State-society relations in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence gap map

Abstract

The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) is an international grant-making NGO promoting evidence-informed development policies and programmes. We are the global leader in funding, producing and synthesising high-quality evidence of what works, for whom, why and at what cost. We believe that high-quality and policyrelevant evidence will make development more effective and improve people's lives. 3ie evidence gap maps 3ie evidence gap maps (EGMs) are thematic collections of information about impact evaluations or systematic reviews that measure the effects of international development policies and programmes. The maps present a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies in a sector or sub-sector in terms of the types of programmes evaluated and the outcomes measured. EGM reports provide all the supporting documentation for the maps themselves, including the background information for the theme of the map, the methods and results, including the protocols and the analysis of the results. 3ie EGMs are available through an online interactive platform on the 3ie website that allows users to explore the studies and reviews that are included. About this evidence gap map reportThis report summarises the methods and findings of an EGM on interventions that seek to improve state-society relations, which was developed by 3ie with funding from USAID and under contract with NORC at the University of Chicago. The online map can be found here.All of the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors, Board of Commissioners, NORC, USAID or the US government. Any errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Any comments or queries should be directed to the corresponding author, Daniel Phillips dphillips@3ieimpact.org. AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge funding of this project from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the support of NORC at the University of Chicago for contract administration. We are grateful to colleagues who provided inputs at various stages of the map: Edoardo Masset, Annette Brown, Birte Snilstveit, Kristen Rankin, Jorge Hombrados, Francis Rathinam, Deepthy Menon and Diana Milena Lopez Avila. We would also like to thank the members of our advisory board: Eric Kramon, Jennifer Stuttle, Clare Mcloughlin, George Ingram and Leonard Wantchekon. We are grateful to staff at USAID and NORC at the University of Chicago who helped inform the map's development. Thanks also to all the authors who shared completed and ongoing papers and helped improve the map, as well as all those who helped by providing comments, in particular our external peer reviewer. All errors are authors' own.ii Summary BackgroundThe role of the state, the effectiveness of its institutions and its legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens are central to determining a country's prospects for stability and development. The critical importance of the state-society relationship to the global development agenda is undersco...

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

“…The review used the evidence gap map of state-society relations as a primary source of potential studies (Phillips et al, 2017). In addition, authors screened the bibliography of existing systematic reviews and literature reviews, including Molina et al, (2016), Lynch et al (2013) and Hanna et al (2011).…”

Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector – the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-method systematic review

“…A recent evidence gap map (EGM) on "state-society relations" highlighted a number of interventions to improve governance (Phillips et al, 2017). These were broadly grouped into interventions for inclusive political processes and leadership (e.g.…”

“…Drawing on Phillips et al (2017), as well as insights from the literature, we theorized good governance can come about through sustained improvements across three domains: within the political system; within the management and administration of public sector offices and institutions; and in the ways in which public officials and service providers engage with service users (external engagement) (Waddington et al, 2018). In this framing, good governance interventions attempt to influence the social contract that mediates the relationships between government and citizens, regarding who has access to what power and in return for what accountability for service provision, through the three domains:…”

PROTOCOL: Participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) to improve public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review

“…Drawing on Phillips et al (2017), and also insights from the literature, we theorise good governance can come about through sustained improvements across three domains: within the political system; within the management and administration of public sector offices and institutions; and in the ways in which public officials and service providers engage with service users (external engagement). In this framing, good governance interventions attempt to influence the social contract that mediates the relationships between government and citizens, regarding who has access to what power and in return for what accountability for service provision, through three accountability domains: Influencing how the broader political system functions: The broader political system dictates access to and contestability of the policy arena (World Bank, 2017).…”

“…The evidence gap map on interventions to improve state‐society relations concluded that there are few systematic reviews on governance topics, and many of those that are available are out‐dated or of low quality in terms of the methodology they employ (Phillips et al, 2017). Phillips et al identify several high‐quality existing systematic reviews that cover evidence that is relevant to the substantive scope of this review.…”