise learning. The black box of ‘political will’ that so often bars
the way between TAIs and their sought impacts requires empirical unpacking.
At the conceptual level, we need, first, to move beyond simple dichotomies – such as
supply and demand, and voice and response – and learn how to build cross-cutting
conceptualisations that link civil-society organisations, the media, champions inside
government, private-sector actors, researchers and others across these boundaries.
Secondly, current cutting-edge work on governance must be brought to bear on T and A
work. Thirdly, the concept of ‘best practice’ needs to be relegated in favour of sensitivity to
context: working out why ‘successful’ initiatives succeeded, before rushing to scale them
up or replicate them in other contexts. More investment is vital in the assessment and
knowledge-building aspects of the T and A arena if it is to realise its considerable potential.
We end with a challenge. An excessively technical approach to accountability
relationships and their workings tends to obscure the ‘accountability politics’ (Fox, 2007b)
that need to happen for TAIs to have a lasting and transformative impact. This proposition
has implications that go beyond effectiveness-enhancing measures and methodological
refinements of impact-assessment approaches. It calls for a re-thinking of what impact
means in relation to accountability programmes and projects, and to governance and social-
change efforts more broadly. This challenge to the prevailing impact paradigm has
significant implications for the questions driving impact assessments and, consequently, for
their designs. The realities of unaccountable governance, unproven accountability
programming in complex and varied contexts, and uncertain evidence of impact all suggest
that such a shift is nonetheless necessary. To evade it is to continue asking misguided
questions and getting partial answers.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s23
References
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s24 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s25
Gaventa, J. and Barrett, G. (2010) So What Difference Does it Make? Mapping the
Outcomes of Citizen Engagement. IDS Working Paper 348. Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies.
Goetz, A. and Jenkins, R. (2005) Reinventing Accountability. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Goetz, A. and Jenkins, R. (2001) ‘Hybrid Forms of Accountability: Citizen engagement in
institutions of public-sector oversight in India,’ Public Management Review 3 (3): 363–
83.
Goldfrank, B. (2006) ‘Lessons from Latin American Experience in Participatory
Budgeting’. Presentation at the Latin American Studies Association Meeting, San Juan,
Puerto Rico, March.
Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (2005) ‘Performing Governance through Networks,’ European
Political Science (4): 340-47.
Hayes, L. and Pereira, J. (2008) Turning the Tables: Aid and Accountability under the Paris
Framework – a Civil Society Report. Brussels: European Network on Debt and
Development. http://www.eurodad.org/uploadedFiles/Whats_New/Reports/Turning_
the_Tables.pdf (accessed October 2011).
Hazell, R. and Worthy, B. (2009) ‘Impact of Freedom of Information on Central
Government’. Unpublished end of award report to the Economic and Social Research
Council. London: Constitution Unit, University College London.
Houtzager, P., Joshi, A. and Gurza Lavalle, A. (eds) (2008) ‘State Reform and Social
Accountability,’ IDS Bulletin 38 (6). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Houtzager, P. and Joshi, A. (2008) ‘Introduction: Contours of a Research Project and Early
Findings,’ IDS Bulletin 38 (6): 1-9.
International Budget Partnership (2010a) ‘From Analysis to Impact: Partnership Initiative
Case Study Series – Earthquake Reconstruction in Pakistan – The Case of the Omar
Asghar Khan Development Foundation’s Campaign’. Washington, DC: International
Budget Partnership. http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/major-ibp-initiatives/
partnership-initiative/learning-program/case-studies/ (accessed October 2011).
International Budget Partnership (2010b) ‘From Analysis to Impact: Partnership Initiative
Case Study Series – South Africa: Civil society uses budget analysis and advocacy to
improve the lives of poor children’. Washington, DC: International Budget Partnership.
http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/major-ibp-initiatives/partnership-initiative/
learning-program/case-studies/ (accessed October 2011).
International Budget Partnership (2010c) ‘From Analysis to Impact: Partnership Initiative
Case Study Series – Quality of Education Reforms: The case of Haki Elimu’s
campaign of 2005-7’. Washington, DC: International Budget Partnership.
http://internationalbudget.org/what-we-do/major-ibp-initiatives/partnership-initiative/
learning-program/case-studies/ (accessed October 2011).
Jacobs, A. and Wilford, R. (2010) ‘Listen First: A Pilot System for Managing Downward
Accountability in NGOs,’ Development in Practice 20 (7): 797-811.
Jayal, N. G. (2008) ‘New Directions in Theorising Social Accountability?’ IDS Bulletin 38
(6): 105-10.
Jenkins, R. (2007) ‘India’s Unlikely Democracy: Civil Society versus Corruption,’ Journal
of Democracy 18 (2): 55-69.
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s26 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Impact of Transparency and Accountability Initiatives s27
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)
14677679, 2013, s1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12017 by Somalia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
s28 John Gaventa and Rosemary McGee
© The Authors 2013. Development Policy Review © 2013 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 31 (S1)