SUMMARYPrevailing paradigms of macro-economic management and levels and distributions of poverty in some rich countries suggest that economic and strategic self-interest rather than poverty reduction in poor countries are likely to be the primary objectives of much development assistance. The incommensurability of the paradigms of development discourse makes it unlikely that strongly held ideologically based positions on these matters will change quickly or easily. Moreover, non-altruistic positions can be maintained more readily by virtue of the loose construction of international declarations such as the Paris Declaration. Based on different interpretations of the Paris Declaration, empirical evidence from Cambodia and Indonesia of donor opportunism that is designed to maximise aid control and aid distinctiveness for non-altruistic purposes is presented. Recent sharp declines in donor legitimacy have made this more difficult to do, but even so, there have been no concomitant reductions in donor self-assurance concerning their exclusive possession of the moral and technical high ground. Such behaviour is, however, increasingly resented particularly by government officials in lower middle-income countries like Indonesia. Resulting relationships lack trust and are therefore unlikely to contribute optimally either to the realisation of non-altruistic purposes or to poverty reduction.
Social accountability (SA) tools engage citizens in improving frontline service delivery. Contextual factors are increasingly recognized as key to the effectiveness and sustainability of SA. This article identifies micro‐level factors associated with attitudes and continued commitment to SA, drawing on 60 interviews with providers, clients and local officials at 15 primary health centres in four Indonesian districts. We found that healthcare providers and local governments demonstrated responsiveness to citizens not only in conducive contexts, but also in less favourable ones. State actors’ perceptions of the appropriate role of citizens varied. We conclude that long‐term sustainability of citizen engagement in accountability relationships will depend upon alignment of providers’ and citizens’ expectations, along with supportive institutional incentives.
This volume began as a means of reflecting on RTI's collective experience with social accountability, learning from past projects to improve our current and future development efforts. As the case studies developed, it became clear that they were of a quality and depth that should be shared more broadly, resulting in this book. We are grateful to F. Henry Healey, Alyson Lipsky, and Felicity Young, as well as Taylor Williamson, for their excellent work writing or reviewing the chapters of this book. In addition, a large number of RTI colleagues helped the chapter authors with insights, documents, and feedback related to each of the projects profiled; they are individually recognized for each case in the pages that follow. We would like to recognize support from RTI's Internal Research and Development funds to develop the cases and overview analysis, as well as prepare the manuscript for publication. In particular, Aaron Williams, Paul Weisenfeld, Luis Crouch, and Karen Posner championed support for this research. Finally, we would like to thank the RTI Press team, led by Karen Lauterbach. The peer review process, managed by Gary Bland, sharpened the writing and analysis. We are also grateful to the editors and designersincluding Erin Newton, Joanne Studders, Anne Gering, Sonja Douglas, and Alisa Clifford-for the care with which they treated our manuscript.
This volume began as a means of reflecting on RTI's collective experience with social accountability, learning from past projects to improve our current and future development efforts. As the case studies developed, it became clear that they were of a quality and depth that should be shared more broadly, resulting in this book. We are grateful to F. Henry Healey, Alyson Lipsky, and Felicity Young, as well as Taylor Williamson, for their excellent work writing or reviewing the chapters of this book. In addition, a large number of RTI colleagues helped the chapter authors with insights, documents, and feedback related to each of the projects profiled; they are individually recognized for each case in the pages that follow.We would like to recognize support from RTI's Internal Research and Development funds to develop the cases and overview analysis, as well as prepare the manuscript for publication. In particular, Aaron Williams, Paul Weisenfeld, Luis Crouch, and Karen Posner championed support for this research.Finally, we would like to thank the RTI Press team, led by Karen Lauterbach. The peer review process, managed by Gary Bland, sharpened the writing and analysis. We are also grateful to the editors and designersincluding
How to strengthen local capacity through donor-funded projects remains opaque. Using the European Centre for Development Policy Management's core capabilities model to examine a project engaging local organisations, we identify capabilities differentiating performance and gains from project participation. The studied organisations were often weak in capabilities important for successfully working with local governments. Some strengthened capacity, but improvements were concentrated in capabilities related to complying with donors' requirements rather than capabilities enhancing performance. We question assumptions underlying programme designs based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's donor-country cooperation principles, and offer suggestions for balancing capacity gains to sustain independent local organisations.La manière de renforcer les capacités locales grâce à des projets financés par des bailleurs de fonds reste opaque. En utilisant le modèle des capabilités essentielles du Centre européen de gestion des politiques de développement pour examiner un projet faisant intervenir des organisations locales, nous identifions les capabilités qui font la distinction entre les performances et les gains d'une part et la participation aux projets de l'autre. Les organisations se sont souvent révélées faibles sur le plan des capabilités importantes pour travailler efficacement avec les autorités gouvernementales locales. Certaines ont renforcé leurs capacités, mais les améliorations se sont concentré sur les capabilités liées à la conformité aux exigences des bailleurs de fonds et non sur celles liées à l'amélioration des performances. Nous mettons en question des suppositions sous-jacentes aux conceptions de programme basées sur les principes de coopération des pays donateurs de l'Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques, et proposons des suggestions pour équilibrer les gains sur le plan des capacités afin de soutenir les organisations locales indépendantes.La incógnita relativa a cómo fortalecer la capacidad local a través de proyectos financiados por donantes continúa siendo opaca. Haciendo uso del modelo de capacidades básicas elaborado por el Centre for Development Policy Management [Centro para la Gestión de la Política de Desarrollo], los autores identificaron ciertas competencias discerniendo entre desempeño y logros a partir de la participación en proyectos. A menudo, las organizaciones estudiadas acusaban debilidades en competencias consideradas importantes para trabajar con el gobierno local. Si bien algunas organizaciones fortalecieron sus capacidades, los avances se dieron principalmente en aquellas capacidades vinculadas al cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos por los donantes y en menor medida en aquellas orientadas a mejorar el desempeño. Los autores cuestionan los supuestos que subyacen al diseño de programas, basados en los principios de cooperación para países donantes elaborados por la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico (OCDE)...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.