Community monitoring interventions to curb corruption and increase access and quality of service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of community monitoring interventions in reducing corruption. The review summarises findings from 15 studies, of which seven are from Asia, six from Africa and two from Latin America. Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improvement in weight for age, though not child mortality. There are beneficial effects on education outcomes as measured by test scores. Community monitoring interventions appear to be more effective in improving outcomes when they promote direct contact between citizens and providers or politicians, and when they include tools for citizens to monitor the performance of providers and politicians. In all cases, findings are based on a small number of studies. There is heterogeneity in the findings with respect to health and education. Hence it is difficult to provide any strong, overall conclusions about intervention effectiveness. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY COMMUNITY MONITORING INTERVENTIONS CAN REDUCE CORRUPTION AND MAY IMPROVE SERVICESCommunity monitoring interventions (CMIs) can reduce corruption. In some cases, but not all, there are positive effects on health and education outcomes. Further research is needed to understand contexts and designs for effective interventions. WHAT DID THE REVIEW STUDY?Corruption and inefficient allocation of resources in service delivery are widespread in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Community monitoring interventions (CMIs) are intended to address this problem. The community is given the opportunity to participate in monitoring service delivery: observing and assessing providers' performance to provide feedback to providers and politicians.This review assesses the evidence on the effects of community monitoring interventions on corruption and access and quality of service delivery outcomes. The review also considers the mechanism through which CMIs effect a change in corruption and service delivery outcomes, and possible moderating factors such as geographic region, income level or length of exposure to interventions. WHAT STUDIES ARE INCLUDED?To assess the effect on corruption included studies had to have either an experimental or a quasi‐experimental design. Qualitative studies were included to assess mechanisms and moderators.The review assesses 15 studies of 23 different programmes' intervention effects. The studies were conducted in Africa (6), Asia (7) and Latin America (2). Most studies focused on programmes in the education sector (9), followed by health (3), infrastructure (2) and employment promotion (1). WHAT ARE THE MAIN RESULTS OF THIS REVIEW?Community monitoring interventions can reduce corruption. They also improve use of health services, but no significant effect is found on school enrolments or dropouts. There is no improvement in health service waiting times, but there is an improve...

A critical interpretive synthesis of informal payments in maternal health care

“…They recommend individual and collective expression of voice, or dedicated monitoring efforts as a means to claim rights. The implicit assumption is that increased citizen and policymaker knowledge, collective action and opportunities to dialogue with local providers and officials will lead to greater accountability regarding informal payments (George et al , 2005; Vian, 2008; Vian et al , 2012; Schatz, 2013; Pieterse and Lodge, 2015; Molina et al , 2016). There are some examples of local level health facility responsiveness, including regarding informal payments, stemming from community monitoring and other social accountability efforts (Dasgupta et al , 2015; Molina et al , 2016).…”

Social Accountability and Service Delivery: Experimental Evidence from Uganda

“…Recent research has suggested that empowering local populations and promoting transparency on the performance of local leaders and service providers can improve public governance by increasing the demand for accountability. A recent systematic review by Molina et al (2016) finds that local monitoring can improve health services, though the evidence is limited due to a small number of studies. There is particularly little empirical evidence on the effectiveness of promoting social accountability in the context of largescale national programs (Devarajan et al, 2011).…”

Bottom-up accountability and public service provision: Evidence from a field experiment in Brazil

“…However, accountability mechanisms extend beyond elections. One promising model is that of bottom-up monitoring , in which citizens receive information about the shortcomings of a given project so they can evaluate and pressure underperforming public officials (Kosack and Fung, 2014; Molina et al, 2016; Raffler et al, 2018). Proponents argue that bottom-up accountability is effective because: (a) constituents have first-hand information about the outcomes of local policies; (b) citizens have incentives to attack corruption that directly affects them; and (c) policy-makers are sensitive to social punishment from their own communities (Serra, 2011: 570).…”